State of the left singularity

Preamble, to get those not yet darkly enlightened up to speed

Leftism is entropy in the apparatus of state. Leftists ally with far against near, in the struggle within the state.

The driving force of leftism is a holiness spiral. The state is a synthetic tribe, so the state always has, furtively or openly, a state religion, so leftists struggle for power by endlessly adding new, ever holier, stuff to the state religion, and eliminating the unprincipled exceptions and theological inconsistencies that made earlier forms of the state religion workable and practical.

Thus leftism goes ever lefter. And the more disordered the state becomes, the faster it goes left, and more left it becomes the more disordered it becomes.

Every day the left gets lefter.

As we approach the left singularity, as the left goes faster and faster leftwards, tidal forces increase, with the left most part of the left moving left faster than the not so left part of the left, the leftmost become increasingly dangerous to the not quite so left.

The radical left is purging the less radical left, purging the Haidt / Mounck / Pinker axis. They probably will not purge Biden, since more and more often, he no longer knows where he is, what year it is, and fails to recognize family, but Pelosi is headed for removal soon enough, finding it increasingly difficult to control the radicals, and increasingly making self destructive concessions to them.

These fractures within the left eventually result in the left singularity being halted short of infinite leftism, as sooner or later, someone important decides “Yes, I do have enemies to the left and I have no choice but do whatever it takes to stop them.”

To merely stabilize movement ever leftwards, ever faster, it has to become as dangerous to be too far left as it is to be too far right. That, merely stabilizing the left wing singularity to current levels, as Stalin and Cromwell did, is a quite drastic measure, and the more dangerous it has become to be too far right, the more dangerous it has to become to be too far left, and the more drastic a measure it is. Cromwell’s measures were drastic, but non lethal. Stalin’s measures were drastic and massively lethal and nothing less could have saved Russia. Once they started killing rightists, it could only be stabilized by killing leftists.

England having been stabilized non lethally, Charles the Second could then restore normality by merely massively purging the state Church, executing a handful of people, and encouraging large numbers of clerics to get out of England. Unfortunately many of them went to America, where they founded Harvard, and have been plotting to take over the world since then.

Harvard was the Vatican, the official state Church of New England, thus the left has organizational continuity and continuity of personnel all the way back to the Christian state church of ancient times. Today, as when Emperor Constantine founded Constantinople, you cannot get a job in the state and quasi state apparatus, unless you have passed catechisms administered by the seminaries of the state religion, but while the catechisms of Constantine’s Church concerned unfalsifiable claims about the next world, today’s catechisms contain ever growing falsifiable and false claims about this world,

And today, the priesthood is extending this demand to everyone, thus namefags must always lie. Including Yarvin, now that he is no longer Moldbug.

And now, the meat of the post, where we are today

Drag Queens having government sponsored and government approved sex on the floor of the public library with nine year old boys. The books in the library they performed sexual acts on the floor have been purged of all thought crime, and the library needs a coat of paint.

Schools pressuring students to transsexualize.

A school curriculum of hatred against white people, reading, writing, and arithmetic being white privilege. Quiet in the classroom being white privilege.

Arrest quotas on blacks that enable them to swagger down the street because they can beat up white people with impunity and not get charged or arrested, but white people will be arrested for defending themselves.

Ever increasing violence and intimidation against anyone insufficiently left wing.

Collapse of marriage and family.

Courtship and dating can no longer be plausibly or interestingly depicted in movies, books and dance videos. the destruction of Star Wars and the self destruction of Marvel Comics. Han Soylo. The mating dance can no longer be realistically or entertainingly depicted. Dance videos can no longer depict men acting male and women acting female.

Child protective services abducting children from Christian families and selling them to gays.

Hatred of white people and America taught in schools. Second class citizenship for whites.

That pretty girls no longer walk the Embarcadero, that José Inez García Zárate came to San Francisco illegally, lived on crime and welfare, and is still there despite illegal status and numerous arrests for very serious crimes, that Zárate murdered Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero because she was white, that he was acquitted because a brown man murdering a white girl.

White flight, whites are now fleeing San Francisco as they fled Detroit.

White flight everywhere. We are running out of places in America to run to. Most white people in America cannot return to the place that they were born and raised because “It has changed”, though if they were to say how it has changed, that would be a thought crime.  The cost of housing soars as we run out of places to flee to

The silicon valley meritocracy exemption has collapsed, and now silicon valley is collapsing because of affirmative action. They now have to practice affirmative action like everyone else. Hot new technology no longer comes out of Silicon Valley.

Abortion as a holy sacrament. They shut down the Churches and the cancer wards, but did not shut down the abortion mills.

The collapse of intelligence in the student intake of Harvard and Yale. They are stupid, because selected for race, sex, and political correctness, not ability as they select for PC rather than smarts.

The inability to plausibly depict the interaction between men and women in recent movies. It started going bad in 1963, and every subsequent movie has gone downhill since then, because the real mating dance is increasingly impossible to depict.

The increasing application of violence, intimidation, and terror against real and suspected Trump voters.

Sanctuary cities with ever escalating privileges for illegals.

Increasingly second class citizenship for white people. There are arrest quotas limiting the arrest of blacks, so a black can attack white people with little risk, while if a white defends himself, he faces grave risk. So blacks swagger down the street and disrupt the workplace.

The pope worshiping naked pagan idols.

White people cannot form a family, because defect/defect equilibrium between men and women, because women have the right to cuck their husbands, so we spin plates and try to dump the chick before she bangs someone even more alphas than ourselves, and cannot afford housing because of white flight (nonwhite people live in houses white people built, and those houses go to ruin), cannot afford healthcare, because the healthcare system is socialized to guarantee the availability of healthcare for people who do not pay, and ever longer educational attendance where students are taught to hate themselves, but not to read and write.

Wealth these days is dispensed and distributed by people on the revolving door between regulators and regulated. America is losing its middle class for much the same reason and in much the same way as Venezuela has lost its middle class. The disappearance of the middle class is a result of the first world becoming third world.

That a man’s obligation to look after his wife and children is legally and socially enforced, and his obligation to love and cherish socially enforced, but a woman has no legal or social obligation to refrain from cucking her husband, and her obligation to honor and obey is not only not socially enforced, but aggressively opposed.

522 Responses to “State of the left singularity”

  1. Chevalier says:

    “Nuts” implies diagnosed insanity, and diagnosed insanity as a precursor to censorship implies the medicalization of dissent — which is the modus operandi of communists and tyrants.

    Besides, it is boring see you censoring everyone who dares to disagree with you. Casualties include B., CR, Shelby, Viking. Now you have what you always wanted: a perfect echo chamber.

    With respect to Alex Jones, simply name a thing.

    • Bohemian Grove
    • Sandy Hook
    • Las Vegas
    • 9/11
    • ChiComs
    • Aaron Russo
    • Ted Gunderson
    • Federal Reserve
    • gun registration and control
    • total police state prison society
    • pedophiles and psychic vampires
    • United Nations one-world government
    • they’re putting chemicals in the water that turn the friggin frogs gay

    He was right about all of this.

    Some are things that he has been talking about for twenty years.

    And I am not going to argue with you about anything, just so you understand. Especially 9/11. Shelby, Sam J., and, most recently, the University of Alaska have all tried to reason with you. So profound for me was this experience that I concluded that the adult mind cannot be changed, full stop.

    They have locked down the world. They are rolling out their nightmare control grid right now. Every talking head, with the partial exception of Tucker Carlson, propaganda scion of the pre-9/11 government, continues to babble on about trivialities and nonsense — a true mockingbird media — at the precise same time that Alex “Raving Lunatic” Jones, who, like Andrew “Canary in the Coal Mine” Anglin, is now banned from everything, has become sane and reasonable.

    Alex Jones hasn’t changed, you understand. What has transpired is that the entire world has changed around him… into precisely what he has spent his life warning us about.

    You know what is happening in the Land of Oz. How are you enjoying your absolute lockdown replete with terroriss spying drones, child seizure, and warrantless searches?

    Yet you remain in blind denial that all of this is being done by specific people technocrats with names according to a plan laid out in painstaking detail long ago.

    It is just like Yuri said. You will not understand until you feel the crash of the boot in your back. Then you will understand. But by then it will be too late. That is the tragedy of the situation.

    • The Cominator says:

      CR was rightly censored for spamming scripted responses which assumed false consensus. B I believed left.

      Alex Jones is I agree (even if Jim does not) not an enemy but its wrong to say that he hasn’t changed. Alex Jones goes over the top crazy a lot less from what I’ve seen because he is now advised by some more normieish less crazy Trump supporters like Owen Shroyer and Paul Joseph Watson who consistently advise him to tone down his more outlandish theories.

      So he is less prone to go into rants about how the pedophile cult is actually controlled by aliens or something nowadays…

      • Chevalier says:

        Which Weltenshauung more reasonable:

        * Pedophile cult (proven) being given advanced offworld technology by The Fallen One Who Is Not Of This World (Satan), a being whose existence people have acknowledged for untold millennia

        * The universe is a simulation and we should plug our brains into the internet and upload into the next realm

        One is cool, one is not.

        But what is the difference between them?

        • jim says:

          Neither is cool.

          And there is no such thing as a “pedophile”. It is an enemy word invented to normalize gays. If no word for something until quite recently, the thing named is unlikely to be real.

          Anyone who uses the word should wonder why there was no such word, and no such concept, until World War II ended, and the elite suddenly had no more need for masculinity.

          • Pooch says:

            Homosexual sex between men and boys was seen in the latter periods of Ancient Greece and Rome. Perhaps the normalization of gay sex between men and boys is one of the last stages of civilizational collapse.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty

            • jim says:

              I don’t know what happened in Greece, but as Greece was approaching greatness, a ruler was run out of town for sodomizing his wife and failure to have procreative sex with his wife, and pederasty was normalized at about the same time as everything started going to shit.

              The word “pedophile” was originally introduced in 1944 to emasculate men, and not long thereafter, to normalize gays. So we have plenty of empirical evidence for Chesterton’s fence on this matter.

              • Dave says:

                That explains why in 1953 Charles Galton Darwin used the term Homo paedophilus to describe a hypothetical future race of humans who instinctively desire procreation, not realizing that the word had recently been assigned a different meaning.

          • Chevalier says:

            [*deleted*]

          • Chevalier says:

            Elon Musk popularized the simulation theory and it is a widely held viewpoint in “those” circles, including yours.

            Indeed, if I cared more than just barely enough to type out these words, I would go back and find a million links of your coterie calling him “star prophet” and worshipping at his twitchy altar.

            The man’s rockets, which are legitimately impressive, will be the first propulsive landing vehicles to mount the moon. (The Lunar Landers used parachutes.)

            • jim says:

              Not your version of the simulation theory.

              You are doing the irritating trick of attributing your own position to people we like.

              No it is not what he said.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @Chevalier

              “Lunar Landers used parachutes”

              There’s no air on the Moon. I think you were referring to the Apollo Command Capsule, not the Apollo LEM, right?

              • jim says:

                I do not think he knows or much cares what he is referring to.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Jim
                  Chevaliar said,

                  ”Lunar Landers use parachutes”

                  Jim said,

                  ” I do not think he knows or much cares what he is referring to.”

                  Yeah, these shills are only here to post, not actually respond.

                  StarProphet Elon Musk is blessed that his negro-worshiping enemies are ignorant on orbital mechanics, and may the 26 months be his shield.

            • What the hell happened to you, man? I am ignorant about physics, but not realizing chutes need an athmosphere and the Moon does not have one is about on par with saying Columbus discovered Australia sponsored by the Catholic Kings of Greece. What the fuck? You were always weird but not retarded.

    • jim says:

      Alex Jones gives limited, censored, watered down truths about all of these, and mixes in liberal doses of crazy: “The moon landing was faked”, and so forth, thereby discrediting the watered down and censored truths he does say.

      If anyone pays attention to what Alex Jones says, he will come to the conclusion that right wingers are morons. Same strategy as the shills.

      Alex Jones mixes truth with madness. If you believe the madness, you are mad.

      • Chevalier says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Deleted for appeal to false consensus.

          Your claims are insane. Insane claims are allowed, but only if presented with evidence, argument, and the recognition that your interlocutors are likely to regard you as deranged.

    • Not Tom says:

      Casualties include B., CR, Shelby, Viking

      And gee whiz, how much we all miss those guys. Which one are you a sock puppet of, by the way? My money’s on Shelby, you’re not quite scripted enough to be CR and a little too coherent to be Viking.

      Now you have what you always wanted: a perfect echo chamber.

      Exactly what do you suppose the purpose of a priesthood is? Hint: it’s not to encourage lively debate over matters that were settled centuries to millennia ago by way of arguments that were refuted years to decades ago.

      And I am not going to argue with you about anything, just so you understand.

      He says after he argues for 10 paragraphs. Yet I am sure it is still a deep mystery to you why Jim would censor anyone.

  2. The Cominator says:

    I know that wignats are used to make certain truths radioactive but wignats have been a pretty CONSISTENT enemy of the right through the years and have not been reliable for Trump. Richard Spencer also fits a lot of glow in the dark red flags in a way Jones does not.

    Jones is considered a bit more respectable even on the normie right since he had his discussion with Tucker (I can’t find the link but Tucker said yeah our elite kind of is a conspiracy but you know what the real conspiracy is, immigration) and started hiring people like Owen Shroyer and Watson. Hes just not as radioactive as he used to be with normiecons given the extreme level of cynicism about everything now. So his support for Trump (and since he started supporting Trump hes reigned in his craziness, he listens to Owen Shroyer and PJW to some extent IMHO). They wouldn’t deplatform him if they thought he was useful.

    Also the long game is over the war will come in the next ten years, even the left knows this thats why they are okay with closing the schools because the value of long term indoctrination goes down when there is going to be a shooting war in the next ten years. Jones doing his part to keep Hillary out was worth more than the liability of whatever long term blue poison pills he preaches.

    • The Cominator says:

      That post should have been a reply to Not Tom’s latest comment on Alex Jones…

    • jim says:

      > wignats have been a pretty CONSISTENT enemy of the right through the years and have not been reliable for Trump.

      Not seeing it. Show me. Give me some links.

      Gab links or blog links. If you are seeing it on twitter or facebook, not a wignat, but a shill who is operating for the people who are banning or shadowbanning any actual wignat posts.

    • Not Tom says:

      They wouldn’t deplatform him if they thought he was useful.

      This simply isn’t true. Being allowed to remain on those platforms would indeed be a clear sign of controlled oppo, but being kicked off doesn’t prove the converse. The Cathedral slogged through a protracted cold war with the Soviets despite having almost identical beliefs and goals, simply because of a few relatively minor points of disagreement. Scott Alexander was cancelled and now Sam Harris is being cancelled.

      The left is highly factional and constantly fracturing, so having one person unpersoned does not make them an enemy of the left. Hollywood did this constantly with card-carrying communists who merely thought that their comrades were being a little too obvious and heavy-handed with their propaganda. They were still communists.

      Jones isn’t a communist, probably, but he still acts more like an unreliable shill for the Cathedral than an unreliable enemy of it.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        I think there are three general sides to the Igloo: Left, Right, and Deep. Deep and Left mostly overlap, or at least they did, but the spiral is spinning too quickly, and some of Deep are starting to wonder if they backed the wrong horse.

    • Pooch says:

      Wignats haven’t been enemies of the right but some of them don’t seem particularly loyal to Trump citing Kushner as reasoning that Trump is controlled by Jews.

      Check this gab and the comments:
      https://gab.com/a/posts/104480967252281172

      • jim says:

        Not seeing anyone in that thread claiming that Trump is controlled by Jews. Maybe it is there, if I searched harder than I searched, but if it is there, not much of it and hard to find – probably the original poster was a shill who wanted a thread on how Trump was controlled by Jews, which is conspicuously not the thread he got.

        Plenty of (entirely justified) outrage in that thread against Kushner. Not seeing anyone suggesting that Kushner is pulling Trump’s strings.

        There are lots of good reasons to be worried about a vice president Kushner regardless of his ethnicity, and though I did not read the whole comment thread, the comments I did read were all “No Kushner”, which I heartily endorse, not “No Jews”.

        And “No Jews” is a pretty reasonable position. I am on record many times as saying that Jewishness should be a requirement for state or quasi state office in Israel, and render one ineligible for state or quasi state office in the US. Jews who aspire to foreign state office should be required to convert to the state religion of the foreign country.

        The shill position is that Trump is a tool of the Jews, and I don’t see that in that thread.

        • Not Tom says:

          Does the owner of Gab count?

          https://gab.com/a/posts/104592142197417365

          And plenty in the replies. Many challenging him on it (mostly the moderate types) but also wignats amplifying the message.

          Gab’s search is totally goddamn worthless so it’s a convenient handwave to demand evidence from there in the form of specific posts, but anyone who’s ever followed the wignats has seen the “president kushner” meme a thousand times. Hell, it used to be a popular hashtag, before they eliminated hashtags (another convenient way to make evidence-gathering impossible).

          The only way anyone could meet your evidence requirement is if they not only use Gab regularly (lol nope, social media is cancer) but actually still follow the people who promote that meme, which no one making the claims we are is likely to do. It’s a bad test.

          • jim says:

            Not Tom:

            > Does the owner of Gab count?
            >
            > https://gab.com/a/posts/104592142197417365

            Pooch’s original claim was:

            > citing Kushner as reasoning that Trump is controlled by Jews.

            Torba’s position was:

            “When Trump loses it won’t be because the country rejected nationalism/populism or his 2016 platform. It will be because he didn’t enact anything even remotely nationalist/populist and instead let lifelong Democrat far-left liberal Jared Kushner dictate the White House’s agenda for 4 years”

            Which is not “Trump is controlled by Jews”

            And when shills in the thread started pushing “Trump is controlled by the Jews” they got called shills.

            It does not look to me that wingnats are upset because Trump has not driven the Jews from Israel and given the land to the Palestinians, it looks to me that normies are upset because since Trump has been elected, thought crime confessions imposed by human resources have become ten times as humiliating, cancellation, deplatforming, demonetization, and censorship has become ten times worse, violence in the streets against real and imagined Trump supporters has become ten times worse.

            The Democrat campaign platform is “Trump will not, cannot, protect you, so vote for us or we will burn your house down and destroy your job”

            It is a plausible story, and indeed it is true, except for the implication that if you vote for Democrats, they will refrain from burning your house down and destroying your job. Unfortunately, the left is not agreement capable, so they will burn your house down and destroy your job regardless.

            The Democrat plan is to overwhelm Trump with crisis after crisis, so that people vote for normalcy. But normalcy is not on offer.

            • The Cominator says:

              “Which is not “Trump is controlled by Jews”

              Its pretty close, people who bitch about Kushner generally if you scratch them will say “fuck Zion Don”.

              • jim says:

                > Its pretty close

                Close counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

                Andrew Torba is of immense and undeniable value to the cause.

                Trouble is that he fails to realize that the reason he is not in prison, being tortured, or dead, is because Trump is president. If Trump loses, that is not the end of the drama, but the beginning. Things will escalate, until those committing illegal acts pay a price.

                Normies are longing for someone to bring back normality, which Trump has conspicuously failed to do. But normality was sustained by a pile of social institutions, that have now collapsed. We have been running on the social capital of our past, and now we are running out.

                After Trump, the deluge.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Name a person prone to bitch about Kushner who won’t if you scratch them say “da Joos control Trump”.

                  Okay maybe Bannon and Ann Coulter… but other than them. I can’t think of any either online or among public figures.

                • jim says:

                  You just answered your own question.

                  Now point to me someone bitching about Kushner who will say “da Joos control Trump”

            • Not Tom says:

              You said, “Not seeing anyone suggesting that Kushner is pulling Trump’s strings.” That’s self-evidently what Andrew is suggesting. And like I said, the moderates/normie types questioned his smoothbrained analysis but several of the wignats amplified.

              You’re moving the goalposts, or playing some motte and bailey game here. “Well, he said it, but a few people called him out as a shill, so it doesn’t count”. Or “well, he says Kushner controls Trump, but that’s not the same as saying Jews control Trump”. Come on dude, give us a break.

              I’d even be willing to compromise on the lesser criticism that some significant chunk of wignats are like this and the rest just have poor policing/cohesion. But this stubborn No True Scotsman stance is starting to grate.

              • The Cominator says:

                I can’t comment on Gab overall because I don’t look at it very much (basically I just read Heartiste’s post and found hes turn into something of a wignat) but 4chan wignats seem to be blackpillers and accelerationists even when not Democrat shills. The one wignatish person I know IRL is also like this…

                Saying that Kushner controls Trump does not necessarily mean “da joos control Trump” but everyone I’ve ever seen who has bitched about Kushner if you scratch them will say “da joos control Trump” and if you make them angry will rant about Zion Don.

                There was a point where I was legimately bitching that Fauci was controlling Trump but as Trump was MASSIVELY pissing off his base and damaging himself at the time it was a word that needed to reach Trump because even now the only thing that is going to save Trump from that massive mistake is that the Democrats overplayed there hand.

                • Pooch says:

                  There was a point where I was legimately bitching that Fauci was controlling Trump but as Trump was MASSIVELY pissing off his base and damaging himself at the time it was a word that needed to reach Trump because even now the only thing that is going to save Trump from that massive mistake is that the Democrats overplayed there hand.

                  Speaking of which, and sorry to change the subject, even if Trump wins the election and puts down the ensuing riots, it’s not like the lockdown/mask/vaccine hysteria is going to magically go away. He is going to still have his hands full finding a permanent solution to ending the COVID insanity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think its going away after the election… the Democrats are going to focus completely on color revolution and not destroying the economy as there is no point to doing so after the election.

                  Covid is mysteriously going to cease to exists, it really will become just the flu.

                • jim says:

                  You attribute more cohesion to our enemies than they possess. They were mighty cohesive under the Clinton crime family, which supplemented the deteriorating cohesion of the state religion with blackmail and murder, but under mild mannered Obama, the state religion was revealed as riven by ever lefter competing heresies, and it has gone downhill from there.

                  After the election, leftism will intensify. If Biden wins, intensify a lot.

                  It will not stop until stopped by comparable violence.

                • jim says:

                  There was a massive shilling operation on 4Chan, and the shills eventually took over the admin, killing it the way they kill everything. But on Gab, the shills get quite adequate pushback.

                  There is plenty of reason to bitch about Kushner, and I just don’t see anyone ranting about Kushner who will say “Zion Don”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “You attribute more cohesion to our enemies than they possess.”

                  I know the enemy’s cohesion has broken down to a large degree but the media command and control is still cohesive, judging from the shadowgate documentary (and there is no other publically available source) it seems like its (as I suspected) controlled by a few high ranking glownaggers who use a combination of bribery and blackmail to enforce their media control.

                  Covid hysteria requires coordinated media and medical establishment (less cohesive but they control the FDA the CDC and most of the Dem state governors, though Gavin Newsom seemed to defy the order to send sick people to nursing homes) lies to sustain… and their focus is going to be other things if Trump wins.

                  So Covid will disappear not with a bang but with a whimper as the media mysteriously will stop talking about it.

              • jim says:

                > That’s self-evidently what Andrew is suggesting.

                Andrew Anglin? Daily Stormer?

                You surprise me. Link?

  3. Chevalier says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Alex Jones is a false flag operator. If you have an argument or evidence that one of his claims that we are unlikely to agree with is true, make that claim and present that evidence.

      • Chevalier says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          If there is some specific claim by Alex Jones that you think is true, and that you think I am unlikely to agree with, tell us that claim, and give us evidence for that specific claim.

          Alex Jones is controlled opposition. He is an enemy shill. If he has something worth hearing, which we are not hearing, give us one thing sufficiently concrete and specific to be debated.

          • The Cominator says:

            We need to be careful about labeling early Trump supporters (and Jones was zealous and strongly for Trump) as enemy shills… he has a lot of false beliefs and is partially infotainment but is he an enemy agent, I think not.

            • BC says:

              Alex Jones is and always has been controlled opposition. I’ve observed him for a long time and there’s not conclusion that makes sense. Remember Hillary told the media to support Trump, so it’s not surprising Alex Jones would obey.

            • Pooch says:

              I agree. He’s a hustler and entertainer trying to make money pushing his stupid phony products but he’s always commanded his shockingly large audience to vote Trump. Trump was interviewed by him in the primary on his show and Trump even called him post 2016 election win to thank him. He’s crazy, insane, and a scam artist but he’s on our side.

              • BC says:

                He’s really not. Anytime he gets too close to the truth on a subject, he sucks the air out of the room by injecting crazy bullshit. He’s classic controlled opposition.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Maybe hes actually a little crazy or maybe he thinks it makes money that way.

                  Sincere and passionate Trump supporter from early on, I agree with Pooch’s assessment.

                • Pooch says:

                  He’s also been banned and deplatformed on everything. That’s indicative of sincere opposition. Controlled ops (Spencer) aren’t getting banned.

                • jim says:

                  That is not an adequate test for sincere opposition. May well indicate incohesion within the shill apparatus – It looks like there are distinguishable shill groups, who do not necessarily agree on the shill line.

                  He says stuff that is mighty close to true stuff, and mixes it with crazy stuff. Some of that true stuff is mighty radioactive.

                  Shill operatives say stuff that sounds over the line – “Jews are evil”, “women are evil” in order to get ingrouped. Different shill operations draw the line in different places.

                  With any shill, you will rapidly find that there is a line that they cannot go over, and will not acknowledge you going over, will not admit that anyone goes over. And it looks to me that there is a line that Alex Jones cannot go over.

                  The woman question is the great acid test. It is right in your face. If someone cannot see what is in his face, or notice other people noticing it, shill. That is a line that none of the shill operations can cross.

                  Alex Jones can however, say “Soros”. That is definitely a bridge too far for the Soros group, which is most of them, and that is what got him banned.

                  Some shills can say “Soros”. Most of them cannot. It is a pretty good shill test, but some obvious shills can nonetheless pass it. Have not seen a shill that can pass the woman question.

                  If some shills can say “Soros”, and some shills cannot, there is going to be infighting in shill operations. Alex Jones also exposes, truthfully, child protective services selling “children” to perverts, but, somehow, neglects to say “boys”, and neglects to frame this in the context of a general attack on the family, and general hostility to into fatherhood, masculinity, and family, attributes it to a “pedophile” conspiracy, rather than to the left wing edge of general attack on the family. Kind of like the way CR cannot notice a racial and religious element to acid attacks in the streets of London.

                  Saying “Soros”, and saying “Child Protective Services” is a line most shills will not go over, and that is what got him banned. But it is not a reliable shill test. Sodomizing boys is just the left edge of Child Protective Services attacking masculinity and denying children fathers, and there is a line that Alex Jones will not go over.

                  We also see infighting amongst shill operations on Belarus. Left cohesion is collapsing.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Speaking of Alex Jones and Infowars, any comment on the recent “Millie Weaver” arrest coincident with the publication of her documentary “Shadowgate”, which Youtube and Facebook have since pulled (it’s been copied everywhere.)

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  The arrest appears to based on trumped of domestic dispute involving her mom’s cellphone. Said mom apparently called the police on her daughter (mistake #1).

                • The Cominator says:

                  Surprisingly good from the parts I’ve seen, it goes into how the glownaggers actually control the media and how Brennan and Clinton can give them orders… A problem I’ve driven myself nuts trying to puzzle out from public information.

                • Pooch says:

                  Still not convinced Alex Jones is a shill. He still must operate in the overton window somewhat. His identity is known and he’s trying to make money with his scammy snake oil products, so can’t risk complete merchant deplatforming which means cannot speak the truth.

                  He mixes in some red pills with crazy talk and has regular dissidents and Trump allies (including Roger Stone before he got locked up) on his show but not seeing him shill for blue pill talking points like CR in my limited exposure to him.

                • jim says:

                  > Still not convinced Alex Jones is a shill. He still must operate in the overton window somewhat.

                  Well that is the thing. If “the moon landing was faked” is OK, but “Child protective services is operated as an attack on fathers and families” is not OK, then who makes that not OK?

                  Shill.

                  Alex Jones can say that Child Protective Services is a nest of “pedophiles”. He cannot say it is hostile to fathers, fatherhood, and families.

                  Also, it is not a nest of pedophiles. It is mostly old women who hate men and are happy make some money on the side selling the sons of old type Christians to gays to be cured of their toxic masculinity that they might have been infected with by their old type fathers.

                  Alex Jones, unlike most of them, can say “George Soros”. But he cannot say how George Soros got his money.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes Alex Jones is a crazy namefag carnival barker, but not an enemy shill.

                • BC says:

                  I was convinced that Alex Jones was a shill during Sandy Hook. He correctly identify people who were obviously paid crisis actors. But because he also create a giant dump of unrelated insanity while talking about it, the whole topic effectively became low status to talk about, least you be associated with Jones other insanity. This is known as poisoning the well and it’s a classic way to hide the a conspiracy in plain sight, by only allowing a known nutcase to rant about it.

                  One of the oh so important things about Moldbug was the fact that he was talking about crazy conspiratorial stuff and he was quite obviously not a nut case. Unlike Alex Jones he could be taken seriously.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well lets say Jones was prior to the Trump campaign controlled op and I agree he was… I didn’t pay much attention to him prior to hearing that he supported Trump.

                  When he told his audience to support Trump he became not totally redpilled he certainly became something other than an enemy shill. I mean if Jones told his rather large and kind of more emotionally driven audience than most people who tend to vote right wing that Trump was part of the Illuminati or something and that nobody should support him… the election might have gone the other way.

                  So while Jones has some silly and deluded beliefs or pretends to because it sells… I think its completely wrong to label him an enemy.

                • jim says:

                  > So while Jones has some silly and deluded beliefs or pretends to because it sells… I think its completely wrong to label him an enemy.

                  Is he an asset to Trump or an enemy.

                  He conforms to the progressive stereotype of Trump supporters – stupid, ignorant, and crazy.

                  The meta message is if you support Trump, you are stupid, ignorant, and crazy.

                  If he wants outgrage, there are no end of true things he could say that would generate outrage.

                • Not Tom says:

                  When he told his audience to support Trump he became not totally redpilled he certainly became something other than an enemy shill.

                  You don’t really seem to get the concept of “long game”, which is a serious handicap against an enemy that has been playing the long game for centuries.

                  Again and again you imply that it doesn’t really matter what’s in a person’s heart, only that they make the right mouth noises, i.e. they technically support Trump. That’s how the left enforces its authority so I can’t deny that it’s effective for a group that’s in power, but it also causes constant defection and holiness spirals. When all that matters is the appearance of being on your side, then your side is gullible and easily subverted.

                  Jim does a little of this too, in my opinion, but what he does in moderation, you are doing in flagrant excess. All the merchants and students and soccer moms who ever virtue-signaled on social media apparently all need to die, but Alex Jones, the metaphorical club that progressives whack us with again and again to lower our status? Well, he’s A-OK because he names the Soros and doesn’t openly express contempt for Trump. I suppose Spencer and Duke are good guys too, or they were until they flip-flopped on Trump. It’s all about Trump.

                  The reason Trump is able to eke out small victories over the left is that he takes advantage of this retarded dynamic. Take his latest fake-ass “pardon” – I doubt he gives a shit about Susan B. Anthony, at least I sincerely hope he doesn’t, but he knows that associating himself with her will provoke a certain reaction and help drive a wedge between the non-intersectional/TERF camp of feminists and the even-farther-left progressives. Good for him, but you don’t want your tribe to be so easily manipulated.

                  Alex Jones, like Richard Spencer and many other shills, is a method of painting the target. When the left wants to destroy or cripple something that they’re having a hard time subverting from within, they aim him at it in order to make it low status, radioactive, subject to boycotts and deplatforming and other assorted punishments. No legitimate conspiracy investigation survives contact with Jones, it becomes a joke and an object of ridicule.

                  Haven’t you noticed by now that the most efficient way to get moderates to ignore an actual conspiracy is to get it associated with Alex Jones, QAnon, etc.? That should be a red flag that these people/groups aren’t on the level. Jones being deplatformed himself doesn’t really prove anything, as it could either be an internal dispute or keeping up appearances.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                It occurs to me that the fault lines on this blog could probably be mapped, very generally, as divisions between programmers and non-programmers. While I think it has been demonstrated quite well that AJ is either a willing instrument or useful idiot of the Deep State via the Paint The Target/Poison The Well methods, that doesn’t necessarily mean he is or is not /ourgoy/. That dude has been spouting off for a very long time. I used to listen to him on AM radio whenever I was in the South. He could just be phenomenally adapt at clouding signal with noise to a degree that it is some sort of auditory steganography. I thought that was the case, but I think the arguments made here very succinctly show that he causes more damage than he helps distribute redpills.

                Either way, he is to the right, so he shouldn’t be punched. Just ignore him.

                • Pooch says:

                  This seems like the correct take on Jones.

                • BC says:

                  >Either way, he is to the right, so he shouldn’t be punched. Just ignore him.

                  He should be punched, just like we punch Jordan Peterson. Accepting enemy agents into your fold is likely to result in a knife in the back.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Either way, he is to the right, so he shouldn’t be punched. Just ignore him.

                  I generally do, until I can’t because someone has injected him into the conversation.

                  I really don’t care what Jones does on his own turf, same as the Dork Web and the Trad Cats and Scott Alexander and so on – but if someone drags his assclownery onto my turf, then both he and they become fair game.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Test concluded. JB is unstable. The fault must be addressed at some point.

          • Tom Hart says:

            Jones’s business model requires him to lie to create excitement and media product. Lying in any form will tend towards progressivism, or exploitation by progressive memes—even if a large quantity of what he says violates some progressive shibboleths. Progressivism is essentially lying: deformed politeness (lies to avoid social conflict that have been hi-jacked to maximise status) and rhetoric to inflame the mob. Jones doesn’t always lie in the same way as progressives, but he lies in his own way and repeats some of their lies.

          • Chevalier says:

            Because we know each other so well, and because you know of my uncompromising intellectual honesty and unimpeachable trustworthiness, there is just one reason to censor my speech: because you are concerned that I will fatally disrupt your message integrity.

            Which is probably true. I am much sharper than I was two or three years ago. And I was very sharp then.

            So it goes.

            • jim says:

              Nuts

              I am not censoring your speech.

              If you think Alex Jones has something worth hearing, that we are not saying, tell us what it is.

              Most of what he says is nonsense, and when he says something that is true, it is fatally watered down.

  4. Pooch says:

    https://twitter.com/lizrnc/status/1292575407888359430?s=21

    Barr describing the left as a substitute for religion in an interview. His analysis is entirely accurate in a reactionary sense and it’s quite white pilling to hear him say it.

    • jim says:

      Barr knows what is up.

      These people are going to kill him if he does not kill them, and he is starting to realize it.

      From here on, politics is played for keeps, with permanent winners and permanent losers. Because this cannot be resolved by discussion, neither can it be resolved by voting.

      • Pooch says:

        I almost wonder if he reads this blog given how close his language is to discussion here.

        • simplyconnected says:

          The idea of progressivism as religion has already caught on in dissident places for some time.
          Barr’s reference to Rousseauian revolution is something VDH (whom Jim fisked the other day) was already talking about some months ago.
          But he may know more than he lets on.

          • jim says:

            VDH references Dark Enlightenment thought, and is clearly familiar with it, but uses the standard shill approach of embedding it in shill spin and shill frame.

        • jim says:

          When Barr says “revolution” and “Rousseau” he is comparing our present moment to the events that culminated in the French Revolution.

          Hence, while avoiding over thought crimes while being interviewed on television, this reflects the analysis you get in this blog. That we are fast approaching a left singularity. No, things are not different this time, not special and unique. We have been around this merry go round too many times already and we are about to around again.

          Mob action to take out the King came out of state tolerance for mob action against the bakers. They are attempting to recap that process, with protests for the martyred Saint George Floyd to morph into a massive siege of the Whitehouse. But I do not think this can happen, because no federal tolerance, because an adequate supply of loyalist cops, and adequate willingness to use them.

          Calling leftism a religion, implies a state religion – again, you heard it here.

          • Karl says:

            Mob action to take out the president by storming the Whitehouse is unlikely for the near future, but what the cathedral can’t do this year it will do next year or next decade. Merely preventing the mob from storming the Whitehouse is no solution.

          • Pooch says:

            Calling leftism a religion, implies a state religion – again, you heard it here.

            This is a critical concept of reaction and implies we will need our own state religion if we are to win. I’ve yet to hear it from Trump but it’s refreshing to hear it from his number 2 man.

    • Not Tom says:

      The coup-complete problem is having Progressivism and/or Intersectionality officially designated as a religion and put on the census forms. That would cause total chaos with the HR catladies as they could then be credibly accused, under current law, of proselytizing and violating their employees’ civil rights. California judges would, of course, summarily dismiss every case, but it might become possible to run a business again in the heartland.

      Of course this is just an interview with a very friendly host, but it’s good to see actual people in office really thinking along these lines for once. I wonder, what is actually required to label a religion as a religion? This is never really spelled out in the US Constitution. If half the country decides that Progressivism is in fact a religion, actively observed by most journalists and nearly all academics, is that enough to qualify it as one under the Non-Establishment clause? Does it really matter that they claim their religion is Not A Religion, if it obviously is one?

      (the non-establishment clause is, of course, pure evil; however, the chaos created by having to reconcile it with Progressivism would go a long way toward ending both.)

  5. BC says:

    Antifa being run out of town is always a thing of beauty:

    https://twitter.com/HotepJesus/status/1292327292081930242

  6. The Cominator says:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/08/interesting.html

    Not normally a huge fan of Teddy Spaghetti but I agree with him this is indeed interesting…

    • Pooch says:

      Hmmm…unsure what this implies.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      In a recent speech, the Imperator dropped a comment along the lines of ‘you would see things youve never seen before under Biden’; target audience obviously being middle-americans.

      I’d say it’s pretty clear he has an awareness of the personalities keeping sleepy joe propped up; of the currents flowing underwater right now.

  7. grscbh says:

    This is what a nation looks like: https://news.yahoo.com/modi-launch-construction-hindu-temple-062147794.html

    Compare and contrast to the tepid response Christcucks made to any number of provocations like the burning of Notre Dame, or the turning of Hagia Sophia into a mosque (again).

    (Modi is himself a degenerate and his party is quite leftist, but it is “far right” according to current year standards.)

    Meanwhile, a lot of jimmies seem to have been rustled by the campaign by US Hindus to buy ad space in Times Square to display a picture of Lord Ram.

    https://www.thequint.com/news/webqoof/muslims-protested-ram-billboards-at-times-square-fake-news-fact-check

    The groups that call a simple picture of Lord Ram as “hatred” and “Islamophobia:”

    Coalition against Fascism in India (CAFI),
    Hindus for Human Rights (HfHR),
    Global Indian Progressive Alliance (GIPA),
    Association of Indian Muslims,
    Sadhana: Coalition of Progressive Hindus

    A veritable list of generic Soros-front organisations and a Muslim group. By his enemies you can tell that Modi is doing something right.

    Indian Soros-orgs seem to be largely run by upper caste Hindus, especially women, which is completely explained by Jimianity. Also, “progressive Hindu” is a particularly virulent variety, second only to “progressive Jew” in any sense of the term. Think Kamala Harris’ mother. They hate Hinduism, hate India, most of all hate themselves, and ceaselessly work towards the nation’s destruction (and their own demise).

    • someDude says:

      Whatever Modi and his minions are doing right, they are still focussing on the wrong enemy. The Muslims are a civilisational enemy to be sure, but it is Indian Progressive Leftists (Known in India as Seculars) who are the deadlier. If the Hindus know what is good for them, they must now march on JNU which is India’s Harvard and the regional Cathedral HQ.

      Also, their response during Hindu-Muslim riots leaves me unimpressed. When Muslims attack Hindu houses, rape Hindu women and burn down Hindu businesses, some smart Hindu must direct the Hindu masses baying for Muslim blood and muslim pussy into JNU where they can sate themselves with Secular Blood and Secular Pussy. This has not yet been done and so I am unimpressed. Don’t they realise that turning on the Seculars will yield them 100X the dividends that turning on the Muslims yields them? Have they learnt nothing from that Norwegian Samurai whose name I dare not speak?

      Naah, They don’t impress me Much!

      • The Cominator says:

        Before Modi the Indians were basically all leftists of various kinds…. leftism is not novel to Indians its their nature which is one among many reasons they should not be allowed to come here.

        • someDude says:

          Indians in the west basically want a pat on the back from white people. Conservative whites tend to be quiet and thoughtful. Leftist Whites tend to be Loud and opinionated. Therefore the Indians in the US figured that the way to get a pat on the back from the white man is to become a leftist oneself. There is nothing more to Indian leftism than that. Indians, like women, always back the party that they think is stronger.

          • The Cominator says:

            They backed leftism WITHIN India for almost 70 years before Modi.

            Indians are despite some good individuals like jews with more of their bad qualities and much less of the redeeming qualities of jews.

            • jim says:

              As the elite IQ falls, they ceasing to hire Jews to do stuff that is hostile to legacy Americans and instead hire Indians – you naturally hire a member of the outgroup to do treasonous harm against your own ingroup, and because you are engaged in treasonous plotting, you don’t want to hire a guy who is smarter than you, in case he manages, as Jews so often do, to make himself the beneficiary of the treasonous plot, rather than member of the elite who is hiring him to do it.

              • The Cominator says:

                Do you agree they are so much worse (there are a few good Indians of course but in general) than jews generally…

                • jim says:

                  Nah, they are biologically priestly like Jews, but not to the same extreme. Problem is that they are being hired by the elite to do the bad stuff formerly done by Jews.

                  The big problem with Indians on an engineering team, apart from the fact that they frequently none too bright, is that they stick together and plot against the white engineers, which management thinks is just fine until they discover too late that the Indians are also plotting against management. Diversity plus proximity results in war. Hard to have social cohesion across a large cultural and racial gap. Jews on the engineering team also stick together, but I don’t see nearly as much plotting, perhaps because the gap is smaller.

                  I recall an incident where management sent me to a committee meeting, which committee of Indians they suspected was plotting against them, and it was striking how the temperature fell and the conversation dried up. Their body language was “Auugh, they are onto us.” It was obvious nothing was going to happen at this meeting, and they were going to secretly meet again somewhere off campus.

                • someDude says:

                  This is Strange. This is news to me. Indians are generally deferential to white people. There also may be fear. This is a legacy of the fact that Indians did not win their freedom from the Brits on account of a battlefield victory. Rather the Brits withdrew because their finances were shit after WW2 and also because the British Elite had lost their former cohesion, cohesion which they needed to continue Ruling India.

                  That is one of the reasons why you don’t see or hear of IP theft from western Tech companies in India while Chinese steal all that they can get their hands on and some more. Of course, this might well be because there is no Indian tech company to sell stolen Tech to unlike in China.

                  Still, The Chinese think of themselves as being equal to Whites while the Indians clearly don’t think that way. I’m really surprised that they scared up the wherewithal to pull off a plot.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Indians are generally deferential to white people.

                  https://www.amazon.com/dp/1250619491

                  Not so much.

                  It varies by caste, of course. Brahmins are the worst ingrates, expecting to be put on pedestals in America as they were back at home. Vaisyas are more deferential in public, though they’ll still plot and scheme (usually ineffectively) in private.

                • someDude says:

                  Of course they will be ingrates and entitled when being an ingrate and entitled is being rewarded by the Western Elite. What are their rewards and career prospects for showing loyalty to the ideals of western civilization? None! And that’s the whole point. Democracy rewards ingrates and Entitled snowflakes and that is exactly what it gets.

                • someDude says:

                  What startled me was that they would plot against Whites of their own initiative without the goading and encouragement of another White faction.

            • someDude says:

              They backed Leftism because Gandhi. Gandhi because that is an evolutionary adaptation on defeat and the lack of Hope. It’s what is called Cope in Twitter Parlance. It’s what defeated people do. Plus the Russians were Left, The Russians were white and they looked strong and tough. And Indians, like women, always back what appears strong and tough to them.

          • tbusma says:

            Indians in the west basically want a pat on the back from white people.

            Yes and no. The ultimate granter of status is the sovereign, which every Hindu understands to be the King. Witness how they literally worship a mythical King (Lord Ram) whose rule is said to have been extremely strict but extremely benevolent (and red-pilled on every topic including women, but that’s another story). Seeking approval from the Power-that-is is a hallmark of non-warrior Hindus. They correctly perceived East India Company as more powerful than Mughals, the British crown as more powerful than the EIC, and finally, Leftist High Priests as the most powerful of them all. This has been a failure mode of Hindu philosophy since a long time. Essentially, a nuclear-armed extremely powerful warlord sitting in Ayodhya (also needs to wear tiger skins, have a diamond studded crown, drink from goblets made of gold, etc) will cure this problem in a jiffy.

            Indians, like women, always back the party that they think is stronger.

            When you’ve lived among tigers for a thousand years, this is an essential survival trait.

            • someDude says:

              I can conditionally agree with most points you have made. Let’s see what Modi-Sama and the new crop of Hindu Samurais like Shah and Yogi can do. It’s a daunting task, more daunting than what Trump is up against.

        • >leftism is not novel to Indians its their nature

          I am not at all convinced about that. If leftism is egalitarianism, their old caste system was one of the least leftist things ever. And then they got influenced by British, later American leftists and started abolishing the caste system, started virtue-signalling about affirmative actioning the poor oppressed dalits and started bragging about being the world’s largest democracy. Clearly it seems to me their leftism is a result of getting mindfucked by Oxford-Harvard and not really their own fault. Nevertheless it is obviously fine to keep Indians out of America, I am just saying if American or British leftist ideas would have also been kept out of India, things would look different there.

          • The only thing the West really owes the Turd World is to leave them alone. Partially, to not push leftism on them. Partially, to not brain-drain their best minds away. Because yeah, the typical H1-B tech job Indian is a retard by Western (tech job) standards, but he is a freakin’ genius by Indian (general) standards and his country really needs his brains. Although probably his brains should not be used to write bad code even in India, but rather to be the boss of 30-40 manual laborers. Even he himself would be better off that way, on the scale that really matters: socio-sexually.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            The ideology of the Union of India is Fabianism, a British import, post 1945 India being considerably more British than pre 1945 India. But India has always been deeply defect/defect, whereas Fabianism at least presented itself as cooperate/cooperate.

            India is a country of scammers scamming other scammers, which tends to fail, although technology ensuring punishment for scamming may change this in the current century, and perversely eliminate the advantages of fair dealing people.

            In India, the brains of the H1-B are turned to scams, because there is no one to cooperate with, a high IQ scammer scamming a small amount of money out of a low IQ society because it is poor. In the USA, the H1-B brain does not renounce scams, but is much less able to get away with scams, internalizing a much larger amount of money for a much greater proportion of actual work, while diminishing the entire society by increasing its level of scamminess,

        • Mike in Boston says:

          Before Modi the Indians were basically all leftists of various kinds….

          The Indians I know in U.S. high tech circles vote for Modi in Indian elections and hard-left Dems in U.S. elections. It’s entirely in their self-interest in both cases, of course, but you should hear the rationalizations they advance rather than admitting that. I don’t know whether they really believe them, or have internal crimestop.

          • someDude says:

            It is a coalition of the Fringes thing. I think Steve Sailer talks about this. Indians in India are part of the mainstream while in the west they are part of the coalition of the Fringes.

            The analog is Christianity in India. Christians in India support Trump in the U.S., but leftism and marxism in India. Same difference. There is even a Jewish joke to this effect.

            Three Soviet Jews whose sons have emigrated to US, UK and Israel meet to discuss what their sons are upto. The US and UK jews are both promoting marxism-leninism in their adopted lands. Then the father of the US Jew asks the Israel Jew whether his son too is promoting Marxism-Lenninism in Israel to which he replies by saying, “Are you crazy? In his own country?”

      • grscbh says:

        @someDude

        it is Indian Progressive Leftists (Known in India as Seculars) who are the deadlier.

        Bang on target. You misspelled “sickular” tho XD. Allow me to quote myself on this topic: “Also, “progressive Hindu” is a particularly virulent variety, second only to “progressive Jew” in any sense of the term. … They hate Hinduism, hate India, most of all hate themselves, and ceaselessly work towards the nation’s destruction (and their own demise).” They are dominated by upper caste Hindus too, especially women. Reaction, especially Jim’s take on human nature, was the secret ingredient that clicked all of the pieces in my mind together.

        Don’t they realise that turning on the Seculars will yield them 100X the dividends that turning on the Muslims yields them?

        No they don’t. This is a problem. The “right” in India (the Hindu right) has a severe human resource problem, and is also in the midst of demographic collapse. Some of it is the legacy of caste-agitation over the years, but the smart fraction is almost completely demoralised and seems to be resigned to a fate of earning $$$ abroad and let the old country fall to ruin (ruiner…ruinest?). Every high IQ Brahmin dreams of competing with merchants and earning great riches, preferably abroad. Merchants are deeply cynical and all aspire to Mukeshbhai, the arch merchant. Keeping wealth in India is an almost impossible task unless you have an army at your disposal, which is only possible if you run a criminal enterprise, as private arms are severely curtailed. Being a warrior is extremely low-status everywhere, including even the Army and police. Though people fear cops/soldiers, in their hearts they have only contempt for them, and soldiers/cops know this and are demoralised by it.

        This sets up a vicious cycle where aspiring priests are led through the the leftist sacrament, while the right is perceived as a refuge for the dumb and resentful. This is not a uniquely Indian phenomenon, as the lack of “coolness” of the right has been an issue everywhere. An excellent take on the same problem in West Russia lies here: (https://sceptremag.com/2017/11/22/eastern-europe-and-the-swine-right/) That article introduced me to the term “swine right.” Now that I know this, I see it everywhere in India. In decreasing order of IQ, there are leftist priests, cuckservatives, swine right, proles, peasants. Modi’s party is swine right central.

        Have they learnt nothing from that Norwegian Samurai whose name I dare not speak?

        TBH the Norcucks themselves have learnt nothing from St Breivik. They are just sitting pretty on their sea of oil awaiting conquest like a fat goose.

        • someDude says:

          The low status of Ronin is a problem in all democracies. Democracies do not have Samurais. They only have Ronin. At the end of the day, it is the Shogun who decides what religion his subjects will follow. Before Modi-Sama, the king very clearly did not want Hinduism. Modi-Sama and his band of Samurai appear to want Hinduism to be the religion of their subjects, but let’s see what they can do.

          They are clearly trying to make Hinduism and Hindus high status, but status being a zero-sum game, this cannot be achieved unless you make the Muslims and Christians low status simultaneously. They partly have made some moves in this direction, which is having the temple inaugurated on the 1-year anniversary of Article 370 abrogation and also converting Dec 25 into Good Governance day in 2014. So it looks like they have the right idea. However, this cannot fully be achieved unless you also make Gandhi low status. And that is a huge ask. I have no idea how you guys are going to do that anytime in the near future. But it is critical.

          You’re wrong about the Norwegian Samurai, though. His actions did lead to much decreased Islamic migration into Norway, much less than both Sweden and Finland which are being overrun by Gaijin. And He chose exactly the right target, the Norwegian left. If the Hindus want to survive, they might want to rethink their targets during the next religious riot. Let’s see if anything remains of their intellect from the days that they invented zero and the place system in arithmetic.

  8. Pooch says:

    So apparently the Democrat strategy is to refuse to even count votes now. If no winner is decided by January, the House gets to select the president according to the 20th amendment.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/08/the_real_reason_democrats_are_pushing_for_mailin_ballots.html

    • The Cominator says:

      If they manage to pull that off successfully that WILL put Trump on the throne as it will start a civil war the left will certainly lose.

      I think the old gerontocratic smart but evil Democrats ala Soros are smart enough to know this so that is not their strategy.

      • BC says:

        Based on Podesta’s(Playing Joe Biden) behavior at the “wargame” where he had states Secede from the Union when Trump won, they appear to be gearing up for war in January. Leftist are completely unable to judge military power these days so what seems like insanity to the us, probably looks like a toss to the dice to them.

    • Sam says:

      Stupid question- what stops the democrats from ignoring the vote count and just declaring they won?

      • The Cominator says:

        They’ve been doing that since November 2016…

      • jim says:

        Nothing.

        In this election, probably will happen.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          I apologize for asking this over and over, but the stakes and “unprecident” here keep out-growing my imagination.

          What can Trump offer his enemies now? What “way out” can he show them?

          Something about how the top dogs are allowed to disappear to the Bahamas or something, in exchange for them burning their underlings for the cameras, before said underlings pull some game theory and tell on them first?

          Because who knows: Things are so crazy and unpredictable now that if the “bad guys” have absolutely no escape then they just might fire all their guns at once, and then some, and succeed.

          • Not Tom says:

            I apologize for asking this over and over, but […] what can Trump offer his enemies now? What “way out” can he show them?

            Really, why do you keep asking? The question as stated has never made the slightest bit of sense.

            Trump isn’t going to build a stable coalition by recruiting people with nearly unblemished track records of continuous defection. Those who show willingness to defect on their own tribe, but only in secret and with adequate protection, are going to be the worst eggs of all.

            Where the fuck did you get this idea that Trump needs to offer his sworn enemies anything, for any reason – and why can’t you let go of it? If a Democrat wants to join the Trump coalition badly enough then he can just do it, walk across the aisle like that guy Doug Jones or whatever his name is, take the risk, deal with the abuse and threats from their former partners in crime. Do you honestly think that Adam Schiff and the NYT editorial board would flip and become reliable and valuable allies if only Trump could offer them the right incentives? What are you smoking, dude?

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              He is trying to smoke the peace pipe. A noble endeavor.

              • Not Tom says:

                It was noble 100 years ago… sort of. Now it’s just cucked.

                Jim has already written at length about the folly of mercy, especially in its holiness-spiraled form. We are way past turning the other cheek for these fuckers and I’m sure Trump has realized that too – his biggest mistake in office, at least to all outward appearances, was thinking he’d be able to make deals. Even if individual leftists and Democrats wanted to make deals, their group is no longer agreement-capable, if indeed it ever was.

                Asking how to prevent a war while you’re at the negotiating table is a good idea. Asking how to make peace while you’re on the front lines and taking heavy fire is weak and pathetic. It’s weak and pathetic when you’re losing and it’s even more weak and pathetic when you’re winning. Mercy is for enemies who voluntarily surrender before you take the fight to them.

                • James says:

                  Mercy is when your enemies are blooded at your feet and with no hope of survival, but you genuinely believe them to be repentant in their heart, and you send them to guard the desert to guard nuclear test sites from acccidental trespass.

                  Anything else is cuckery.

                • The Cominator says:

                  If we are in position to show our enemies mercy in general we should not show it and should instead take the view of Genghis Khan.

                  The political right is generally far too merciful in victory and we should not make that mistake this time…

                • Pooch says:

                  No mercy for the true believers of evil. The herd followers should be spared. However, as we head lefter the number of true believers increases.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The herd followers should be spared.”

                  Should they? Why?

                  In a way the herd followers deserve death more than the true believers do. The true believers at least were genuinely deluded, the herd followers knew they were believing in evil nonsense and followed it anyway.

                  Of course for the mass of young single women they should suffer a fate akin to slavery but why should the rest be spared.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Tim Pool was a true believer in progressive leftism once and hes not completely cured.

                  David Horowitz was a true believer as well.

                  Jimmy Dore is a true believer and although he still is he calls out Cathedral lies pretty regularly… he will IMHO be cured some day. If you love the truth you cannot forever be enslaved to the Prince of Lies.

                  The people at CNN are mostly herd followers.

                  I don’t know about you but

                  Herd followers deserve Old Testament justice as much as the believers.

                • Pooch says:

                  As Jim has stated in previous posts:

                  A lot of these people are Havel’s Greengrocer, and will chant the new slogans as mindlessly as they chant the old, without even noticing that the slogans have changed.

                  Many are simply plugged in to the Matrix. They are indoctrinated and it’s something they are not consciously doing. New Testament preaches mercy to those that do not know what they do.

                  I will say, though, as time goes on the red pill and truth is becoming more and more apparent and the Havel’s Greengrocer population decreases.

                • Pooch says:

                  Of course for the mass of young single women they should suffer a fate akin to slavery but why should the rest be spared.

                  Feral women are just blind NPCs to the state religion. They will become baby producing wives under the ownership of good men.

              • someDude says:

                Funny that they become genuinely repentant at the exact point that they are bloodied and at your feet with no hope of survival and not a moment sooner than that.

                I’m with Not Tom on this one. Mercy is for those who voluntarily surrender before you take the fight to them.

                • ssudcs says:

                  Mercy for a vanquished enemy was the bane of Shri Prithviraj Chauhan, the last Hindu King of Delhi, who defeated Sultan Muhammad Ghori in the First Battle of Tarain, only to let the key persons (including Sultan Muhammad himself) escape, and wound up getting tricked and killed in the Second Battle of Tarain, bringing India under Muslim rule. No mercy. If we lose, we die (Indian history since 1192). If we win, they die. As simple as that. The correct response to Muslim invasion was only figured out by Vlad Tepes the Great — they not only need to die, but egregious offenders need to die in extremely horrible ways.

                  @Cominator:
                  Funny that you seem so hardcore while wanting to kill badwhites, yet have a soft spot for murderous Muslim cults. I’m willing to give those cultists a chance, the same way you want to give badwhites a chance — they’ll be given the honour of personally executing their “extremist” brethren, or join them on the gallows/helicopters.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          And I’m not even talking about paperwork, courtrooms and cases anymore, but just Stone Age, Jets vs Sharks humiliation, silver, lead and steel.

          “Fuck. You got me. Here’s what I did. Here’s the evidence I did it. HE gave me the orders. Can I go back into my cardboard box and be taken under guard to my undisclosed protection island and pile of silver now?”

          “Yes of course. The Holy American Emperor is just and merciful.”

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Maybe Independent California is exactly the giant safe house they all need. Room for everybody, diversity heaven, decent surfing, good organic food and weather, cheap housekeeping and pussy (ask Arnold), and all the Chinese Belt and Road aid money they need.

          They can rename Stanford “Harvard Nuevo” and start all over again! Cathedralista Reconquista!

          (END)

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        The Trump/Hillary race, represented a turning point.

        All the usual ‘managed democracy’ bits were in play; wall to wall unanimity of Official Experts behind Hillary, every broadcast organ on TV and newsprint speaking the same message, gaslighting ‘predictions’ and ‘approval ratings’ and ‘pre-polling’ to signal overwhelming hildebeest victory… and yet, it was Trump, that got amerikaner’s votes.

        That was a signal. The tried-and-true methods, that had always worked so well for so long, from the day that radio was invented, that had been steadily solidified over generations, to the nigh ubiquitous lock-step they are today, no longer were working sufficiently. The synagogue has never been more dominant that it was in these latter years; yet at the same time, it was rendered irrelevant, in a most visible expression of political theater.

        Now, even the pretense of democracy, that typified the more ‘refined’ systems of modernity that came to dominate europoid nations, is to be thrown under the tracks of regress. But therein lies the trap.

        In the attempt to continue getting what they want, to continue engaging in pseudosanctimonia, der ewige whig is working to dispense with even the pretense of democracy, to engage in outright thirdworld shenanigans.

        But as they say, hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue.

        Blatant banana republic runarounds represent the final embarrassment of the shared delusions that are embodied by the instantiation of ‘popular governance’ systems in the first place.

        The younger, dumber, browner baizuous are trying to grasp the reins of power ever more tightly than before, but the matter of their attempts also undermines the very system set up by their predecessors that they wish to occupy themselves. Their actions becoming the most likely proximal causes, for that machine driving folks to hell, breaking down before it gets there.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          I really enjoyed your prose, and I’m sorry to sully it with a question.

          I take your statement to mean that the tactics to be employed by the left will be an excuse for the right to throw out pretense of constitutional niceties. Is that correct?

          • jim says:

            Of course we will observe the pretense of constitutional niceties – possibly after some supreme court judges and numerous figures in the Department of Justice, the FBI, and the State Department, have inexplicably vanished, which disappearance will attract strangely little attention.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Trump was in the news a lot more, and the internet was much more pro-Trump.

          It is not over yet, but this is not 2016.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            >and the internet was much more pro-Trump.

            Yes, that was the unspoken implication.

            If all customary information sources theretofore had been solidly gutted and worn as skinsuits by progroids, why did so many normie europoids vote Trump?

            Because they were no longer the only centers of discourse, no longer the monopoly on presenting informed reality, no longer the only *source of validation* for people’s social cues.

            More broadly, it’s because a novelty, teh internets, represented a rather swannish disruption of the phenomena of broadcast, broadly construed – and they have been focusing increasingly heavy-handed efforts to try and put the genie back in the bottle, through doing what was already done to other institutions, to tech companies and site hosts in turn.

  9. The Cominator says:

    I think you need to do a redpill post on how republics and democracies can sort of work for small homogeneous states with restricted franchise but they can’t “scale” and function nor survive unrestricted franchise and their historical cycle.

    We would know all this but a post we could point normie tradcons too on how bigger states require a monarchy…

    • The Cominator says:

      No interest in a comprehensive redpill on republics…

      • jim says:

        Need a red pill on Republics, but my conversation with Oscar_Cc, and the recent sad loss of Roosh Vorek, tells me that a game post is more urgent.

        Not a long story. No man rules alone, so a strong King creates a virtuous elite. A virtuous elite does not much need a King, so you get an aristocratic monarchy. Which becomes an a republic, rule by a virtuous elite. Divided power has bad incentives, so you get oligarchy, rule by a corrupt elite, and democracy. These are unworkable, and become weak and intolerably bad, so you get rule by a strong man. Or chaotic collapse of the state.

        Strong men contend, and eventually, perhaps after centuries of bloodshed, a strong man emerges who can put together a virtuous elite.

        The smaller the Republic, the smaller the scale of the necessary elite, so the easier it is to put together a team of good men.

        • The Cominator says:

          Roosh took the wrong redpill from realizing that banging sloots becomes unfufilling after a while. He wants a 50s family life as men generally do, but needs to realize its impossible without a restoration of some degree of de jure patriarchal authority.

          Russia has taken steps in this direction by decriminalizing so called domestic violence (you still can’t send your girl to the ER with broken bones or severe injuries but I think needing to do that kind of shit should be exceedingly rare).

          • jim says:

            > Roosh took the wrong redpill from realizing that banging sloots becomes unfufilling after a while. He wants a 50s family life as men generally do, but needs to realize its impossible without a restoration of some degree of de jure patriarchal authority.

            A convincing claim to be backed by the supreme alpha, and a plausible willingness to carry out his will on adultery, adultery as defined in the Old Testament, serves as a substitute for de jure backing of patriarchal authority.

          • Pooch says:

            Roosh took the Redpill and then the godpill. Nothing wrong with that. All his content is still redpill through the lenses of real old type Christianity, completely consistent with Jiminity.

            • jim says:

              Indeed it is. My theological disagreements with him are not important, but I fear he is of lesser practical value to people operating in a fallen world than Heartiste, minion of Satan.

              We should be wise as serpents, and I fear that Roosh has lost focus on the wisdom of serpents.

              A serpent is wise in that he suspects defection, and is apt to react to defection swiftly and dramatically.

              I have a serious disagreement with him about wise behavior in a fallen world. In a fallen world, we should be as wise, and preferably wiser, than the minions of Satan, as well as cooperating more successfully.

              Most of the minions of Satan are fools and liars, and should not be listened to, but Heartiste speaks the truth. Roosh feels, correctly, that the wisdom of Heartiste and himself is apt to be used for evil and destruction, that it facilitates choices that are unwise for oneself, and damaging to others, but that is a choice that each of us must make for ourselves. Good people must be armed with the same or better knowledge than bad people. When Jesus told his followers to get swords, he meant sharp swords, and to not draw them lightly, but have them at the ready to be drawn.

              Listen to Heartiste, but, as Roosh discovered, there are better lives than watching the decline from poolside.

              • Pooch says:

                I see him as targeting a different audience now. He’s no longer speaking to blue pill beta males and teaching them how to fuck chicks using the redpill on women. There are plenty of other sources for that material like Heartiste, redpill reddit, rational male (forget the author’s name), etc. That’s no longer his lane. He does not condemn or attack those guys. He just refrains from mentioning them.

                His audience seems to be now those who know how to game women (from his prior work) but want as you say a better more fulfilling life that just banging a bunch of sluts. You get the redpill on women from Heartiste then you come to Roosh for the godpill and truly see the evils of the fallen world.

                We may need able bodied men in the coming war. Godless men sitting poolside are not going to fight.

                • jim says:

                  The problem is not so much godlessness, as lack of anything worth fighting for. If you don’t own a woman, you don’t own anything.

                • Pooch says:

                  That’s fair. I see Roosh speaking to men who already own women or can own women if they choose. The next evolution is the many red pills after the woman pill is consumed. I think he’s unrealistic in many areas but serves a purpose, especially bringing men back to Christianity and thus to our side.

                • jim says:

                  I own women, and he is wrong about the relationship.

                • Pooch says:

                  Old type Christianity*

            • The Cominator says:

              The redpill aka the truthpill must always outrank everything… Otherwise you are preaching something other than truth.

              Roosh now says you must try to date women without discussing premarital sexxors but he should be well aware you can’t really date the modern woman until you have sex with her in 95% of cases anyway.

              • jim says:

                You have to bang them, or they are not going to stick around. If a man and woman spend more than a week together without banging, they are going break up, unless the woman is literally kept locked in by her father between suitor visits. Plus you want very much to bang them. Same day lays are difficult (though if in an international tourist spot where you can plausibly claim that you have to go to the airport tomorrow afternoon, less difficult) but second week lays are also difficult.

                There is no substantial distinction between the fast seduction arsenal, and the seduction at all arsenal.

              • Pooch says:

                Roosh advocates not using game to find a wife because women that need game and PUA tactics to catch will most likely not make for loyal Christian wives.

                He advises the traditional way of finding a wife in church and/or letting god present her to you. That may be impractical given the the availability of traditonal Christian girls, but I don’t think anything about that is a falsehood.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  He was just looking in the wrong place. Game tactics work fine on girls at elite universities and corporations. Probably if he had kept his research chemist job and learnt game privately rather than trying to monetize game, he would be fine.

                • jim says:

                  Roosh is absolutely wrong.

                  It is always game on. There is no rest for men. We are always on stage. We can only be ourselves when there are no women around.

                • Pooch says:

                  Game/PUA is just faking alpha. Works to bang a chick. Doesn’t work to keep a chick because they eventually find out you’re a fraud. To keep a chick must actually be alpha, masculine, and red pill (focusing on mission, women aren’t that important, physical fitness, etc). I classify that as Completely different from pua game.

                  Christian men of the past never needed game to keep women because they were red pill and society was red pill. Wives obeying husbands was the standard. That’s what Roosh proposes for his followers. Now that may be completely unrealistic given the state of Christianity today, but I fail to see that it is a blue or purple pilled take.

                • jim says:

                  No.

                  You need game to keep a chick. No game, you lose. She will bang someone who does game her, secure in the confidence that her loser husband is so desperate that he would never dare kill her or even beat her up and kick her out, and he is so weak and unmanly he could not kill her lover.

                • Pooch says:

                  I think we may have different definitions of game.

                • jim says:

                  Game is what people who teach game say it is.

                  Another Game post coming up, because I am a bit worried about Oscar_Cc

                  In the meantime: All Women Are Like That

                  Shit Tests are designed to be passed

                  The Trouble with Rotherham

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  No one is a real alpha, because the real alphas get killed or go to prison for life while they’re still young.

                  This is a bigger problem in our society that previous societies, because our society is intentionally suppressing alpha to suppress the birth rate. But men switching off alpha to cooperate better with other men is defining of human civilization, and will always be necessary. Patriarchy is men having the ability to switch off alpha to cooperate without immediately losing their women, which requires coercion on individual men to stick to the deal and group coercion on women to not destroy or leave the group.

                  In a patriarchy it is taught in schools and in the culture when men should turn alpha on and off, like any other socially approved social skill. Since this society says “off” all the time, because of ideology, men need to learn privately when to switch it on and off, and that is “game.”

                • jim says:

                  > In a patriarchy it is taught in schools and in the culture when men should turn alpha on and off, like any other socially approved social skill. Since this society says “off” all the time, because of ideology, men need to learn privately when to switch it on and off, and that is “game”.

                  Well said.

              • Pooch says:

                Roosh now says you must try to date women without discussing premarital sexxors but he should be well aware you can’t really date the modern woman until you have sex with her in 95% of cases anyway.

                Only with trad Christian women with the same expectations. He does not condemn fucking modern secular women, he just does not advocate for it.

              • Dave says:

                What God-fearing Christian man would let his daughter marry Heartiste or Roosh, even as he acknowledges that everything they say is true? A whore can repent all she wants; it might get her into Heaven but only an idiot would ever marry her. Does that rule not apply to rakes too?

                These men are like Moses; they can lead other men to the Promised Land but are too corrupted to ever enter it themselves.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Dave

                  ” Does that rule not apply to rakes too?”

                  Men and women aren’t equal. Male sexuality and female sexuality aren’t equal.

                • Dave says:

                  So now that they’ve both come to Jesus, you’re perfectly OK with these guys marrying your daughters?

                • jim says:

                  Nothing wrong with Roosh as a potential husband.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The only problem with Roosh is that he is part Arab and Arabs are an inferior race. I already have Irish blood and thats bad enough…

                • Dave says:

                  “Daryush Valizadeh was born June 14, 1979 in Washington DC to an Iranian father and an Armenian mother from Turkey”

                  The name sounds Persian to me, like the King Darius who invaded ancient Greece. Any Arab admixture would have happened many centuries ago.

                • The Cominator says:

                  So not Arab. Persian is okay…

                  Armenians not sure about their higher mental faculties but they are the supreme swindlers amongst all the races…

                  Trust a snake before a jew, and a jew before a greek, but never trust an Armenian.

                • Pooch says:

                  Dumb Wignat blood purity logic. He’s orthodox Christian and would pass the red pill on women test and the red pill on race test. That’s good enough.

                • Allah says:

                  Valizadeh means “governor-son” in Persian, if I recall correctly he mentioned that either his grandfather or father had more than 20 children and multiple wives. Yes, Armenians are basically knock-off Jews.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Imagine being such a cuckold that you don’t believe in wignat blood purity logic.

        • All true, Jim, but by just talking about rule by a strong man misses the difference between a king and a dictator.

          Now, dictatorship is a very negative word these days, partially because elites made it so (and not even just explicitly leftist elites but also Cold Warriors), but they were generally indeed bad because of 1) shitty ideology 2) HBD-low populations got clowns for dictators like Idi Amin 3) other reasons.

          And 3) matters most. Say, Argentine is not a particularly HBD-bad population, and Galtieri had apparently something like a normal nationalist ideology. What was the difference between him and a King? He was even a warrior.

          Look at how Galtieri invaded Falklands for entirely the wrong reasons, mostly to boost his popularity. That is the issue. A King does not need to do that. My model would be that he lacked that personal loyalty Kings need to have.

          People were loyal to a set of ideas, which one might call a state religion of nationalism, and not personally to him. Thus you get the typical modern state, where only loyalty to shared ideas and not to persons exist. He was sort of forced into the role of just being the high priest of nationalism as state religion. Lacking personal loyalty, he could lose popularity and lose power if people think is not the ideal servant of such state religion, so had to show his mettle by achieving what seemed like a quick victory.

          This, IMHO is the difference, in a proper monarchy you have a more balanced personal loyalty to the King and loyalty to the state religion, and in case of elites it is mostly the former as they get to know the King personally, the state religion is mostly for the proles who lack this personal knowledge, who cannot form personal ties with the King.

  10. ten says:

    More Yarvin.

    https://graymirror.substack.com/p/bitzion-how-bitcoin-becomes-a-state

    “Bitcoin would need updates; its decentralized anarchy makes even small changes near impossible to get done; let’s create a bitcoin state responsible for its governance; here is my fanciful method of achieving this”

    I only know enough about crypto to know i should not talk about it. I would find jim’s and others takes on this interesting.

    • jim says:

      I need to issue a post on crypto currency.

      In the meantime, a comment, which I will eventually expand into a post:

      Bitcoin’s pseudonymity is alarmingly weak, (though the Wasabi wallet partially fixes this). The lightning network layer would fix this, as well as providing instant transactions, but a true lightning network cannot be implemented over bitcoin, for cryptographic and organizational reasons too difficult to explain.

      A lightning network would provide instantly settled transactions and strong fungibility. It would make bitcoins (unspent transaction outputs of the blockchain) far less traceable, because lightning transactions happen off chain and inherently mingle coins, thus making bitcoins fully fungible, thus increasing their desirability as a direct substitute for cash.

      A lightning network over bitcoin cannot be implemented entirely trustlessly, making implementation complex, but, more importantly, needing intermediaries large, long lived, and well known, thus intermediaries subject to rubber hose cryptography. And the long proposed and long worked on bitcoin lightning network has not yet gotten off the ground, and when it finally gets off the ground, its fungibility is likely to be horribly crippled. It will be called a lightning network, but will not have all the characteristics that make a lightning network desirable.

      This is in fact workable with a lightning network layer on top of the proof of stake layer, done right, but bitcoin at present is not it, and cannot be transformed into it, because miner consensus. The attempt to introduce a lightning layer was subverted by the state, and state subversion was successful because the miners would be cut out of much of the lucrative transaction business by a lightning layer. And an attempt to make existing bitcoin proof of stake, which is what you need for the consensus to support a lightning layer, would be even more resisted.

      A proof of stake currency is a corporation. Its currency is shares in that corporation. Corporations derive their corporateness from the authority of the sovereign, but a proof of stake currency derives its corporateness from the Byzantine Paxos algorithm, from each stakeholder (shareholder) playing by those rules because all the other stakeholders play by those rules.

      A successful proof of stake currency would be shares in a non state corporation, a sovereign corporation. What is a sovereign corporation but a state?

      The power of the US is in substantial part that it is a world currency, albeit a major reason why it is a world currency is airsea war superiority, and as its relative airsea war superiority power declines, its role as a world currency declines.

      If the shares of a sovereign corporation took over the role of the US dollar, that sovereign corporation would be a world power. Its power would be in the network, as the power of the US was in the air and sea, rather than the land.

      But the dollar and nukes are not the only bases of USG power.

      Even more than being a financial root node, the power of USG is a result of being the monopoly truth root node. (Via Harvard aka the Cathedral, but including lesser official government outposts such as the CIA.) USG establishes the world’s narratives which control what everyone cool across the world believes — that gay marriage is justice, for example, or that “trans” people are a real thing and not just crazy and/or sexually deviant, or that global warming is real, human-caused, and disastrous, or that black lives matter.

      A proof of stake currency is not very functional, unless, like the Jitsi blockchain, it provides a namespace and service, because you need to interact with peers that have authority over the consensus – the shareholders, or their computers, need to interact with the computer equivalent of the members of the board and CEO. A nameservice, that unlike Domain names, cannot be seized by the government, nor mimmed by any of a hundred organizations that have a certificate authority in their pocket.

      Replacing the domain name service as well as the US$ would substantially undermine the US Government’s monopoly of truth.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Do you have any considered views on Urbit?

        • jim says:

          No purely functional language has ever achieved wide end user acceptance for any program written in it.

          This is because one winds up reformulating the behavior of any module within the program to fit the functional model, and though in principle functional code can do anything procedural code can do, one in practice winds up with an user interface and user experience that fits the model, which is a pain in the ass to the end user.

          Also, programs written in purely functional code tend to be slow, unresponsive and inefficient, though I have seen plenty of mighty fast and efficient programs written in purely functional code – again, in principle people can write a good user experience in purely functional code, but in practice, seldom do.

          • Um, I am not really qualified enough to argue about that, but for me it was enlightening how the CodeMonkleys book on LISP that introduced functional programming and macroes to me ended up reinventing a subset of SQL. Later on C# introduced more and more functional features and ended up reinventing a subset of SQL with LINQ. Sounds like a pattern to me. Every functional language wants to be something like SQL, because that is a programmer-friendly way to massage a set of inputs into a set of outputs in a functional, side-effect-free way. Which is the whole point of programming, take inputs, generate outputs, right? Someone even managed to write a ray-tracer as one LINQ expression.

            I am trying to do most of my programming that way these days, everything else is a thin wrapper over queries stored in config files or database fields. So far it worked and so far I managed to keep it functional, not breaking into iterating over cursors.

            • jim says:

              SQL, and things remarkably similar to SQL, are a mighty useful language.

              But SQL is not itself non procedural, nor is it a purely functional language, though its major use case is to be used in a non procedural, purely functional, way, inside a procedural language.

              My criticism was intended to be of purely functional languages used beyond their proper limits, to attempt to create the complete end user experience.

              The archetypal SQL statement is not the purely functional “SELECT….” but the strictly and explicitly procedural “BEGIN….COMMIT”.

    • pdimov says:

      “This post is for paying subscribers.”

      So he’s serious about it.

      • ten says:

        I for one am happy to paypig for moldbug-san; he lifted me out of my darkness practically alone (or well, I found him via Nick Land). Take my money, you shifty jew!

        • pdimov says:

          I absolutely agree that he deserves the money tenfold. But, as Clint Eastwood said in one of his movies, “deserves” has got nothing to do with it.

          The incentives just aren’t right, and paywalling propaganda kind of defeats the purpose. Of course the propaganda is in this case true, which makes it significantly less ridiculous than Cathedral sources that want you to pay them to lie to you.

          Paying for truth makes sense when the truth gives you a competitive advantage, and it sadly doesn’t. Watching CNN is better for your career prospects than reading Moldbug.

          The Patreon model would have been a better fit, except of course Patreon would probably ban him, shortly before going bankrupt anyway.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Yarvin:

            “This is a paywall-only post. If you forward it, kittens will die!

            Just kidding—what I meant to say was: dear subscribers, thank you ever so much for subscribing to Gray Mirror. Perhaps loyalty, in some small way, is still a thing after all. And as Dr. Johnson said, “no one but a fool ever wrote except for money.”

            My general plan, as a grifter, is to give away posts that are more or less remixes of ideas that are already out in the world, and sell the new stuff. Only you can decide whether the new tracks live up to the standard of the old. Hopefully they’re better: because you pay me, I put more work into production.

            You actually can feel free to forward this email, so long as you realize that you’re doing sales for my 21st-century grifter cult. (No, there is no commission—still need to figure out that whole MLM thing.) But you’ll definitely want to read it first…”

  11. Frederick Algernon says:

    Jim, how do you square the Namefags Lie rule with the existence of Victor Davis Hanson? As an example, the linked interview. This is recent, but he has a tremendous amount of work, written and oral, that can be easily viewed. Where is he lying?

    https://youtu.be/zT7CrEoqoSU

    Inb4 Oliver Cromwell tells us VDH has always been a controlled opposition.

    • jim says:

      For him to be controlled opposition, he would have to say something that opposes the Cathedral. In the three seconds of him which was all I could stand, he gave seven lies in complete support of Cathedral. In what does he supposedly oppose it?

      I clicked on your link, watched him a few seconds, could not stand the stream of lies, had to take a break.

      He introduces globalization as follows “We were embracing globalization, and I think that people very naively thought that everybody was on board with the western paradigm of consumer capitalism, transparency, individual rights, constitutional government, respect for minority opinion, tolerance, and diversity of religions.”

      All of which have been thoroughly and completely rejected for the last one hundred and sixty years.

      We were not “all on board” with any those things, and globalization was opposed because it was even less on board with any of those things.

      ‘Diversity of religions” means that older religions are driven out of the public square in favor the state religion. It is the current year now. It has been the current year – religions that cannot keep up being cast into the darkness – for near a century.

      “Consumer Capitalism” means regulated capitalism, where the board is answerable to a thousand kings three miles away instead of one king three thousand miles away. We have been walking away from capitalism for ninety years.

      “Minority opinion” has not been respected since 1860 if they are the officially wrong opinions. Some minorities have considerably less rights than others. Every major social change, for example the dissolution of marriage, the destruction of freedom of association, abortion, “civil rights”, gay rights, etc, has been imposed on the majority by a small minority, the majority passively and reluctantly went along with something wildly contrary to what they had voted for, and the minority that actively resisted were mercilessly crushed and destroyed.

      “transparency”: I have had to deal with courts and bureaucracy quite a bit, and they are opaque and corrupt. Chinese courts and bureaucracy is far more transparent and honest than American courts and bureaucracy, even though Chinese businessmen are individually dishonest.

      “Individual Rights”. How long has it been since freedom of association was repudiated as racist? Right to keep and bear arms?

      “Constitutional Government” – but we are governed by the presidency not the president, the bureaucracy, not congress. You cannot find anything the federal government does except for defense and the post office in the powers enumerated in the constitution.

      So every word coming out of his mouth in the first few seconds was a lie, intended to manipulate and destroy.

      But after writing the above, I though that you might feel that stopping at the first sentence was unfair. Maybe the subsequent sentences change the meaning. So I turned him on again, and had to shut him up in the next few seconds, for he started talking about China. And what he said was in a sense perfectly true, but a deceptive half of the truth, for he implies and presupposes a world in which the State Department has not been trying to overthrow the Chinese government ever since they reverted to capitalism. He implies that the current conflict between America’s permanent government and the Chinese government just got started yesterday, because the wicked Chinese bad behavior was just revealed yesterday.

      Listening to liars makes me ill. Two sentences and I just could not take it any more.

      In two short sentences, he managed to presuppose and imply a false consensus on seven lies, which need a screenfull of text to list explicitly.

      Watching that evil, hateful, and malicious mendacity, intended to manipulate the hearer into imputing good intentions to men that hate the hearer and intend to destroy him, made me physically sick. The globalists were supposedly ‘all on board’ with all these wonderful things that they have hated, despised, and systematically destroyed for the past century.

      They hate those wonderful things, they intend to finish destroying those wonderful things, they hate you, and they want to destroy those wonderful things so that they can destroy you. He hates those wonderful things, he hates you, and he intends to destroy you.

      I cannot stand the sight of the face of that evil hostile man one more second. If you have a text of his that you do not feel contains malicious lies intended to cause harm, I could fisk some text. I am not going to go searching through piles of lies for a grain of truth here and there intended to make poisonous lies go down easier.

      His lies are deadly, because they turn the meaning of those words upside down: “Minority rights” become gays being first class citizens and straight males second class citizens, and the removal of rights from the minority of old type Christians, including their right to protect their children. “Consumer Capitalism” means the customer is always wrong, and the regulator always right, so you find yourself consuming toilets that do not flush and washing machines that do not clean. “Individual rights” become collective rights. And so on and so forth. His lies are destroying my life and the lives of my children.

      When he attributes these good things to the globalists, he inverts their meaning to mean satanic things.

      • The Cominator says:

        VDH is a purple pilled tradcuck (who admits some of the errors) who supports Trump but not evil.

        • jim says:

          Maybe I got a bad two sentences, but the first sentence attributed pious good intentions to the guys who created the Transpacific Partnership, which was a gun aimed to seize the property of the deplorables of flyover country and regulate the world from New York, and the second sentence denied the Cathedral efforts to conquer the world, hence my violent reaction.

          Taken together, the first two sentences carried the payload that everyone agrees, that we fellow conservatives agree, that the Globalist efforts to conquer the word and rule it in excruciating detail from the towers of New York was motivated by good intentions, but frustrated by the wickedness of China.

          If someone were to tax him with the fact that Drag Queens performing sexual acts with little boys during Drag Queen Story hour on the Multnomah County Library floor is supposedly all those good things, but that the heterosexual courtship dance has been purged from every library, every dance video, every movie, and every book, and ask him how this fits with all those good intentions, his answer would deny that the suppression of heterosexual courtship dance is a violation of freedom of association and individual rights.

          The trouble with individual rights, minority rights, and all that good stuff that if men dressed as women having sex with small boys in public on the Multnomah County Library floor are officially included, Perseus rescuing and abducting princess Andromeda must necessarily be officially excluded.

          If someone were to ask him if freedom of association was an individual right, he would piously answer yes. If someone were to ask him about the disruption caused by affirmative action, about the destruction of team cohesion by the injection of diversity, which results in the injection of war within the team, the disruption caused by the injection of women into projects which require smarts, which results in disruption because female sexuality gets in the way, as every attempt to explain the task is derailed by the woman shit testing the smart guy attempting to explain how her task has to fit together with everyone else’s task, he would explain that horrid deplorables do not have any rights and do not deserve them, that individual rights are for some people and not other people, that if integration within my team makes it impossible to do stuff, I have no rights and deserve none. He would answer that it is totally fine that my business is destroyed by denial of my right to freedom of association, and my sexual life is made difficult by denial of freedom of speech, because the fact that the loss of these rights is causing me problems shows I am deplorable and deserve no rights.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            >men dressed as women having sex with small boys in public on the Multnomah County Library floor

            They’re not actually having sex with the children, are they? They’re roughhousing and cuddling with them, with the children’s mothers present, which is easy enough to paint as innocent. Obviously it’s not, which you can see if you imagine what the reaction would be if heterosexual adult men were getting that physical with unrelated children, but it seems a little unhinged to claim that they’re actually raping the children.

            • Jon Dough says:

              Jim, every time I think I’ve reached a plateau where my anger and hatred of today can take a break, you reinvigorate me to again stand in opposition of all the ugliness and evil that purports to be the good and beautiful. VDH is a POS.

            • ten says:

              Sex is typically understood as not being exclusively about penetration. Maybe they are merely doing foreplay, or sexually rubbing against the children. They are obviously, ecstatically performing sexual acts, with the good conscience of the extremely non-innocent mothers.

              If some hobo started rubbing his genitals against the kindergartners, it would be considered sexual molestation, wouldn’t it?

              • Contaminated NEET says:

                Small kids will do that kind of affectionate roughhousing with adults they trust, and there’s nothing sexual about it for a healthy, well-functioning adult. Of course, a certain percentage of adults do get a sexual charge out of it, which is why we don’t let unrelated kids and adults do that. Like you said, some random hobo, or even some random well-dressed, clean-cut heterosexual man, who did this would be pilloried.

                >extremely non-innocent mothers
                Nah. They are innocent. They’re just badly deluded. They’re all true-blue proggies, and one of the articles of their faith is that homosexuality is beautiful, pure, and angelic. They aren’t getting some sexual thrill from pimping out their toddlers, their minds just can’t hold the idea that a magical holy wonderful gay man could ever have any less-than-pure intentions toward their kids.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Proggies are not innocent proggies are evil and need to be cleansed from the land.

                  Thou shalt not suffer a leftist to live, Deus Vult.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  I love your energy, Cominator. But the vast majority of these moms are just herd animals. They’re proggies because that’s what entertainment and education tell them to be, and they want to go along with the group. Sure, they’re sincere in their evil beliefs, but change their media environment and their beliefs will follow in short order.

                • The Cominator says:

                  With the exception of those born into leftists politics like David Horowitz was (and it took an extreme incident to cure him)… There is a point where herd following becomes evil and the herd follower knows they are doing evil to follow, a point where they have to sell their soul and they are knowingly doing so.

                  The moms at drag queen story hour passed that point long ago, death is better than they and every hardcore prog deserves.

                • jim says:

                  Such “extreme” incidents are not extreme. Communists always kill their friends, and Western communists have been killing their friends with great regularity for as long as I can remember, though vastly smaller numbers of their friends than when they take power. Being a communist is like being a “Friend of the Clintons”. It carries significant risks.

                  Someone disappears, or commits suicide by shooting himself twice in the back of the head, or is mysteriously killed by persons unknown, and one discovers, as Horowitz discovered, that one’s fellow communists are strangely relaxed about it.

                  Nazis kill their enemies, but commies kill their friends. Not as many of their friends in the west as in communist countries, but they still kill their friends.

                • ten says:

                  And we’re all just monkeys doing monkey stuff on our ball of molten dirt, can’t really blame us for it.

                  Noone is a perfectly free moral agent, everyone is a herd animal, we still make judgment. These prog mothers are hellspawn, who can and should be herded somewhere better unless cominating them is preferable (don’t make it my job to herd prog women, i will have to call up my good friend above and donate some helicopter fuel). Deus vult.

      • sam says:

        Some points in favor of him being purple pilled.

        On “transvestites”:
        https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/08/rachel-dolezal-caitlyn-jenner-race-gender/?target=author&tid=900280

        Briefly mentions demographics, fertility, holiness spiral:
        https://youtu.be/JEd2TEzM0vw?t=2548
        youtube autogenerated transcript:

        “Well I think they decided under the Obama administration that they had
        a new demography that the white majority was played out

        or should be played out they forgot that it was
        still 70 percent so they really pushed this identity politics number one and
        then they felt that the life of Julia pajama boy was the new hipster profile
        they were the young guys that were running the campaigns they were guys on
        the talking heads

        these were the guys that were the future of the country
        They get married at 40 if they do they have one or two kids at the most or none

        they live in apartments in city that was what everybody thought was our profile and so
        they went they went with it and now all of these issues we talked about earlier
        that don’t poll 51 percent so they had a lot of issues and they had a lot of
        ideas and abstractions that

        They were talking to an an echo chamber and so you
        could say we don’t want a white guy as president you could say even a white
        woman we’re kind of conflicted about and we need reparations
        It’s like the French Revolution the cycle from the monarchists to the republicanism to the girondins
        and to the jacobins and then to the guillotine Napoleon

        each position is considered passe the next day and they’re on the race to this hard left

        not only that or the issues hard left but they’re kind of we’re kind of
        bringing in people that think they’re embolden so we have mr. Hickam poker or
        whatever is in hookah hickenlooper

        today saying like tell us all of his previous sexual partners.”

        • jim says:

          Good stuff, and dancing around Dark Enlightenment thought crimes the way Jordan Peterson and Scott Alexander do.

          But he is a Neocon, Neocons are enemy entryists to the Republican party, he is an enemy entryist to Trumpism and the Dark Enlightenment, and the first two sentences of the linked video were filled with enemy payload. Neocons were Jewish Trotskyites before the were Republicans. Trotskyites are the most notorious entryists among communists, and since they entered the Republican Party they have continued to behave like communist entryists, not like converts to Republicanism.

          From the first two sentences, I infer he wants war on the Alawite minority of Lebanon: Meaning “Alawites to the grave, Christians to Lebanon.” If he wants the Christians rendered homeless and stateless, he wants us rendered homeless and stateless.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            He had stated a number of times that the Syrian Intervention was a misadventure and bad.

            I don’t see the utility of hearing 2 sentences of a 1 hour talk and rendering a final verdict. VDH is not a neoconservative, but neocons do like him. He is a part of the establishment, he couldn’t teach at 3 universities and not be. But the fact remains that he is a professor, a farmer, a prolific author, anda grandfather. I’m utterly perplexed that you are unfamiliar with the man, given how much ideological overlap exists between your perspectives. He is a public figure, so he lacks your ability to say everything he thinks. This is where the namefag idea has a small amount of validity. But it should also be considered that you preach to anons and he lectures at 3 different universities. His contributions to military history alone make him worthwhile reading. His book The Case for Trump is an invaluable resource.

            I guess I just don’t understand how a learned classicist is somehow a “bad guy” and overweight, low IQ stormnaggers are our allies.

            • jim says:

              > I don’t see the utility of hearing 2 sentences of a 1 hour talk and rendering a final verdict.

              The first two sentences carried an evil enemy payload that required several screens of text to make explicit the implicit enemy assumptions, the false consensus, that the Globalist consensus was and is all these good things that we all support – and that all these good things are what the Globalist consensus interprets them as being.

              Another two sentences like that would leave me exhausted.

              And the second sentence implies, as Oliver Cromwell just pointed out, “This guy is looking at BLM burning down the cities, the cultural revolution that has swept up all the corporations to impose Cathedral ideology on all W2 employees and corporate customers, and the impending election, and decided the most important issue of the day is winning a manufactured conflict with China. Controlling the left spiral is important because it would strengthen us against China, which strength is important to defend… what? He says Western tradition, but does not say that the left spiral is not Western tradition.”

              If he fails to notice the Cathedral has been attempting to conquer China ever since they started backing away from communism, he is a neocon. Neocons are commie entryists. You say he said these anti neocon things about Syria. Did he? Or did he dance around them like Scott Alexander dancing around the dark enlightenment? Link me to some text – and not to a video. I am unable to watch his videos, and if I attempted to do so, would wind up punching a hole in the screen. Also, a lot less work to fisk text.

              If he neglects to notice that we were supporting genocidal terrorists in Syria under Obama, neocon, and no Trumpist, but an enemy entryist like the Republican neocons. The Republican Neocons hate the Republican Party and seek its destruction. Why should we expect better of Trumpist Neocons? If he is a Trumpist, going to notice Obama supporting terror and mass murder in Syria.

              > But the fact remains that he is a professor

              A priest of a heretical post Christian religion that is destroying America. The short low IQ reply is close enough to the truth: All of them Satan’s loudspeakers, and distinguishing between one loudspeaker and the next is pointless because all the loudspeakers are connected to one microphone, the same monster wearing different skin suits.

              If the short low IQ reply is inaccurate, or insufficiently nuanced, link me to some text of his that shows that more nuance is appropriate. Don’t just tell me the text exists. It is just too exhausting to detect and sort through all the enemy payloads and dodge them. He makes me tired and angry. He is using the Jordan Peterson tactic of hinting at grains of truth in order to carry a payload of lies – except that he is carrying far heavier payloads.

            • Tom Hart says:

              You can usually tell whether you like someone or not within 30 seconds, possibly less. If you don’t like a film 3 minutes in, you might as well walk out; you’ll not like the rest of it—if the story hasn’t hooked you by then, you haven’t got a real storyteller. If the argument doesn’t match reality as you understand it after 3 minutes, it’s not going to get better.

              VDH is skilled at rhetoric, so he knows how to keep your attention but there’s never really a payoff; anyone who makes their living his way has to be like that. If he muddies the water on one thing, he’ll muddy it on others because he doesn’t allow himself to think freely. Save yourself time; if it feels wrong after 3 minutes, turn it off—unless you are dissecting why he is wrong and what his particular delusion is.

              The radical right is a coalition of high IQ people with low agreeability and lower IQ people who are more instinctual (lower IQ correlates with lower agreeability, anyway): the genius-retard alliance versus the midwits—alternatively, the evil genius-henchman alliance or the mad scientist-football hooligan alliance. The disagreeable high IQ person realises that the lower IQ person’s instincts are basically right (evolutionarily correct); the midwits, signalling status, use intellectual games to pretend their instincts are wrong.

              Highly intelligent people tend to be more agreeable and more open to novelty; hence they tend to the left—they think everyone will cooperate peacefully, just like them; and they see left-wing ideas as novel solutions to social problems, not realising that these are usually reiterations of the same bad idea. Because agreeable, they can’t stand to contradict the agreed ideology—and know doing so will not benefit them, so they go along with it.

              So being a smart classicist just makes you likely to interpret the classics to support war with China or whatever the prevailing orthodoxy is; your fellow scholars will back up your ideological interpretation, the minority of disagreeable scholars get kicked out of the academy. The midwit, not really a scholar, will accept anything that sounds smart.

              (Just recombining ideas I stole from elsewhere with personal experience, nothing original here).

              • Karl says:

                I very much doubt that highly intelligent people tend to be more agreeable. Anyway, the times when left-wing ideas could be seen as solutions to social problems have long passed.

                When the present holiness spiral started, lots of highly intelligent people were lefties. But as the left gets more and more crazy, it gets ever more deficult to rationalise that leftist ideas are a solution. Highly intelligent people are better at finding reasons why an idea might work, but the ideas get ever more crazy until intelligent people realise that these ideas cannot work and are contradictory.

                At this point, the smart people on the left intend evil results, the rest are midwits at best

                • Tom Hart says:

                  Agreeability and intelligence are correlated, albeit weakly. This means that a larger proportion of highly intelligent people are agreeable than not. There are still highly intelligent people who are disagreeable, just fewer of them. That’s why I said highly intelligent people tend to be more agreeable, not that they are more agreeable.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Highly intelligent people tend to get shuffled into academia, which causes, especially if they never exit school, naivete, parochialism and stunted social development along with an overblown opinion of their own intellect and opinions. Hot house flowers, essentially.

                  Furthermore, as the academy gets more feminized, the disagreeables are shown the door.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Agreeability” sounds like something very nice, but only sometimes is.

                  Scammers have high agreeability. People who evolved using intelligence for scams are high IQ/high agreeability. That doesn’t mean all agreeable people are scammers, but it trends that way.

                  Restoration is basically pro-social and pro-truth, which is often “disagreeable.” That makes it sounds like it is bad, but not what it means.

                  Evolving to do scams is basically a response to weakness, absence of actual power, absence of agency in setting the rules of society, because a reflection of lack of ownership of society, hence not caring about social outcomes. So high agreeability/high IQ, in this form, is a very negative trait.

                  Academia is not what it was, a job for life to think and write with enormous protections, but increasingly a gig economy controlled by non-academic grant bureaucrats with “agreeable” middlemen sitting between them to reduce the social friction this would otherwise cause.

                  VDH is old, so I don’t know what selective pressures were like in academia when he entered, but these trends are now quite old too.

              • jim says:

                > VDH is skilled at rhetoric, so he knows how to keep your attention but there’s never really a payoff; anyone who makes their living his way has to be like that. If he muddies the water on one thing, he’ll muddy it on others because he doesn’t allow himself to think freely

                I can’t watch the guy. He slings mud too fast, and it is not mud, its enemy lies concocted by people who hate us and intend to destroy us. It is enemy lies concocted by the Troskyists, who are the worst entryists among the communists.

                I can read his text, but it still painful, because I have to fisk it mentally.

                Is he still a secret Trotskyist, as most of the Neocons still are? I don’t know, but he peddles their stuff. The Trans Pacific Partnership was massively influenced by Trotskyite economic and political theory, which is a post Judaic heresy, not a post Christian heresy. About half Fabian, which is post Christian, and half Trotskyite, which is post Judaic. It would have been an economic disaster. Fabian economics damned near brought famine to England in 1949. Troskyite economics is not consumer capitalism, that is the Fabian sheepskin that the Neocons are wearing. It is the socialism of war and famine.

                Trotskyite economics is a command economy without coherent or united command, which instantly and inevitably devolves into random pillage by numberless faceless bureaucrats. If the Transpacific Partnership had gone through, there would have been seven New York skyscrapers full of people pillaging the world in an uncoordinated fashion, and academic economists would glibly report that all the value was being created in New York, while, strangely, flyover country was not producing value.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Since I was mentioned –

      1. I’ve never heard of this guy before

      2. from his wiki page:

      2a) most of career: neocon, within-Overton window ‘rightist’

      2b) created some minor controversy by saying blacks commit crime and whites avoid them, something everyone knows, did not draw any further conclusions from this

      3. in video: advocating the Hillary Clinton policy of war with PRC

      Neocon or variant, not dissident. Thinks the Cathedral embodies “Western tradition.” Wants the Cathedral to let up a bit on knifing the security services so that the security services will be more willing to fight wars to expand the territory of the Cathedral.

      • The Cominator says:

        Early Trump supporter despite being employed by national cuckview…

        Its bad to judge people strictly by ideological purity, if a guy does the right thing at certain key inflection points best not to assume they are so bad.

        • jim says:

          Supporting Globalism, then criticizing it on the grounds that China needs to be conquered first, is very bad.

          Cuckservatives are weak, unreliable, and treacherous allies, but neocons are enemies. He is a neocon. He is an enemy. He wants to conquer the world, which means he wants to finish the subjugation of flyover country.

          I want whites to reconquer the lands of the inferior races after we have elite fertility, but conquering the lands of other higher races would destroy us, even after we have elite fertility, because we would then fight each other. We should conquer space. Israel, China, and Russia should be true Westphalian equals.

          And conquering the lands of inferior races without elite fertility will destroy us as it destroyed the Romans, is destroying us right now as it destroyed the Romans. That we have conquered the lands of inferior races is destroying us right now as it destroyed the Romans. We will swiftly be replaced by the grandchildren of inferior races.

          The tropical races are better adapted than the higher races to reproduce in an environment of female sexual autonomy, reproduce without family formation.

          When Christianity is restored, the Episcopalian Church should curiously resemble American Orthodoxy, Orthodoxy with American characteristics, and should be in communion with Russian Orthodoxy, but they should be and remain separate state religions, with American Orthodoxy answerable to the American Sovereign, and Russian Orthodoxy answerable to the Russian Czar.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          To be clear I would not go out of my way to get at this guy. For a state priest, he is pretty unobjectionable.

          The claim wasn’t that he is unobjectionable for a state priest. The claim was he is an open dissenter (more even, a dissenter employed by the institutions in an ideologist job). The guy is not a dissenter; he is a state priest.

          He’s also not a fake dissenter. He is not saying “hello, fellow dissenters – vote biden!” He is saying “hello, fellow regime members – let’s slow down the cultural revolution or we might lose the war with infidel China.”

      • jim says:

        Not all early Trump supporters are genuine Trump allies. Neocons are entryists or shills, who are now entering Trumpism as they entered Republicanism. He is an entryist. I know entryists.

        Neocons entered Republicanism to destroy it, and they are entering Trumpism to destroy it.

        He thinks that a drag queen performing sexual acts in public with a nine year old boy on the floor of Multnomah County Library is “Western tradition”, and the fact that every library, ever movie, every dance video, has been purged of every trace of the heterosexual courtship dance is also “Western tradition”

        He thinks that the fact that deplorables do not have freedom of speech nor freedom of association is “Western tradition”, and that any attempt to defend their rights is a violation of “Western tradition”. He is an enemy of actual Western Tradition.

        He thinks we should be cancelled, demonetized, and deplatformed, and that Trump attacking cancel culture is an attack on “Western tradition”

        I say this not because I have read him saying it, but because he has to believe that to believe that Globalism is the embodiment of all these good values.

        • The Cominator says:

          “I say this not because I have read him saying it, but he has to believe that to believe that Globalism is the embodiment of all these good values.”

          If that were true he would have been #Nevertrump, he was not #Nevertrump.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            It’sfair to take people who ever supported Trump more seriously, and especially those who did so early. But not all of them are our guys.

            Is Mattis our guy? Mattis lent credibility to Trump when it was needed, a real service. He was not #nevertrump. But in office, he sabotaged the attempt to withdraw from NATO and South Korea, promoting Cathedral policy with Cathedral justifications. And out of office, he tried to de-legitimize Trump controlling BLM riots. So, Mattis is ultimately a Cathedral loyalist, not a Trump loyalist.

            This guy is looking at BLM burning down the cities, the cultural revolution that has swept up all the corporations to impose Cathedral ideology on all W2 employees and corporate customers, and the impending election, and decided the most important issue of the day is winning a manufactured conflict with China. Controlling the left spiral is important because it would strengthen us against China, which strength is important to defend… what? He says Western tradition, but does not say that the left spiral is not Western tradition.

            His position could be seen as an attempt to back away from Trump to save his skin, assuming Biden will become president. It could also be seen as a typical neoconservative effort to promote perceived Cathedral interests, accepting the entire social agenda of the left in exchange for being allowed to blow stuff up. But he is certainly not an open dissident, as was claimed.

            • The Cominator says:

              Mattis was as far as I know politically neutral during the election, the closest thing he came to supporting Trumpism was him pointing out what madness Hillary’s no fly zone over Syria was (and he was probably sincere on this there are a few remnant of semi sane leftists who opposed Hillary and backed Trump for this reason… my inclination generally would be to show them mercy pending political reeducation but real reeducation not just putting them in a camp to starve).

              If you want a traitor who seemed to be /ourguy early and then turned out to be a traitor look at Sessions, he even seemed to be ideologically more /ourguy than most people.

              Yes traitors exist but you should not just assume someone on our side during the election is a traitor based on purple pilled ideology especially if they have to be a little purple pilled based on their employment. Its hard for a lot of people to take the full redpill… we should be understanding of that but merciless to those who side with the left in the war…

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                I’m not saying Mattis should be killed, just that the fact he supported Trump at some personal risk does not mean he ultimately opposed Cathedral ideology. It is hegemonic so most people internalize it, even people who are hurt by it and are instinctively suspicious of it. This is why I wrote in some previous post we should not be unduly hostile to people who are just not yet climbed high enough on an ideological ladder to “dark enlightenment.” I am not trying to show that hostility to this man, or anyone else.

                I am merely responding to a claim that I would call him a controlled opposition. I would not, because what he is saying is not really opposition. It’s lovely that he supported Trump, and if he does so again that is even better. But as an ideologist, he is very much still in the regime’s frame.

                “Also keep in mind his main audience… he is a guy who writes for publications read by Washington neocons.”

                Agreed, in fact, exactly my point with that paragraph. He may be a deep cover restorationist within the Cathedral. But he is not a deep cover Cathedralite within the restoration – because he is not within the restoration, nor is he trying to be. And if he is a deep cover restorationist within the Cathedral, his cover is pretty deep (of course, it would need to be).

            • The Cominator says:

              “This guy is looking at BLM burning down the cities, the cultural revolution that has swept up all the corporations to impose Cathedral ideology on all W2 employees and corporate customers, and the impending election, and decided the most important issue of the day is winning a manufactured conflict with China. Controlling the left spiral is important because it would strengthen us against China, which strength is important to defend… what? He says Western tradition, but does not say that the left spiral is not Western tradition.”

              Also keep in mind his main audience… he is a guy who writes for publications read by Washington neocons.

              He could well be pulling a hail fellow leftist neocons, I know your ideological sympathies are with the commie mobs but you know this country will be in no shape to fight a war that way. You need to vote Trump and tamp down leftism so we can win the future war with China.

  12. Niiiidriveevof says:

    For about two years I’ve seen a steady ramp up in anti-pedophilia talking points on the right and far-right.

    We could use a comprehensive post on the little girl pill.

    • jim says:

      Yes, we do need it, but it is less urgent.

      Being outraged at “pedophilia” is a safe evasion mechanism for our real rage, the real target of our rage being unspeakable, for most people unspeakable even to themselves.

      As I got older, the age gap got bigger, and no one ever gave me any flack for it. No one is genuinely upset by older men dating fertile age women. And when pre-fertile age girls give me sexual harassment, everyone smiles and thinks it is sweet and cute.

      The rage at Epstein is for recruiting cute young girls to be whores, not for banging cute young girls, but no one can say anything that might suggest disapproval of whores and recruiting whores.

      The problem is not that the people are outraged at the theoretical targets of their rage. They are not. They are outraged at gays and outraged at young girls losing their virginity. It is also a problem that we have laws that go after the theoretical targets of their rage, while Child Protective Services abducts children from Christian families and sells them to gays.

      • Jimbo says:

        “for our real rage, the real target of our rage being unspeakable, for most people unspeakable even to themselves.”

        What does this mean

  13. Frederick Algernon says:

    Jim, can I post a segment of Zeihan’s book wherein he asserts the issues that indicate an inevitable collapse of the Beijing controlled state? I would like to hear yours as well as others responses, but I want permission so you don’t think it is just anti-china spam.

    • jim says:

      Go right ahead. Let us discuss it.

      But I expect it is just the color revolution script: “Weak, weak, weak, weaker, weaker, weaker, falling, falling, falling. He has fallen!”. Which sometimes, often, leads to bloodless victory, and sometimes often, leads to incredibly bloody “civil” war, with Cathedral proxies attempting to genocide hostile population segments, as in Syria, where the Cathedral was arming and funding groups whose slogan was “Christians to Lebanon, Alawites to the grave”. Sometimes, often, as in Libya, the Cathedral cannot manufacture a sufficiently genocidal opposition, so, as in Libya, just bombs the country flat, but China is well prepared for the latter eventuality.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        I wish i could post the whole chapter for context as it is interesting and long, but it is too long, so i am going to bullet the sub-headings and quote one specific section. The book is The Accidental Super Power: the Next Generation of American Preeminence and the Coming Global Disorder by Peter Zeihan(2014). Chapter XIV: The China Wars:

        -Intro: Americans think China is the future of the world; they are wrong.

        -The Northern Militarists: brief history of the Han and the Yellow River Region.

        -The Central Traders: brief history of Shanghai and the Yangtze River System.

        -The Southern Secessionists: brief history of the southern region and its minorities.

        -…And the Rest: brief overview of the interior.

        -Dispelling Myths: discussion of China’s curious naval incompetence and the Han, Tang, Yuan, and Qing eras.

        -Japan: China’s Bogeyman: Japan’s role in history and culture of China.

        -The China We Know: 3 things America did to initiate the rise of China; eliminate Japan as a military threat, eliminate all other naval/invasion threats in the Pacific basin, & Bretton Woods access given to China.

        -3 Existential Crises that China Will Face (#2 is the one i will quote entire): The Financial System, Demography, & Dependency on America.

        -The New/Old China: China was the largest beneficiary of America’s Cold War strategy (Bretton Woods Agreement) and thus stands to lose the most when it is finally abandoned (said abandonment being the predicate of the whole book).

        -Reverberations of a Fallen Giant: the effects of a balkanized [read: historically normalized]China.

        “Problem Two: Demography. But let’s assume for a moment that China’s remarkably unstable financial system holds together a bit longer. Something even worse is just around the corner. China’s one-child policy is often held up as the pinnacle of what can happen when a government is willing to pair demographic concerns with a complete disregard for individual rights. In a few short years, strict enforcement slashed the birth rate, preventing an estimated 200 million to 400 million births and heading off the overpopulation problem that policy makers so feared. Now the success of that policy means the end of the Chinese system.
        There are many legitimate criticisms of one-child. Forced abortions, the ability to buy government approval to flaunt the policy, the concept that the government can choose who can reproduce when, a massive sex imbalance in a culture that prefers sons; all these and more have twisted Chinese culture in awkward and painful directions.
        But the real problem with one-child is that it worked. During the period from 1979-2003 when it was strictly enforced, the birth rate dropped by half. That slashed everything from health care to education to food costs, but it gutted the most recent generation. After three decades of the policy, there has been a European-style hollowing out of the younger segments of the population. This presents China with three unavoidable, and system killing, problems.
        First, China is aging far more quickly than it is getting rich. At the beginning of China’s international resurgence in 1990, the average Chinese citizen was only 24.9 years old, and the country boasted some 350 million citizens aged 15 to 29. It was this simple circumstance that allowed for China’s massive manufacturing boom in the 1990s and 2000s: China was the ultimate source of cheap labor and no other developing country could compete with the Chinese on price. Fast-forward to the present and, courtesy of one-child, the average Chinese is now 37.0, just a shade younger than Americans, who are currently 37.3 years old. The Chinese will pass the Americans in average age in 2019 and by 2030 will be 42.9 versus 39.6 for the Americans. The Chinese call it the 4:2:1 problem: 4 grandparents to 2 parents to 1 child. China is not yet wealthy enough to be able to try to afford a pension system like the advanced democracies, which places the onus of caring for the elderly on their descendants, of whom there are precious few. In terms of relative numbers, the financial cost of one-child is more than double the cost that the Americans face from the Boomer retirement, and the Americans already have a social security system in place to absorb some of the cost. The burden of having to financially support their elderly has a catastrophic impact on young workers’ professional and financial development, reducing educational opportunities, gutting consumption, and all but making savings impossible. In China’s specific situation, not only will this factor alone freeze in place China’s efforts to switch its economy from exports to internal consumption and stymie its efforts to move up the value added-added scale, but it will also prevent the sort of savings that makes the force-fed-finance model [problem #1] possible in the first place.
        Second, China will never be able to move away from its current export-driven model. Recall what roles each age group carries out in society from an economic point of view: Young workers do the consuming that generates economic growth. The last baby boom that China experienced was in the 1980s just as one-child was picking up, and China has suffered from an intentional baby bust ever since. Those boom babies are now aged 25 to 29 and are a very visible bulge in China’s [demographic] pyramid. It may be only a 5 year increment, but it represents about 125 million people. This group’s consumption is the primary reason why China appears to be succeeding somewhat in its current efforts to switch from an export-led to consumption-led economy. But, again courtesy of one-child, their successors are an ever smaller population cohorts. So congratulations are due to China for having impressive consumption growth in recent years, but that consumption growth has never beat out investment/loan-driven activity, and now it is nearly played out.
        Third, so too is the Chinese development model. Simple aging has already reduced China’s pool of young, mobile workers by over 40 million during the past decade. And because of the baby bust, that decline is about to accelerate greatly. Put simply, China has run out of surplus labor; its presence on the low-cost side of global manufacturing has run its course. This is already reflected in Chinese labor costs, which have sextupled since 2002. Looking forward just 25 years [to 2039], China faces a far darker financial future than Europe and a far darker demographic future than Japan.
        I normally caution people I speak with about drawing forward linear trends, for example, the idea that China, or before it Japan or the Soviet Union, will soon rule the world. But demography is different.Young workers simply do not magically appear. They have to be born and raised. It takes 20.75 years and to grow a 20 year old. Changing a demography requires a broad-scale shifting of cultural and economic trends, and then holding the change for decades. Simply abolishing one-child is only one step in the process. China would then need to encourage the young workers who are crammed into apartment housing to produce multiple children while still working and taking care of their parents and grandparents. It would have to build out an entirely new series of social services in health and child care whose absence provided the spare capital that helped make China’s manufacturing boom possible.
        Even if we assume that China can pull this off and an immediate abolition of the one-child policy leads to an immediate doubling of birth rates, which would be unprecedented in human history, it would still be 2 decades before China would begin to benefit from an expansion of the labor pool in any significant manner. That’s 2 decades during which the rest of the Chinese population would still be aging towards retirement. 2 decades during which China won’t have much internal consumption going on. 2 decades during which the low-cost, export-led model would still not work.” (Pages 313-318)

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Every high IQ country is dying of demography. America apparently isn’t dying because it’s replacing its declining population of white with mestizos who in turn mongrelize part of the remaining white population. Zeihan is a namefag, so he has to assume one person is as good as any other, but the reality will be that America’s growing population is even more of a burden than the corresponding decline that would be happening without immigration.

          Also as a namefag he must assume that low fertility is a consequence of wealth rather a a consequence of policy (while, like other namefags, bizarrely admitting that the Chinese suppressed their birth rate by policy while they were dirt poor), and therefore must ignore the much greater probability that China than America will fix this particular problem by policy.

          • Dave says:

            Money is only pieces of paper, and debt is the promise of future delivery of such pieces of paper. Our $26 trillion national debt is a trifle to be defaulted or hyperinflated away, vastly less important than the fact that half of rural white kids have daddies in prison. Rural whites are reproducing dysgenically while urban whites are hardly reproducing at all.

        • jim says:

          “Existential crises”:
          1. China’s financial system is quite robust. The state and quasi state entities owe too much money, but so do US state and quasi state entities. Their private debt situation is much better than ours.

          2. The baby bust problem is real, and it is not just policy. The one child policy is being abandoned, but the TFR continues to fall catastrophically. As I am fond of saying, whites and east Asians cannot reproduce except in an environment where the marriage sacrament is enforced. But that is not going to destroy China any time soon. It is going to bite in thirty five years, when the kids born before the one child policy start to retire. By that time, America as we know it will not be around any longer, while China as we know it will still be around, but starting to run into demographic headwinds.

          3. China is not dependent on America. It is dependent on white creativity, which increasingly manifests as expat creativity, as the smart people are being purged.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            I’m not convinced OCP actually did anything. I have met Chinese (random people, not elites) who came from three child families. Doesn’t seem to have been strictly enforced. What probably happened is the CCP imposed feminism, which hits East Asians hard at lower doses than whites, and China’s birthrate collapsed incidentally to the OCP for much the same reasons that low-income India’s birth rate has recently collapsed.

            The Chinese appear able and willing to reimpose marriage through ordinary policy changes if it serves the interests of the state, and are taking Cathedral flak for taking the first steps in that direction. America, on the other hand, doesn’t have a means to reverse feminism short of a full restoration. So the odds are more in favor of China.

            • ten says:

              I have never heard of someone being explicitly punished for having more than one child, but your prospects for getting anywhere in the party or getting party favors was greatly diminished.

              Thus it not only collapsed fertility, but did so differentially, where party loyalists and elites were hit hardest.

              So a massive fuckup on ccps part.

              Didn’t see a lot of feminism in chinese women. Did see “chinese women have a cash register where other women have a heart”. Boyfriends (or boyfriends fathers) are expected to buy their girlfriends cars and all manner of expensive signs of affection and don’t even get to pop them for it, a girl scamming a boy for five years before agreeing to a love- and lustless marriage after he has proven to be a dedicated beta buck is standard, and the chinese guys with lots of money are greatly outraged and annoyed that they are expected to provide this only to get a shot at later pussy, while some white punk ass bitch expat like myself isn’t even expected to pay for dinner and is snuck into the apartment complex under highest OPSEC for popping.

              I don’t know what it is, but it isn’t exactly feminism. Chinese women have shit tested their men into oblivion.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Sounds like E Asian men aren’t capable of individually dominating their women or presenting themselves as physically attractive (they have a genetic disadvantage against whites but it isn’t solely that).

                They have relied more on state power to enforce marriage throughout history, so they are more susceptible to moderate doses of feminism. Hence Japan, which has 1950s sexual morality, has a birth rate similar to Germany, while Korea, which is rapidly approaching American sexual morality, has a TFR below 1.0.

                • jim says:

                  All higher races are maladapted to an environment where females have sexual choice, but Asian men handle it worse.

                  It is difficult for a pure blooded Asian to perform game.

  14. Not Tom says:

    He actually went and said the words: “Delay the Election”.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1288818160389558273

    I don’t know what yet, or from whom, but something big must be coming.

    • Pooch says:

      Eh I think he’s just throwing it out there in an attempt to get the Dems to back off somewhat on mail voting.

      • Not Tom says:

        That’s definitely possible. Hasn’t stopped every organ of the left from chimping out.

        However he meant it, it’s out there now and that means escalation, because the left is no longer capable of de-escalation.

      • jim says:

        He knows it will not get the Dems to back off.

        Chimp out.

        Regardless of his intentions, the effect is going to be a contested election, and to legitimize the necessary measures that he must take in a contested election. And I am pretty sure that Trump knows what he is doing. If that is likely to be the effect, it is the intended effect.

        • Stilicho says:

          The election is contested. What then? History turns on whether Trump has the stones and the praetorian support to make a clean break with the constitution like Sulla did or whether, at the last second, he can’t summon the courage to seize power. It’s a very risky situation for all involved. If Trump loses and doesn’t dare to seize power anyway, the left is going to go on a rampage of revenge against Trump personally, his family, and his supporters.

          • jim says:

            Sulla restored the Republican constitution, by flagrantly unconstitutional means. As a result, failed.

            Augustus “restored” the Republican constitution, but somehow all the Republican content quietly drained out of the constitution, with no one quite noticing, least of all Augustus, or if they noticed, not saying anything.

            Augustus is the correct path for Trump, Sulla is the wrong path.

            • Contaminated NEET says:

              Trump is a boomer. He doesn’t have the vision or the balls for that. The Left will tear him limb from limb, no matter how the election goes, and he’ll go to his execution with a confused look on his face, babbling about how much he loves Blacks,

              • Karl says:

                Unlikely. Have not yet seen Trump confused or heard him bubbling.

                Of course, his enemies want to kill him as soon as they can, but they’ll have to drug him to make him look confused and babble.

        • Pooch says:

          What are the necessary measures?

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      I got that feeling when I saw it as well. Maybe Durham/DOJ related?

  15. BC says:

    So Biden’s handlers are desperately trying to pull back from supporting Antaifa. The order to switch all the talking points went out last night.

  16. Not Tom says:

    Interesting look at how the State Department manufactures propaganda, with strong parallels to the subversion of the Obama-era Tea Party movement:

    https://www.state.gov/communist-china-and-the-free-worlds-future/

    The recipe appears to be as follows:

    1. Identify minor but legitimate grievances: China’s hand in the COVID-19 outbreak, dishonest trade practices, industrial espionage.

    2. Mix with illegitimate or manufactured grievances to create a category: suppression of Hong Kong “democracy”, oppression of the poor defenseless Uyghurs and Kazakhs, building up their own military, miscellaneous “human rights violations”, Xi is a terrible tyrant… all of this becomes “The CCP”.

    3. Exclude the most significant grievances affecting normal Americans that the same US State Department had a strong hand in: immigration, offshoring, deindustrialization. These cannot easily be attracted to [the CCP], therefore they don’t exist.

    4. Mix with stale boomer memes (“muh communism”) to hijack the tradcuck hindbrain and force it into us-vs-them fight-or-flight mode. Imply that the new external enemy is a genuine enemy seeking our destruction rather than merely a rival nation pursuing its own interests which occasionally – okay, often – conflict with ours; subtly imply that other nations should only exist to serve de jure American interests, which are de facto State Department interests.

    5. Declare that “engagement” (Westphalian sovereignty) is no longer an option and that the only solution is “regime change” (color revolution).

    6. Watch as hordes of tradcucks whip themselves into a frenzy, convince themselves that all of their problems were actually caused by outside agitators (1950s communism was Russia’s fault, 2020s communism is China’s fault), and practically demand that we go to war in order to complete the color revolution script.

    They’re very good at this game. Shitlibs are easy to propagandize with outrageous lies, just keep broadcasting until they believe it, but it takes subtler measures to make Arlington their bitch. They have to take all that natural aggression and skepticism and redirect it to an outside party, preferably one that they already don’t like or that threatens their tenuous hold on power. They have to bargain a little, concede some strategically unimportant rhetorical ground (“okay fine, communism is bad”) in order to gain something better (“don’t you think China’s government should be… friendlier?”). It’s as clever as it is sickening.

    I’d say that Trump should fire Pompeo, but I doubt there’s anyone on Planet Earth he could hire to run the State Department as anything other than what it already is. I’ll just have to hope that Trump isn’t swallowing this swill himself, that he lets the State Department lackeys run their mouths off but will stick to his policy of economic war with China (which the US can still win) and studiously avoids hot war or color revolution (which the US can’t possibly win).

    • The Cominator says:

      I never understood why he didn’t like Tillerson. Tillerson did what a right wing secretary of state should do, fire everyone there.

      Now of course Pompeo is a snake neocon who Trump should not have around (and I don’t know why he likes him) but otoh cold war with China was pretty inevitable after this covid bullshit. They acted in very bad faith to help the Democrats win the election and it should be arranged that Xi should die for that.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      And they say the Left can’t meme.

    • Mike says:

      In sum, this is why Nixon was so fucking awesome. Him and Kissinger cucked the entire state department for multiple years.

    • Fred says:

      de jure American interests

      At the risk of pointing out the obvious (and/or nitpicking), there are no “American” interests, just redgov and bluegov interests.

      The time of there being “national interests” is long since over: things that are good for bluegov supporters are bad for redgov supporters, and vice-versa (the fact that social status is zero-sum will keep it like this, I suspect).

      So it’s imprecise at best (more like misleading) to talk of “national” or “American” interests (and frankly, every other country is in the same boat) – when a person writes about “American interests”, the first thing I think to myself is, do they mean “redgov interests” or “bluegov interests”?

      • Not Tom says:

        That’s exactly why I chose to be specific on said point. What is implied or even explicitly stated to be American national interests are really just part of the State Department’s roster of pet projects.

        In theory there may also be “redgov interests” but all they really do is snatch whatever crumbs the blues deign to toss at them. No one of import talks about redgov interests except in dismissive or derogatory terms.

        The phenomenon is exemplified by these two paragraphs:

        What do the American people have to show now 50 years on from engagement with China?

        Did the theories of our leaders that proposed a Chinese evolution towards freedom and democracy prove to be true?

        Here, within the span of just two sentences, the interests of “the American people” are associated with “our leaders”, as if the leaders were ever acting in the interests of the people. We are to believe that our leaders did everything for us, but their theories unfortunately proved incorrect, which is a half-truth. Their theories were incorrect, but only because it turned out to weaken rather than strengthen their cohesion and geopolitical strength.

        The American people never had any role in this drama, but we must believe the lie in order to be persuaded that now they’ve fixed their theories, and therefore the American people will benefit because the State Department always acts in their interests, so we should all just shut up and let them handle this.

  17. David 'The Diversity Mastermind' Lammey says:

    I wonder how far HRH is willing to ride the holiness spiral to avoid a trunkin’ from sjwitch. As far as St George of the 6 Felonies would tnb to avoid arrest!!;

    • James says:

      “St George of the 6 Felonies”

      Oh man, it’s going to be hard not to crimespeak this one for the next couple of weeks.

  18. Eli says:

    Looks like the US is about to lose its only remaining leading edge silicon chip manufacturing base. Intel is collapsing from inclusion, diversity, and the internal SJWs.

    https://www.eetimes.com/intel-claims-workforce-diversity-milestone/ (from 2008)

    https://www.anandtech.com/show/15926/intel-7nm-delayed-by-6-months-company-to-take-pragmatic-approach-in-using-3rd-party-fabs

    I think the way it happened was not so much for the loss of the technical talent (which Intel, despite diversity, still had aplenty), but because its business division was inundated with women and NAMs, stifling the agile pursuit of new foundry customers and causing the failure to enter the mobile market (Atom didn’t do well, and mostly because no good people were put at the helm of that program, I believe). As new tech nodes required ever more ballooning investments, Intel was left in precarious state. That’s my opinion.

    If only Intel leveraged its relationship with MS to push into mobile, things might have been better for Intel this year. But diversity and inclusion made such coordination un-possible.

    • jim says:

      If things resembled what I saw happening in Silicon Valley, Intel’s best talents were eased out, encouraged to resign, or fired, for mansplaining to engineerettes. Human resources will report, accurately enough, that anyone smarter than average, but insufficiently high status as women view status, is likely to result in a rape or sexual harassment lawsuit – though they will blame his toxic masculinity, not the fact that he is a smart guy is trying to explain something difficult to a woman, whose pussy sees it as a dominance move, and reacts by firing off a shit test. If you pass the shit test, the woman will love you explaining things to her, but HR has loaded the dice so that you are likely to fail it, whereupon she will perceive any attempt to explain to her as you trying to sneakily shove your dick up her pussy while she is not looking, and will rapidly come to believe that what she feels is what in fact happened.

      It is impossible to have a sexually mixed organization that deals with intellectually difficult problems, because sex gets in the way. So if you insist on sexual mixing, the team is just going to stop dealing with intellectually difficult problems.

      • Karl says:

        Nah, it is possible to have a sexually mixed organization that deals with intellectually difficult problems. You just have to ensure that only the men deal with the intellectually difficult problems. If the women have clearly subordinate roles, like secretaries, and the men never have to explain anything difficult to the women, the organization can work.

        Subordinate women are a minor problem, women of equal rank or women of higher rank cause huge problems, at least if they are of fertige age. I suspect that the situation is better with post-menopausal women.

      • Sam says:

        Intel in Silicon Valley had a purge in 2018/9. The official explanation was cost cutting and it involved encouraging the older (and hence white, male and competent) to leave.

      • simplyconnected says:

        Don’t know the chip industry well, but perhaps that’s why Jim Keller left shortly after joining Intel.
        I look at Jim Keller and I see all the signs of him being our guy. If a smart guy like him leaves shortly after joining…

        • Eli says:

          I don’t know about Jim Keller’s political and social views, but he’s a true genius. He, Bannon, and a bunch of other guys created PWRficient, which I had the privilege to play with a decade+ ago. It beat the pants out of whatever Freescale had in the works at the time (MPC8641D).

          I was surprised to learn that he left Intel, at the time I learned it. But in light of recent developments, it all makes sense.

          I’m sad that the US is turning into shithole, slowly but surely.

    • Fred says:

      Intel was the last non-fabless chip designer in the world (except for maybe Samsung and a few less-than-cutting edge firms), so I guess it was bound to happen eventually.

      The shift to mobile and low-power computing has boned the x86 architecture anyway; time to put it out to pasture. (I wonder: how much of Intel’s R&D bill is just working around the limitations of x86 architecture?)

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Intel made a strategic error when they first acquired the top of the line StrongArm from Digital, then closed the project down and, presumably, sent the workers to the Itanium mines. They could easily have been leaders in the mobile processor market too.

        I consider it a classic example of Christensen’s disruption theory: inside the big firms, the risk is that the small but critical projects get starved out.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Regarding fabs, I’m not so certain it’s a huge disadvantage to be late, except for reasons of prestige and psychology. The bell tolls for CMOS and it’s getting ever more expensive and difficult to eke out small gains. (Well, I haven’t felt the need to upgrade for several years now. Perhaps the datacenter people have differing opinions.)

  19. BTW if someone is fishing for stuff to redpill normie acquaintances, remember Matt Taibi, who was a yuuge lib journalist in the Bush era? Theoretically he still is, but he is writing similar things now that are being discussed here, such as yes, there is a coup against Trump, https://taibbi.substack.com/p/were-in-a-permanent-coup, yes it is a color revolution kind of thing: https://taibbi.substack.com/p/the-color-revolutions-come-home

    Seriously, for anyone over 30-35 who remembers how the libs celebrated Taibbi around the 2008 recession or so (Reddit basically worshipped him), should be a huge eye-opener.

    From my, our, angle, I have no idea what Taibbi is doing. He did not defect from liberalism as such. Perhaps he is one of the naive types who internalized liberalism as his own fixed principles and and not an ever changing spiral / consensus. Anyway, his substack articles are interesting. If someone from the other side of the “aisle” notices all these things, that really proves we are not just being paranoid.

    • James says:

      Normies who are able to comprehend this kind of thoughtcrime aren’t normies past the age of 30 or so, and nobody under 30 will have the context for piecing it together. Interesting case study of Cthulhu swimming left, but in my opinion that’s all it is.

    • acrrdu says:

      Matt Taibbi never was a shitlib. He’s in it for the money. Always has been. I realised this when his Russian-era comments came out.

      ”You know I’m not PC. But there’s a limit. You go too far. You’re always trying to force Masha and Sveta under the table to give you blow jobs. It’s not funny. They don’t think it’s funny,” Kara complained.

      ”But . . . it is funny,” Matt said.

      We have been pretty rough on our girls. We’d ask our Russian staff to flash their asses or breasts for us. We’d tell them that if they wanted to keep their jobs, they’d have to perform unprotected anal sex with us. Nearly every day, we asked our female staff if they approved of anal sex. That was a fixation of ours. “Can I fuck you in the ass? Huh? I mean, without a rubber? Is that okay?” It was all part of the fun. Fun that Kara was no part of.

      — Matt Taibbi

      Taibbi said one of her pieces “oozed such obvious bitterness and desperation that it might as well have been a perpetually unanswered personal ad in the back of Sagging Breast Weekly.”

      “The fact is,” Taibbi continued, “Russian women — with their tight skirts, blow job-ready lips, and swinging, meaty chests — scare the hell out of Western women,” who are trying to “reassure themselves that … they still measure up.”

      — Matt Taibbi

      https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/gulmuc/how_do_you_guys_listen_to_matt_taibbi/

      This is all from his book (with Mark Ames) The eXile

      There is NO WAY anyone with that level of understanding is a worshipper of Moloch. He’s not a Gnon-worshipper though. His god is Mammon.

  20. INDY says:

    I like the new comment format.

  21. Oliver Cromwell says:

    Yarvin has run out of money and is not to be trusted.

    • Stilicho says:

      Evidence?

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        I assert there isn’t any evidence. Yet. I’m following Grey Mirror, as are others. It isn’t terribly edgy by JB standards, but it is far from milquetoast. His Bolshevik piece was very interesting. His Open Letter to Graham was interesting. We shall see where it goes. Yarvin has chosen a difficult, probably impossible, task: to openly state Where We Are. He will probably spend many words on How We Got Here. From my point of view, the true purity test will be whether he dares to state Where We Must Go and, even more dangerously, How We Get There. Jim has done the first 2 completely and the 3rd sufficiently. To my understanding, he has not done the Fourth and Final. This is neither complaint nor critique; that way lies sedition, in a technical sense. It remains to be seen who will stand up and declare the Fourth and Final. I mostly agree that to namefag is to accept destruction at the hands of the under-Cathedral, but I firmly believe that no Restoration will be lead by either anonymous or pseudonymous men, so, as Jim has pointed out to me, harshly if necessarily, it is simply a question of timing.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          He’s preaching passivism on two dubious grounds. The first is that any holiness spiral is equivalent to any other, the second that revolutionaries can never beat a stable government.

          1. One holiness spiral is not the same as any other. Yes, social life will always contain politics, and politics will always contain some social mechanics of the holiness spiral, but not necessarily politics that aims on exterminating you. Naziism was a holiness spiral, but did not aim on exterminating Germans.

          2. Progressivism is far from stable and entering a moment of extreme danger. It is lunging to wipe out white men, the security services, etc. far too early on the demographic curve. The people who stand to lose from this still outnumber those who stand to gain and by far outnumber them among the security forces. At the same time Progressivism courts civil war with its own powerful security forces, Progressivism is pushing for external war with an increasingly strong China. Progressivism is at serious risk of launching a failed self-coup, a failed external war, or both simultaneously.

          Moldbug is 98% correct and the other 2% is arsenic in your tea.

          • jim says:

            All the security forces need now is the doctrine that the highest duty of the warrior is to protect the public, keep order, and to obey the commander in chief, and that this higher duty trumps all the various odds and ends, including the judiciary, restraining them from protecting themselves and the public.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Can you elaborate on your assertion of different levels of holiness spiraling? Your given example is poor because Nazism did get a bunch of Germans killed, did get a destructively large number of strong German men killed, and did get real Nazis exterminated. Further still, it elevated Jewry to de facto priestly status, assured the ascent of communism directly and indirectly, and rendered up Europe to neo-protestant domination.

            I think you don’t like Yarvin, and are rejiggering the “evidence” to fit your conclusions. As I stated before, the proof is going to be in the pudding. A man needing to feed his family and being forced to use everything at his disposal is not some kind of sin, and the more you harp on it the more you sound like some jealous, childless faggot complaining about an apple cart you don’t have access to.

            • The Cominator says:

              Yarvin still says some interesting things but hes being a bit strange not saying a word in Trump’s favor (and a few against) at least pretending to be a corona Karen…

              Hes worth reading still but hes not worth trusting explicitly. I cannot say what his motive is.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              That’s kinda like saying ‘its the fault of sexism that men get meetooed; if my sinful neighbors werent sexist, they wouldnt get purged by me’.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              “Can you elaborate on your assertion of different levels of holiness spiraling? Your given example is poor because Nazism did get a bunch of Germans killed, did get a destructively large number of strong German men killed, and did get real Nazis exterminated. Further still, it elevated Jewry to de facto priestly status, assured the ascent of communism directly and indirectly, and rendered up Europe to neo-protestant domination.”

              Missing the point. Naziism wasn’t a spiral to prove holiness by losing WWII as quickly as possible. Prog is a spiral to prove holiness by destroy capable people as quickly as possible. If the Nazis had won WWII, their state design plan would have been stable for a long time, promoting the best and most useful Germans and growing the stock of good and useful Germans. If Prog wins, it will kill everyone who protects the state and pay for the state, and in doing so kill itself. In other words Naziism died of its failures while Prog will die of its successes.

              Yarvin’s Cope Pill is (and always has been) that if we just let the left take all power it will eventually become a formalist monarch and start acting like a formalist monarch. That isn’t how it works. Even without outside opposition, the holiness spiral will continue internally, the revolution devouring its children until we reach maximum holiness and everyone is dead, or there is a Napoleon or a Cromwell. Yarvin never fully grasped the theory of the holiness spiral nor did he understand its life cycle, although he fumbled towards such an understanding in only a million times as many words as jim’s clear and correct treatment.

              “I think you don’t like Yarvin, and are rejiggering the “evidence” to fit your conclusions. As I stated before, the proof is going to be in the pudding. A man needing to feed his family and being forced to use everything at his disposal is not some kind of sin, and the more you harp on it the more you sound like some jealous, childless faggot complaining about an apple cart you don’t have access to.”

              lmao dude. Yarvin’s predicament is ludicrous and no sane person would be jealous of it. Either he should have cloaked properly or he should have retired somewhere outside the Prog hegemony where his money would have lasted and he could have continued to write freely. Instead he decided to become a namefag dissident in San Francisco on a limited stock of capital. Anyway, the fact he’s retarded doesn’t mean I begrudge him trying to survive, and the fact his treatment is incomplete, misleading, and possibly bought today doesn’t mean he wasn’t radical in 2009.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                I disagree about Nazism. I agree with Razorfist’s assessment that both Mussolini and Hitler et al were socialists, thus their actions and positions were the result of a holiness spiral. Very similar to Progressivists, Nazis built a very unstable political machine that ran on violently punishing the Evil and continually minimizing who could be Good. Regardless, I was hoping you would elaborate on the potential degrees of spiraling; from my point of view, the only variation is pace. All holiness spirals culminate in violent halt or self destruction.

                I guess we should agree to disagree on Yarvin because we seem to be operating from non-complimentary positions of purpose. I maintain my original assertion regarding the 4 points. In an effort to clarify my perspective of your perspective, what should Yarvin do in his current position?

                I guess I am just a kind of broken record on this subject, but I feel a duty to UR, as well I see no advantage to punching right. Even if you esteem grey mirror as Left, I don’t see the value in deriding it, until Yarvin shows himself to be an enemy. At that point, weapons free. Kind of tangential, but I bet he reads JB.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “I disagree about Nazism. I agree with Razorfist’s assessment that both Mussolini and Hitler et al were socialists, thus their actions and positions were the result of a holiness spiral. Very similar to Progressivists, Nazis built a very unstable political machine that ran on violently punishing the Evil and continually minimizing who could be Good. Regardless, I was hoping you would elaborate on the potential degrees of spiraling; from my point of view, the only variation is pace. All holiness spirals culminate in violent halt or self destruction.”

                  I agreed Naziism was a religion with its own inherent holiness spiral. The Nazi Party rode this spiral to an electoral victory, then almost immediately imposed government controls on holiness. It came to a head in the Night of the Long Knives which was Hitler becoming his own Cromwell. As an operator the man was a genius. All religions spiral, but they spiral at different speeds based on the strength and quality of the controls placed on spiraling.

                  That wasn’t my point, though, which was rather that the objects of the Nazi spiral were positive: strengthen, grow, increase the cohesion of the useful in-group. Naziism was an inherently more functional religion than Prog, which proposes to win power by destroying everything. Without any controls on spiraling, Naziism may have developed its own brand of Prog, but Naziism itself simply wasn’t threatening to the interests of most people who lived under it, either individually or collectively. The system was inherently stable. Prog is inherently unstable because it threatens everyone’s collective interests and the individual interests of the people it relies on most for support.

                  “I guess we should agree to disagree on Yarvin because we seem to be operating from non-complimentary positions of purpose. I maintain my original assertion regarding the 4 points.”

                  Obviously I do not agree with you and I explain why. If you won’t even respond I will not agree to give your view the same respect I give my own.

                  “In an effort to clarify my perspective of your perspective, what should Yarvin do in his current position?”

                  Not start from here? I don’t know how much money he has left, what kind of pressures he is under, or even what his goals are.

                  “I guess I am just a kind of broken record on this subject, but I feel a duty to UR, as well I see no advantage to punching right. Even if you esteem grey mirror as Left, I don’t see the value in deriding it, until Yarvin shows himself to be an enemy. At that point, weapons free. Kind of tangential, but I bet he reads JB.”

                  Don’t adopt duties towards people you don’t know and have never promised you anything. One reason UR was so successful is that it is entertaining; Yarvin talks directly to the reader rather than concisely stating the ideas as here. That builds all sort of false personal feelings. Mein Kampf does something similar. Yarvin is not your friend. He is some guy pursuing his own interests. Trust people when they prove themselves trustworthy, or on balance you have no better course, not just in the absence of iron proof of their treason.

                • jim says:

                  > > “In an effort to clarify my perspective of your perspective, what should Yarvin do in his current position?”

                  > Not start from here?

                  If I was in Yarvin’s shoes … I considerably prefer to be in my shoes.
                  Namefags always lie. It is emasculating.

                  He should have done his project the way Satoshi did his project.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Okay, now I’m starting to see why Olly hates Moldbug/Yarvin so much; he’s on a “Nazis were really great, everything about it was positive, the bad stuff that happened to Germany was either due to incorrect implementation or external actors” tack. Whereas Moldbug never once took this position, he subtly implied that maybe we haven’t been told the whole truth on WWII, but that the Nazi record still speaks for itself: it was one of the shortest-lived regimes in history and would have burned itself out due to its socialism, expansionism and rampant faggotry (that last one is my addition) even if it hadn’t been defeated so quickly decisively. Nazism was tried and failed; get over it already.

                  “Do the opposite of what progs do, say the opposite of what they say and believe the opposite of what they believe” isn’t the basis for a sound ideology. Holocaustianity is corrosive, but that doesn’t mean Nazism was good for Germany. And Moldbug’s main thrust has always been that when there are two opposing narratives, it’s a good bet that they’re both full of lies. Memetic sovereignty means evaluating the truth of individual claims, rather than picking a side.

                • jim says:

                  It was not enemy action that caused hunger in Germany. The Greeks were Nazis, until Hitler grabbed all their food. That was a Nazi versus Nazi conflict. Hitler could not feed his conquests, and very soon could not feed his people. The government set low prices for farm production, and mysteriously and unexpectedly the money that they paid the farmers was unable to buy much, soon followed by mysterious unexpected crop failures.

                  The trouble with socialism is that you swiftly run out of other people’s money, and Hitler was running out of other people’s money when the war started, while the English government did not run out of other people’s money till the end of the war, though they continued socialism to 1949, and everything went to shit in the period between the end of the war to 1949.

                  Nazism failed internally – it was already showing the problems of socialism when the war began, while England did not show the problems of socialism till the war was ending, and the US never showed the problems of socialism, because we ditched socialism and most of the New Deal when the war ended.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I’m not going to reply to the substance of that post, because it would be to accept the reframing of my suspicion of Yarvin as all about Nazis. It is not about Nazis. I used them as an example of a holiness spiral that is less harmful than Prog, which was itself only one of the prongs on which I attacked Yarvin.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The other “prongs” were even thinner on substance, so I’m not sure where that leaves the discussion on Yarvin.

                  Maybe I’m jumping to conclusions, but the fact that you chose such a specific and disputed example on which to arraign him makes me think that the animus is more ideological than situational. I mean why, of all the examples you could have chosen, would you have picked Nazism, a topic on which the old Moldbug has been absolutely 100% with the new Yarvin, and on which even the more black-pilled reactionaries tend to agree?

                  Nazism is a wignat issue. “Socialism is fine as long as it’s masculine and white”.

                • Not Tom says:

                  should have said “100% consistent” above.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  You’re ignoring the substance of my post, trying to socially disqualify me for using the word “Nazi” too many times regardless of the significance or intent of the use, and thereby imply to less attentive readers that I must be wrong about whatever I was actually writing about.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You’re ignoring the substance of my post, trying to socially disqualify me for using the word “Nazi” too many times regardless of the significance or intent of the use

                  Then what was the substance? You still haven’t done anything to correct the characterization you consider invalid.

                  You not only ignored but misrepresented the substance of my earlier reply. I chose not to whine about it, but since we’re apparently doing this: my point was that (in my view, obviously) you’ve fallen into the trap of picking a side in the Commies vs. Nazis/Fascists debate, and if that is the case, then Moldbug grates at you because he has always held the position that both sides were stupid and evil, just as both sides of the Republican-Democrat slap-fight are stupid and evil (Republicans being more stupid and less evil but still possessing both in good measure).

                  It never had anything to do with how many times you said the word Nazi or Hitler, it’s the fact that, based on your recent comments, I think Moldbug would call you a dupe for allowing leftist anti-fascism to get under your skin and bait you into identifying with the fascists, and you know that and it annoys you.

                  I’ll be accused of psychologizing so I’ll state again that this is my impression and my inference, feel free to correct it by explaining why else this particular topic is relevant to Moldbug/Yarvin now when he has never changed any of his positions on the topic.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Then what was the substance? You still haven’t done anything to correct the characterization you consider invalid.”

                  I am not going to have an argument with you about whether I am a Nazi. I do not care if you think I am a Nazi. If you want to disqualify people for being Nazis (regardless where I am one or not) you are in the wrong place.

                  “You not only ignored but misrepresented the substance of my earlier reply. I chose not to whine about it, but since we’re apparently doing this: my point was that (in my view, obviously) you’ve fallen into the trap of picking a side in the Commies vs. Nazis/Fascists debate, and if that is the case, then Moldbug grates at you because he has always held the position that both sides were stupid and evil, just as both sides of the Republican-Democrat slap-fight are stupid and evil (Republicans being more stupid and less evil but still possessing both in good measure).”

                  Right, you are trying to psychoanalyse me, telling me what’s in my own head, which explication is not actually aimed at me, but is aimed at disqualifying me in the minds of readers. A leftist attack style, with a leftist aim (“Nazis are bad”).

                  “It never had anything to do with how many times you said the word Nazi or Hitler, it’s the fact that, based on your recent comments, I think Moldbug would call you a dupe for allowing leftist anti-fascism to get under your skin and bait you into identifying with the fascists, and you know that and it annoys you.

                  “I’ll be accused of psychologizing so I’ll state again that this is my impression and my inference, feel free to correct it by explaining why else this particular topic is relevant to Moldbug/Yarvin now when he has never changed any of his positions on the topic.”

                  Anyone who is opposed to leftism should not see fascists and Nazis are toxic, since their whole reason for being was anti-leftism. At most, one could say they did not correctly understand the problem or committed tactical errors. You, like a leftist, are reacting to mere mention of them as if they are Satan, and anyone who mentions them (regardless of context or intent) is a worshipper of Satan.

                • jim says:

                  We should actively signal that we don’t see fascism and Nazism as toxic, but hard to do so without implicitly endorsing their socialism, which Franco backed off from after running out of other people’s money, but Hitler could not back off from because in the middle of total war, and probably would have failed to back off from even if he had not been.

                  Seems to me that you, Oliver Cromwell, did a good job of signalling that Nazis and fascists are not toxic, without endorsing their disastrous socialism. Franco was a good guy, after he wised up about socialism. Pinochet was the greatest, I want a Pinochet! I want Trump’s national capitalism, and I want Pinochet’s depoliticized economy! Capitalists should not only not have priests inflicted on them, but should be actively prevented from getting into the priesting business.

                  Not Tom, on the other hand, was actively signalling “Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler”. That is submission to the frame of our enemies.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I agree that fascists and Nazis endorsed socialism to greater or lesser extents, and this should be opposed.

                  The Nazis equivocated on this point, however, as they also clearly endorsed aristocratism and Darwinism.

                  In the end, their socialism seems to have been, “a fair deal for the less capable people who are nonetheless loyal and provide some value to the state.”

                  They also had a central mythology that WWI was lost due to hunger among the general population enabling revolution by professional revolutionary elites (the “stab in the back” theory). They were very worried about this happening again, not just on ideological grounds, but also on purely practical grounds, and this seems to have motivated much of their food policy with the occupied territories.

                  This is not to fully excuse them. They imposed price controls on food, and this was devastating. They carried out land reform in the middle of a war and killed many people could have worked that land, likewise.

                  But it’s hard to find anything that they did that has not been distorted out of all recognition to appear evil beyond any reason, and that’s precisely because they were so effective at bringing destruction to their leftist enemies.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Putting all forces into taking

                  1) Suez

                  2) Gibraltar

                  3) Concentrating wolf packs on the Cape of Good Health

                  Would likely have caused the fall of Churchill’s government and Anthony Eden then likely would have sued for peace.

                • BC says:

                  Sure there was. Britain was on the edge of losing its capacity to prevent a German landing, and was on the brink of defeat in the air, until Churchill deliberately provoked Hitler to bomb London. Hitler was winning, was right on the edge of a lightning victory, until Churchill successfully manipulated him. If things had kept going the way they were going before Churchill distracted Hitler, Hitler would have been able to attack England by sea and land. And once he established a beachhead, it would have all been over. Parliament would have removed Churchill and installed someone more inclined to cooperate with Hitler.

                  Jim, do you have a source on this that I follow up on? Everything I read indicated that UK losses in fighters were below aircraft production levels and because they were fighting over the UK pilot losses were minimal.

                  Granted, declaring war on America was an error motivated by ideology. Though he would probably have lost to Britain and the USSR alone: the American troops weren’t decisive until the Soviets were already racing for Berlin.

                  Very unlikely. The UK was out manpower by 1942 and the Soviet Union by 1944.

                  The bombing campaign over Germany, while not as effective as the allies wanted, sucked up a huge amount of weapons production from the Germans. Germany never lost air superiority in the east as much as they had to pull all their fighters back to Germany to defend against bomber attacks thus enabling large Russian attacks that couldn’t be countered with bombers.

                  Germany never really truly ran out of manpower, but they were never able to produce enough weapons to arm the man power they had because of Socialism and because of the US bombing campaign sucking up so many resources. No US in the war, and the Soviets sue for peace in 1943-1944.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Franco was a good guy, after he wised up about socialism. Pinochet was the greatest, I want a Pinochet!

                  Neither of whom were fascists, either self-identified or externally-labeled at the time. Even the Wikipedia article on Franco does not use the term anywhere. Of course, now perhaps some progressives call them fascists and Nazis, but they call everyone to the right of Chairman Mao fascists and Nazis, and allowing that false equivalency is conceding their frame.

                  Show me where I cried “Nazi Nazi Nazi”. All I recall doing was questioning accusations about Moldbug/Yarvin that went well beyond the usual “namefag” labeling, and criticizing a response which conveyed little beyond “we know because something something Hitler did nothing wrong”. Changing the subject and trying to force me and others to signal a certain way. And when I commented that the change of subject seemed suspicious and out of place, even more changing the subject.

                  For the record, I disagree that we have any business actively signaling in favor of “actual” fascists/nazis, with or without leftism. That’s playing democratic politics and playing to the prog frame, playing the villain they so desperately want. I certainly agree that we should resolutely refuse to signal against them, especially for any prog-approved reason like “racist” or “authoritarian”. My position on Nazis is simply: I don’t care about Nazis. Sure, they weren’t “toxic”, just a failed experiment from which we have little to learn except maybe from their mistakes. Pinochet and Franco were indeed great, Xi and Putin and Duterte are at least pretty good, holocaustianity is a far greater threat to western stability than Actual Nazis who don’t even exist, the Nazi party still sucked because they lost (and badly!), and none of this is conceding any frame to progressives.

                • jim says:

                  > For the record, I disagree that we have any business actively signaling in favor of “actual” fascists/nazis, with or without leftism. That’s playing democratic politics

                  Actual fascists and Nazis play democratic politics, which is late stage civilizational decadence and part of civilizations death spiral. If progs allowed themselves to know what we think, they would figure us a thousand times worse than actual Hitler Hitler Hitler Nazis, not that they know what actual Hitler Hitler Hitler Nazis think either – hence their shills tend to fail catastrophically when emitting Hitler Hitler Hitler hail fellow Nazi signals.

                  But we have to preemptively signal immunity to that wagging finger.

                  We can, and routinely do, signal immunity to that wagging finger without signaling support for socialism and democratic politics, by saying “Pinochet” who is fascist enough for progs, and by saying “Free helicopter rides to the Pacific ocean”.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I asserted that all holiness spirals are the same phenomenon with the only difference being pace. Does anyone care to refute or correct this assertion?
                  From my perspective, the sufficient piece of evidence that Hitler was a priestly idiot completely obsessed with his own holiness was the fact that he was well aware of how close the German Uboats came to bringing England to its knees in WWI, had every reason and ability to capitalize on this fact, and did not. He was all too concerned with the visible signs of Aryan Overwhelming and disregarded actual strategic game changers like Uboats. Consider too his retention of 88s for defending the homeland instead of deploying those monsters to the battlefield where they belonged.

                • Anon says:

                  ” I see no advantage to punching right”

                  Punching Curtis Yarvin is not punching to the right, because nothing he’s said after he’s doxxed himself is right wing. Palling around with Justin Murphy and Kantbot and trying to convince people they should vote for Joe Biden is not right wing. Crying on a podcast is not right wing. It’s an appeal to avoid the guillotine because he foolishly attached his name and face to his posts, and he’s too autistic to realize that the sound advice of not tempting power does not also mean you should vote for Joe Biden because you believe it will evaporate BLM riots. He’s giving advice to himself

                  As it stands now: if you’ve opined something that goes against Cathedral doctrine, then the second you publicly attach your name and face to those opinions, you’ve explicitly stated that you are after something else other than a hard reset. Yarvin just wants to retain his status without things going any further left, and has started squealing like a pig now that things are going that way

                  “but I feel a duty to UR”

                  You’re gay

                • jim says:

                  Namefags always lie. You have to ignore them.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Has Yarvin ever countersignaled anyone on the right?

                  He says, possibly tongue-in-cheek, that he’ll be voting for Biden. He said, on UR, that passivism means either not voting, or, if you can’t get away with not voting, then voting for whomever is favored to win, and Biden is “leading” in the fake polls.

                  He’s “appealing to avoid the guillotine” today. He said, on UR, that the goal of Neoreaction was to create a closed, highly-exclusive intellectual movement that stays out of politics and avoids notice by the Cathedral – one that actually survives the various “revolutions” and massacres on the left.

                  He didn’t suddenly choose to publicly attach his name to anything; he was doxed ages ago and no doubt assumes, quite correctly, that it would require very little effort to dox him again since a great many people will recognize his ideas and writing style.

                  Look, if the JB position has diverged from the Moldbug position, then that’s fine. It’s stupid to imagine that everyone on the right will agree, or even like each other. But people are hammering him for supposedly flipping on positions that haven’t actually changed since he wrote the original UR. What’s really happening is that a lot of his former followers have changed and think now is the time to engage in the political process and save the world with viral memes. Flight 93 election, coup/countercoup, “Who, Whom?”, Trump as Augustus and so on. These people are mad that Yarvin has chosen not to accompany them – despite him saying, from the very beginning, that he had no interest in the “fellow traveler” bullshit.

                  I think I’ve made it clear from a great many prior posts that I am more in the Jim camp. It may well be that Yarvin’s position is now totally irrelevant, that things have escalated too far and too fast for “authentic” passivism to have any utility. But I still have enough sanity remaining to be able to objectively compare UR to Yarvin’s more recent writing/appearances and see that not much has actually changed.

                  It’s obvious that Yarvin doesn’t think that Trump is Augustus and is not convinced that the current right-wing coalition is capable of winning, and is acting accordingly. It’s fine to disagree, but imputing all these sinister motives is ridiculous. Show us some real evidence, not FUD and vague inductive arguments. I’m starting to wonder how many of the people now bashing him have ever actually read UR.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Yarvin’s entire body of work is an attempt to countersignal the right from the right, the conclusion being you can’t do anything and shouldn’t try, and the victory of leftism will eventually make everything OK again on its own.

                  One can read Yarvin as signalling aimed at *the left* to be less crazy, to remember that their goal was to steal the apples not smash the apple cart into little splinters, and that since they have won full control of the apple cart they no longer have a need to do any splintering.

                  Yarvin says nothing about women or groups. His proposed future state form is a de-racinated, de-cultured economy-as-polity, one universalist philosophy replacing another.

                  The whole thing is very suspicious. At one time, UR was the only place one could get a detailed and thorough description of Progressivism’s historical development, though it helps to read Culture of Critique as a companion (McDonald is equally guilty of ignoring the Anglo (mostly Quaker, not Puritan) involvement – but neither side’s omission is accidental).

                  Today, UR rehash/UR lite – available today for only 39.99 – still leaves out other, huge parts of the puzzle which are available on numerous free blogs.

                • Pooch says:

                  I find it hard to believe that Moldbug, if he wasn’t doxxed, would not be rooting for a Trump monarchy.

                • Anon says:

                  “He didn’t suddenly choose to publicly attach his name to anything; he was doxed ages ago and no doubt assumes, quite correctly, that it would require very little effort to dox him again since a great many people will recognize his ideas and writing style.”

                  Not my problem. Too bad so sad

                  “He says, possibly tongue-in-cheek, that he’ll be voting for Biden. He said, on UR, that passivism means either not voting, or, if you can’t get away with not voting, then voting for whomever is favored to win, and Biden is “leading” in the fake polls.”

                  Helmut Norpoth of Primary Model has correctly predicted almost all American elections since 1910 with the exception of Bush/Gore and one from the 60s. He correctly predicted a Trump win last time, and predicts another. I have one other good source that predicts a Trump win. Whether or not it’s tongue in cheek, Yarvin pimps Biden because, having become a namefag and walled himself into a blue fortress, he has no choice. What other things does he have no choice about saying?

                  “What’s really happening is that a lot of his former followers have changed and think now is the time to engage in the political process and save the world with viral memes. Flight 93 election, coup/countercoup, “Who, Whom?”, Trump as Augustus and so on. These people are mad that Yarvin has chosen not to accompany them – despite him saying, from the very beginning, that he had no interest in the “fellow traveler” bullshit.”

                  Sophistry. I “participate in the political process” to the extent that I will vote for Trump rather than Biden, not that I think posting le epic frog memes on Twitter will change America. If everyone had taken Yarvin’s advice in the last election we would have Hillary and hot war with Russia and China.

                  Notice how Yarvin has never talked about The Woman Question, even when he was anonymous. Notice how he never constructs too-clever-by-half justifications for Trump dropping term limits, like Xi Jinping. What Yarvin does do is go on podcasts with fuckless, slovenly bookworms and broke poly dweebs because, like the aforementioned, he has backed himself into a hole. Justin Murphy and Kantbot are frustrated academics, eternally mad that they can’t be professors who get away with saying slightly edgy things. They’ve been excommunicated by people further left than them, by the people they’re trying desperately to impress, and so they’ve moved on to lecturing ostensibly “right wing” people like you because you’re the only crowd that will have them

                  “I’m starting to wonder how many of the people now bashing him have ever actually read UR.”

                  I’ll be sure to tread carefully comrade, lest I fail to live up to the standards The Party!

                  Watch these videos. These people are not your friends. They are mad because they are broke and excommunicated, and can’t say slightly edgy things in academic environments anymore. And they subsist of off paypigs like you who insist on defending people who wouldn’t defend you:

                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=liURf5wRx50

                  https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=arQNOC4qtXI

                • Not Tom says:

                  Yarvin’s entire body of work is an attempt to countersignal the right from the right, the conclusion being you can’t do anything and shouldn’t try, and the victory of leftism will eventually make everything OK again on its own.

                  This is at least a coherent position – wrong, but coherent. It’s not about his recent work or recent actions, it’s about all of it.

                  MacDonald’s theories are worthless; describing Moldbug’s entire work a countersignal in broad strokes is an attempt to dodge any expectation of concrete evidence; “deracinated” is an outlandish characterization, Moldbug was plenty red-pilled on race. But you’re right about one thing, Moldbug never really discussed the Woman Question and that’s a serious deficiency, which is why that is Jim’s department, not Moldbug’s – and the Jimian position on women doesn’t really conflict with Moldbug doctrine on government. I’d make the analogy to old testament and new testament, they’re each focused on different problems and the authors occasionally disagree with each other at tiny points of intersection.

                  Salami-slicing your own side while still under siege from the enemy is pointless and destructive behavior. It’s holiness spiraling – writing prior leaders out of the movement because they weren’t based enough on some issue that nobody really discussed back then. That doesn’t sound the least bit familiar to anyone else?

                • Not Tom says:

                  Watch these videos. These people are not your friends.

                  They also aren’t Curtis. Do you have any facts at all, or just more of this limp-dick guilt-by-six-degrees-of-association bullshit?

                  Anon shows up to attack Moldbug and use arguments almost identical in form to progs. Yeah, that seems totally organic and not suspicious at all.

                • pdimov says:

                  >He says, possibly tongue-in-cheek, that he’ll be voting for Biden.

                  He also said he’d be voting for Obama.

                  Moldbug hasn’t changed. We have. Suddenly everyone is more redpilled than Modlbug, because he’s a namefag, you see, and we aren’t.

                  Incidentally, Modlbug has always been a namefag. Or if not always, then at least since 2010.

                  And no, he would not anonymously be rooting for a Trump monarchy, because a Trump monarchy is _impossible_.

                • jim says:

                  > And no, he would not anonymously be rooting for a Trump monarchy, because a Trump monarchy is _impossible

                  Why so? We would call it a Republic, after the style of the Republic of Augustus Caesar, remembered for centuries for restoring the Republic.

                • Anon says:

                  Suspect away. I’ve been lurking and posting here way before you showed up and, when I manage to not skip past your posts I notice they’re always incoherent bullshit. There is no “writing people out of the movement” because there is no movement like you admitted above. If I don’t want to pay Yarvin money to feed me milquetoast garbage with his face attached to it I won’t. Maybe you will.

                  On Hermitix he gives some good advice: don’t be a toxic media whore. But it looks like he didn’t pass his own marshmallow test. I’m not “writing him out”, simply observing he’s backed himself into a weird corner. If NRx is political passivism, then going on a penniless version of an IDW podcast and telling people they should vote for Biden is not NRx. Publicly advocating for world war with Russia and China because you will personally and materially suffer under another Trump presidency is not NRx. “The rioters are getting a little too close to the San Jose poly shed and interfering with our podcast recording. Can’t we get a Biden so this can all go away?”

                • pdimov says:

                  >Why so? We would call it a Republic

                  I just don’t see a path from here to there, sorry. Trump is old, commands no legions, has no elite support, half of the population hates him viciously and irrationally.

                • jim says:

                  > Trump is old, commands no legions

                  Trump is Commander in Chief. The “commands no legions” question was put to the test by rioters in Lafayette Park. When it turned out he did command legions, the color revolution song of “weak, weak, weaker, weaker, falling, falling; he has fallen” abruptly switched to “Trump fascist dictator”.

                  Trump sends federal cops into Portland, they do what he says. The Mayor of Portland tells Portland cops to not cooperate.

                  One cop has an order in his pocket from the Mayor, the other cop an order from the commander in chief. Guess what happens?

                  It looks as if not only can Trump command Barr’s legion of loyalists, he can command Portland cops, though not Portland jails, prosecutors, and judges.

                  The bureaucracy hates him. The brass in the Pentagon hate him. But though he has been unable to appoint loyalists to civil service, he has a loyalist chain of command all the way from the Oval Office to the cop breaking heads on the streets of Portland, and the way the FBI shills have been demonizing the DIA, pretty sure he has significant loyalists in the DIA, which is a coup critical organization.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “This is at least a coherent position – wrong, but coherent. It’s not about his recent work or recent actions, it’s about all of it.”

                  It’s sort of both. UR may have always been some kind of misdirection or pre-buttal, but I’m much less sure about that. UR gets the benefit of the doubt for being way outside the Overton window of the time, and you cannot persuade people by blowing up every single thing they thought was true all at once. UR also always read like a scrapbook and I don’t expect a fully developed thesis from every post of such a format.

                  The fact that he has suddenly reemerged with thoughts that haven’t moved on at all, though, is much more suspicious. The fact that he is selling them, and being hosted by Institutions, even more so.

                  “MacDonald’s theories are worthless;”

                  Culture of Critique is just a handbook of subversive Jewish movements. You can reject all MacDonald’s other ideas and still agree that these movements are subversive. How many of them does Moldbug talk about? MacDonald’s thesis is that Jews dunnit, all of it; Moldbug’s thesis is that Anglos dunnit, all of it.

                  “describing Moldbug’s entire work a countersignal in broad strokes is an attempt to dodge any expectation of concrete evidence;”

                  I explained why I thought that.

                  ““deracinated” is an outlandish characterization, Moldbug was plenty red-pilled on race.”

                  Moldbug is red-pilled on *heredity*, but not race. His ideal society is a Tower of Babel ruled by an omnipotent king who is omnipotent because he can turn all the guns off via radio control. This ties into the woman question because Moldbug is trying to find a way out of having a high fertility, cohesive elite and instead make multiculturalism work as efficiently using technology.

                  “But you’re right about one thing, Moldbug never really discussed the Woman Question and that’s a serious deficiency, which is why that is Jim’s department, not Moldbug’s – and the Jimian position on women doesn’t really conflict with Moldbug doctrine on government. I’d make the analogy to old testament and new testament, they’re each focused on different problems and the authors occasionally disagree with each other at tiny points of intersection.”

                  Disagree for the reasons above.

                  “Salami-slicing your own side while still under siege from the enemy is pointless and destructive behavior. It’s holiness spiraling – writing prior leaders out of the movement because they weren’t based enough on some issue that nobody really discussed back then. That doesn’t sound the least bit familiar to anyone else?”

                  A reactionary holiness spiral is very possible. I am concerned about this possibility. I was a bit concerned that the deletion of alleged shills was a move in this direction, which is why I commented on it (though I am now less skeptical of the existence of shills). People should not be treated with outright hostility for being too far down a ladder that can naturally only be climbed rung by rung. But there’s a very big difference between someone who is merely not as knowledgeable or has not as fully accepted the awful truth, and someone who is trying to divert the movement in a quite different direction.

                  In particular, it’s obvious that the Cathedral perceives this election as the point of no return in one direction or the other. And it’s at precisely this point that Yarvin is deployed to tell you to stop following events, wear a mask, and vote Biden.

                • jim says:

                  In particular, it’s obvious that the Cathedral perceives this election as the point of no return in one direction or the other. And it’s at precisely this point that Yarvin is deployed to tell you to stop following events, wear a mask, and vote Biden.

                  Namefags always lie. When Yarvin asks for your credit card, he is giving the enemy hostages.

                  If they ever catch me, not going to continue to operate under that identity.

                  If they get me, the identity they catch is going to shut up about politics, and if I can operate a new identity, and the new identity is broke, the new identity will be asking for bitcoin.

                • Mike says:

                  >If everyone had taken Yarvin’s advice in the last election we would have Hillary and hot war with Russia and China.

                  @Anon, Do you realize how absolutely ridiculous you sound? You’re proud of the fact that you vote, when one of the foremost insights of this blog, and all reactionary thought, is that democracy is a farce (at least when said democracy is on a scale larger than that of Switzerland or Athens).

                  Why are you surprised that a man who wrote a blog post called “How I stopped believing in democracy” would give a flying fuck about voting? Why do you think the slip of paper you put in a box actually matters?

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Mike

                  Voting doesn’t matter, but voting for Caesar does matter.

              • “Nazism wasn’t a spiral to prove holiness by losing WWII as quickly as possible”

                Hitler made plenty of strategic mistakes that look a hell of a lot like ideology overriding practical judgement. WWII would have played out quite a bit differently if the state’s motive was “Make Germany a Power Again”

                • The Cominator says:

                  This is why Goering sunk into a corrupt morphine addict depression. When Hitler was acting pragmatically Goering was the dynamic intelligent powerful personality seen at Nuremberg.

                • jim says:

                  Hitler lost the battle of Britain because Churchill manipulated and provoked him into attacking London, when he should have been tightly focused on the British air capability that denied Hitler the capability to cross the channel. If he had defeated Britain in the air, likely Britain would not have fought in the beaches, ditches and hills, but rather made a peace favorable to Germany. And if they had fought him in the ditches, would have swiftly lost. Either way, America loses an airbase conveniently adjacent to German power, enabling him to ignore America’s superior airsea power. If he wanted to burn London, plenty of time for that when his troops were in London.

                  Declaring war on the US was an absolutely moronic result of ideology over eyesight – the error of Hobbes, that everyone is always at war, so declarations of war are mere symbols, like welcoming an ambassador.

                  Hitler lost the war because he prematurely attacked Russia. Even though Russia was militarily weak, it has vast strategic depth, and could soak up vast armies that Hitler was having increasing difficulty feeding and clothing. To feed and clothe his troops, he needed to strike south east, and link up with Japan.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Stalin likely WAS planning to attack in 1942…

                • jim says:

                  We know Stalin was not planning to attack in 1942, because he was totally unprepared. He was planning to do so eventually, and Hitler should have focused on grabbing the wealth and food from Asia to take care of Stalin when it happened. It would be easier to destroy Russia when Russia brings their armies to Hitler, than having to fight through the vastness of Russia to engage Stalin. Stalin lacked logistic capability, and Hitler’s logistic capability was evaporating. If Stalin attacked Germany, the vastness of Russia would work against Stalin instead of for him.

                  Hitler had adequate depth on the Soviet border. The correct way to deal with a Soviet attack would be to give an enemy with inadequate logistics a hard road to travel, let them advance close to things that mattered, then cut the enemy armies in two with a flanking tank thrust. After destroying Russian armies conveniently close to Germany, and after securing logistic capability, then it would be time to think about Moscow and Stalingrad.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Lots of states make errors. Killing all white males isn’t an error in Prog’s own terms, even if it leads to America being conquered by China – which it will.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I agree Jim that the Soviet armies could have been repulsed from Ploesti and encircled and destroyed in Poland but the reason i say 1942 is because my best friend in college was a crazy right wing jew from the Ukraine he to my shock defended Hitler on point of Barbarossa that yes Stalin planned to attack.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  If Germany had waited it would have become stronger relative to the USSR, because the population and economic base of the territories it controlled was much larger than that of the USSR, its main problem being to win the acceptance of the conquered territories of its new order. For the same reason, the USSR had to attack soon regardless of whether it had been planning to attack Germany previously, and regardless of whether it was prepared or not. To wait was to make things worse. The Germans, in turn, were aware of this. It’s a classical problem in game theory, with the advantage all going to the one who strikes first. The USSR was not ready in 1941, and Stalin seems to have thought the Germans weren’t ready either. Partly that was true – the Germans attacked half way through the season because of Britain and Italy meddling in the Balkans – and partly it was wishful thinking (this is well documented).

                  There wasn’t any path to defeat Britain quickly, though Britain may have eventually been defeated. Germany did not an edge in aircraft production over Britain, and Britain was able to leverage the entire aircraft production capacity of the United States at least until it ran out of things to pawn. So knocking out Britain before the USSR attacked was not a viable path, and hoping to knock out Britain while holding the USSR in Poland was a very risky option, especially in light of the fuel situation.

                  With hindsight, any alternative looks good, since the historical outcome was poor. But what about the historical outcome of leaving the Weimar Republic in place? In many respects the Weimar Republic was worse than the post-war BRD, and insome respects it was even worse than the post-war DDR. The Bolshevik/continental branch of leftism never truly recovered from the German War, and that’s one of the reasons why the American branch has replaced it.

                  In any case, there is a hard distinction to be drawn between harm due to errors (even those with some input from the ideology, like Hitler formally declaring war on America) and harm due to the inherent direction and aims of the ideology itself. Naziism and Prog is a category difference in this respect.

                • jim says:

                  > It’s a classical problem in game theory, with the advantage all going to the one who strikes first

                  Stalin had massive logistic problems, Hitler was starting to get logistic problems. In this situation, the advantage is to wait for the other guy to strike.

                  The correct tactic for Hitler was to wait until the time was right, and then provoke Stalin into striking first.

                  > There wasn’t any path to defeat Britain quickly,

                  Sure there was. Britain was on the edge of losing its capacity to prevent a German landing, and was on the brink of defeat in the air, until Churchill deliberately provoked Hitler to bomb London. Hitler was winning, was right on the edge of a lightning victory, until Churchill successfully manipulated him. If things had kept going the way they were going before Churchill distracted Hitler, Hitler would have been able to attack England by sea and land. And once he established a beachhead, it would have all been over. Parliament would have removed Churchill and installed someone more inclined to cooperate with Hitler.

                  > there is a hard distinction to be drawn between harm due to errors (even those with some input from the ideology, like Hitler formally declaring war on America) and harm due to the inherent direction and aims of the ideology itself. Naziism and Prog is a category difference in this respect.

                  Hitler was socialist and Hobbesian, which errors bit him. Socialism was already running out of other people’s money when he started the war. He started the war early in part because running out of other people’s money. Grabbing Europe enabled him to postpone the crisis of socialism, but it very quickly began to bite again.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  “Stalin had massive logistic problems, Hitler was starting to get logistic problems. In this situation, the advantage is to wait for the other guy to strike.

                  “The correct tactic for Hitler was to wait until the time was right, and then provoke Stalin into striking first.”

                  You might be right, and I might be wrong. At the very least, I don’t see the German actions here as motivated purely by internal virtue signalling and ideology; there was a military logic behind it, which may indeed have been in error.

                  “Sure there was. Britain was on the edge of losing its capacity to prevent a German landing, and was on the brink of defeat in the air, until Churchill deliberately provoked Hitler to bomb London. Hitler was winning, was right on the edge of a lightning victory, until Churchill successfully manipulated him. If things had kept going the way they were going before Churchill distracted Hitler, Hitler would have been able to attack England by sea and land. And once he established a beachhead, it would have all been over. Parliament would have removed Churchill and installed someone more inclined to cooperate with Hitler.”

                  Comparing the rate at which aircraft were being built and lost, I do not see any path to Germany aerial dominance in 1940 or 1941. If you disagree, I would be interested to see the numbers.

                  I’d lean the other way and believe that the invasion scare was so much propaganda designed to keep Britain in a war that had no possibility of benefiting Britain: indeed, Churchill signed over the British Empire to Progressive dissolution with the Atlantic Charter in 1941 before America had even committed to entering the war. Maybe he thought America would enter, so he would never have to pay the bill? Maybe he wanted to dissolve the British Empire, contrary to his own previous statements? Maybe something else was going on. We will probably never know. In British culture, the invasion scare makes it all moot: Britain was fighting for survival against maniacs bent on destroying Britain at all cost, so there’s no need to ask for long range strategic calculations, none of which make the Churchill government look any good.

                  “Hitler was socialist and Hobbesian, which errors bit him. Socialism was already running out of other people’s money when he started the war. He started the war early in part because running out of other people’s money. Grabbing Europe enabled him to postpone the crisis of socialism, but it very quickly began to bite again.”

                  Granted, declaring war on America was an error motivated by ideology. Though he would probably have lost to Britain and the USSR alone: the American troops weren’t decisive until the Soviets were already racing for Berlin.

                  I don’t think Hitler knew he would conquer France in a few weeks. I think he expected France to get bored of Verdun Mk II before Germany did, since France had no ideology and lots of internal sabotage, which he did know about.

                  The events of 1940 created a new world that no one expected and everyone was forced to respond to it with incredible urgency and limited information. Very few people who have considered this question have done so with as little time and information as those who actually made the decisions were forced to. That probably explains many odd decisions on all sides.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  *maybe he thought America would never enter

                • BC says:

                  Hitler lost the war because he prematurely attacked Russia. Even though Russia was militarily weak, it has vast strategic depth, and could soak up vast armies that Hitler was having increasing difficulty feeding and clothing. To feed and clothe his troops, he needed to strike south east, and link up with Japan.

                  This was the plan proposed to Hitler by Admiral Raeder. In retrospective, it seems like it would have worked. Germany would have gained the oil fields of the middle east, and put the German air force within striking range of the primary Russian oil fields. Hitler refused Raeder for ideological reasons and insisted on attacking Russia first.

                • Hitler’s bombing of British airfields and radio towers was very close to complete. There were either one or two radio towers left in all of England iirc. England was very close to being out of planes and trained pilots when Churchill trolled him into attacking London instead.

                  Hitler went East into hated communist Russia when he should have gone south to secure the oil. Hitler diverted his forces to Stalingrad, allowing Stalin to retool a war machine east of the Urals. Hitler wasted his time in Greece and Crete when he should have realized that contesting British naval supremacy and cleaning up Mussolini’s incompetent blunders was futile.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_aircraft_production

                  The UK was outbuilding Germany in aircraft by about 50% until 1943.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

                  The Germans started with a 25% advantage in numbers, and took about 10% more losses (I think this is effectively 1-1 in the margin of error).

                  Given the considerable positional advantages of the UK, I simply don’t see how this can turn into a German victory in 1940, or even in 1941. With considerable industrial shift to aircraft, maybe the Germans could have started to endanger Britain in 1942 or 1943, but this would leave them vulnerable to the Soviets.

                  If they had ignored the Balkans the British could have bombed their only major source of oil in Romania (and how could they have pushed into Turkey without securing Greece – ?).

                  Germany could perhaps have done better in WWII, but please normalize their error rate to that of the “non-ideological” powers. The expected rate of errors in war isn’t zero.

                • jim says:

                  To defeat England militarily, Germany had to defeat them before the end of 1940.

                  Which it came mighty close to doing.

                  In a long war with the English speaking peoples, Germany was bound to lose. But Germany came mighty close to winning a quick war.

                  The correct strategy was to focus single mindedly on victory, starting by killing or capturing everyone at Dunkirk, and refusing to be distracted by civilian bombing. Let the British bomb, and only interfere with them to the extent that it forces them to expose their fighter aircraft. Once Germany had air superiority, it could force the British to settle. And Germany got mighty close to air superiority until Hitler was distracted by civilian bombing. Once the British had settled, forget about the Mediterranean, conquer the Middle East and Asia and link up with Japan.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The Germans just did not have the big advantage in numbers and/or competence over the British in the air that they had over the French and Soviets on land. There was not a possibility for a material victory, but maybe there was a possibility for a psychological victory.

                  I think the Germans were confused why the British agreed to become a US satellite rather than a German ally, when that looked to them like a much worse deal. They found it difficult to respond to this decision, because they did not understand it.

                  Maybe the Germans could have bought peace with some unbelievably generous deal, like giving back France. Maybe the Soviets would have been reluctant to attack Germany on a single front, especially when the possibility existed for the Entente to enter on the other side.

                  But outright invasion of the UK in 1940? It would have failed. It’s been pointed out by some historian whose name I forgot that Britain was shipping out land equipment to North Africa at the height of the public invasion scare.

                • jim says:

                  > The Germans just did not have the big advantage in numbers and/or competence over the British in the air

                  We are talking past each other because you keep talking about 1942 and I keep talking about 1940.

                  At the beginning of 1940 September, Germans were mighty close to victory, and then frittered it away on blowing up militarily irrelevant buildings. If they had kept on going the way they were going, would have had a victory that would have freed their hands, would have had been able to land ground forces. If they were still in an airsea war with English speaking powers for much longer than that, then going to lose.

                  You keep arguing about conditions in 1941, 1942. Yes, conditions in 1941, 1942 were bleak for Germany, and in September 1940, would have been easy to predict that if Britain was not taken out of the war before then, things would be bleak. But they were on the edge of victory in 1940.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No realistic prospect of Hitler crossing the channel in 1940, Dowdings Fabian air defense strategy and Britain’s RADAR advantage meant that there was no way they could knock out the RAF to the degree an invasion was possible.

                • jim says:

                  I disagree. In 1940 August the RAF was getting beaten in the air.

                • Oliver Crommey says:

                  “You keep arguing about conditions in 1941, 1942. Yes, conditions in 1941, 1942 were bleak for Germany, and in September 1940, would have been easy to predict that if Britain was not taken out of the war before then, things would be bleak. But they were on the edge of victory in 1940.”

                  Well, look at the numbers on the wiki page ‘Battle of Britain’.

                  The Germans had 2,500 aircraft, and the British had 2,000 aircraft. That is an approximate parity. The Germans could still have won if they were inflicting 10-to-1 casualties, or overruning the airbases, but they were inflicting roughly 1-to-1 casualties, and could not overrun the airbases because of the geography.

                  If they had not bombed London, they would have caused more damage to the RAF, but it would have been a fractional increase, not a multiple-fold increase. Perhaps they could have forced the RAF to withdraw further north. But the geography dictates that the RAF was always going to be able to base its fighters somewhere they could reach the English Channel but the German bombers could not reach the bases.

                  Britain is geographically a very difficult country to defeat, and in the air against the British the Germans did not have the enormous efficiency advantage they enjoyed over most of their other opponents.

                  I am not even sure the Germans could have destroyed the BEF. Tanks are effective at cutting supply lines, encircling troops they have to fight without ammunition, food, or communications. They are not especially good at compacting dug-in accumulations of troops that only have to guard a few specific roads. And the BEF, unlike most pockets the Germans surrounded with their tanks, could always bring in supplies the same way they were able to take their men out.

                • jim says:

                  Not sure what link you are referring to. Needs some quotes and actual links.

                  If you refer to Wikipedia:

                  Other scholars assert that this period was the most dangerous of all. In The Narrow Margin, published in 1961, historians Derek Wood and Derek Dempster believed that the two weeks from 24 August to 6 September represented a real danger. According to them, from 24 August to 6 September 295 fighters had been totally destroyed and 171 badly damaged, against a total output of 269 new and repaired Spitfires and Hurricanes. They assert that 103 pilots were killed or missing and 128 were wounded, which represented a total wastage of 120 pilots per week out of a fighting strength of just fewer than 1,000. They conclude that during August no more than 260 fighter pilots were turned out by OTUs and casualties in the same month were just over 300. A full squadron establishment was 26 pilots whereas the average in August was 16. In their assessment, the RAF was losing the battle.[231] Denis Richards, in his 1953 contribution to the official British account History of the Second World War, agreed that lack of pilots, especially experienced ones, was the RAF’s greatest problem. He states that between 8 and 18 August 154 RAF pilots were killed, severely wounded, or missing, while only 63 new pilots were trained. Availability of aircraft was also a serious issue. While its reserves during the Battle of Britain never declined to a half dozen planes as some later claimed, Richards describes 24 August to 6 September as the critical period because during these two weeks Germany destroyed far more aircraft through its attacks on 11 Group’s southeast bases than Britain was producing. Three more weeks of such a pace would indeed have exhausted aircraft reserves.

                  You cannot continue to operate for very long if you are replacing a large fraction of your force every week. The replacements are very quickly going to realize that they are going to die. These are men, not bullets or missiles.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Pikots were more a problem for the Reich, if they bailed out over England they became POWs. If British pilots bailed they returned to service.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Link: previously provided in some post, but just wikipedia:Battle of Britain, numbers from the infobox.

                  You are right that one cannot fight high intensity war indefinitely without replacements, but that’s true of both sides. Britain and Germany were inflicting roughly 1-to-1 casualties, so the Germans were having pilots shot down at roughly the same rate. Also, German pilots who were shot down but survived became POW, while British pilots who were shot down and survived were returned to the RAF. British pilots were fighting over and for the survival of their homeland, whereas German pilots to conquer a country they never imagined they could threaten and they had been taught by the Nazis was not the true enemy.

                  You just cannot beat a comparable competence enemy with comparable numbers and greater supply of replacements. In all the war up to that point, and most of the war after, the Germans fought with an advantage in competence, or at least an advantage in numbers. But in the air war with Britain, they had neither.

                • jim says:

                  > You are right that one cannot fight high intensity war indefinitely without replacements, but that’s true of both sides. Britain and Germany were inflicting roughly 1-to-1 casualties,

                  My assessment is that Britain was losing and was getting mighty close to defeat, and I am hardly the only one to make that assessment.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Also on the issue of pilots, England had the benefit of volunteer pilots from across the Anglosphere, the US (officially volunteering for any other countries military is illegal but this was of course overlooked) and pilots who got out of Poland and Czechslovakia.

                  The Luftwaffe best pilots were better than anyone but they were in short supply and because of the capture problem were subject to more attrition.

                  If the RAF commander was a moron there is some possibility he would have commited to a pitched air battle where the Luftwaffe could maybe get lucky and wipe the RAF out. Unfortunately for the Reich the RAF commander at the time was Hugh Dowding (eccentric who believed in faeries and such but brilliant as an air commander) who was committed to a Fabian strategy of whittling down the Luftwaffe while avoiding catastrophic defeat at all cost.

                  If Hitler had kept up on the airfields the worst they would have had to do was rebase further North, unfortunately they’d still be able to patrol and reach the channel.

                  Possible a surprise invasion of Ireland may have succeeded (though not likely because of ULTRA) and that could have been used as a springboard to attack Britain. That might have worked but its unlikely that Sea Lion could have.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  Jim:
                  “…until Churchill deliberately provoked Hitler to bomb London.”

                  How?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Churchill was trying to night bomb Germany even in 1940.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsdyRtO8QH4

                  Scene was from a movie but the speech was real.

                  “It is a wonderful thing to see our nation at war, in its fully disciplined state. This is exactly what we are now experiencing at this time, as Mr Churchill is demonstrating to us the aerial night attacks which he has concocted. He is not doing this because these air raids might be particularly effective, but because his Air Force cannot fly over German territory in daylight. Whereas German aviators and German planes fly over English soil daily, there is hardly a single Englishman who comes across the North Sea in daytime.
                  They therefore come during the night — and as you know, release their bombs indiscriminately and without any plan on to residential areas, farmhouses and villages. Wherever they see a sign of light, a bomb is dropped on it. For three months past, I have not ordered any answer to be given, thinking that they would stop this nonsensical behaviour. Mr Churchill has taken this to be a sign of our weakness. You will understand that we shall now give a reply, night for night, and with increasing force.

                  And if the British Air Force drops two, three or four thousand kilos of bombs, then we will now drop 150,000, 180,000, 230,000, 300,000 or 400,000 kilos, or more, in one night. If they declare that they will attack our cities on a large scale, we will erase theirs! We will put a stop to the game of these night-pirates, as God is our witness. The hour will come when one or the other of us will crumble, and that one will not be National Socialist Germany. I have already carried through such a struggle once in my life, up to the final consequences, and this then led to the collapse of the enemy who is now still sitting there in England on Europe’s last island.”

              • BC says:

                I agree Jim that the Soviet armies could have been repulsed from Ploesti and encircled and destroyed in Poland but the reason i say 1942 is because my best friend in college was a crazy right wing jew from the Ukraine he to my shock defended Hitler on point of Barbarossa that yes Stalin planned to attack.

                There might have been a plan to invade Romania in late 1941, Soviet Diplomats were demanding bases in Romania and Bulgaria and most of the Red army was lined up in the Ukraine. Taking the oil fields of Romania in a lightning strike would have destroy Hitler’s ability to make war. Another 4 months and the Red army might have been ready for such an attack. It would have almost certainly failed because of logistical issues.

                • Ironsides says:

                  I don’t know if you can call it ideology, but Hitler also missed a lot of opportunities to mess England up and/or knock it out of the conflict because he thought they would see reason and that there was no gain to be had in fighting Germany.

                  He held his forces back from capturing the British Expeditionary Force at Dunkirk, which would have removed almost all of Britain’s European fighting capability in one stroke.

                  From Liddell-Hart’s “The Other Side of the Hill:” (quoting General Gunther Blumentritt:

                  “He (Hitler) astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world…. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church – saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany’s position on the Continent. The return of Germany’s lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere…. He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honour to accept.”

                  That’s also why the Germans had to try to parachute Abwehr agents into England during the war; they hadn’t clandestinely slipped any in prior to the war because Hitler didn’t want the British to mistake his intentions if they were discovered and think he was out to conquer them.

                  Regardless, I agree with Jim that the Germans would have fared much better if they had crushed the British up front, and/or bypassed the USSR for the Middle East and Asia, and/or just fortified Eastern Europe and let the Soviets smash themselves on it.

                  The Third Reich would have been much more successful if Goering had somehow ended up as the Fuhrer and Hitler as Deputy Fuhrer. Goering would have supplied the practicality (as noted above, he had a formidable intellect when he wasn’t drugging himself out of despair) of a Franco or Pinochet, while Hitler would have been best managing the “culture war” with his fire and energy directed there. Goering was a hard-headed commander, Hitler was an artist. They both had something critical to contribute, IMO, but were in precisely the wrong spots relative to each other.

                • jim says:

                  The logic of the situation was to make peace with all remaining white powers, and grab their Asian empires, linking up with the Japanese empire. But Britain is an unsinkable aircraft carrier off the coast of Europe. It had to go.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Hitler’s assessment of Britain’s interests was more accurate than Britain’s assessment. Unfortunately, people aren’t always rational or smart.

                  Hitler overrated the competence, cohesion, and ruthlessness of Germany’s WWI enemies. Naturally, because it feels better to lose to the powerful and the monstrous. He did not understand Britain, and how could he?

              • Anon says:

                @Mike,

                You lack the mental capacity to understand what it would take to go from democracy to not democracy. You are interpreting “democracy is a farce” (a generally true statement) as “vote for Joe Biden”, which is idiotic.

                You should have abstained from voting up until this point, voted once for Trump because it’s funny to induce psychological terror in your political enemies, and then vote for him again with the cautious optimism that he’ll drop term limits so you don’t have to vote ever again. It costs me nothing other than 5 minutes filling out a form, real low effort stuff. If democracy is a farce than why are you so assblasted about who I vote for? It’s all the same!

                https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eecr3gGXYAEpgp7?format=png&name=large

                https://twitter.com/benyt/status/1290048084857065472?s=19

                • Mike says:

                  Ah, you’re getting at the “true election” scenario. Very well, I’d have to concede that point to you at least a bit. However, a large part of me does think that such a simple solution is rather beyond us at this point. Open civil war, secession, insurgency, or Red/White terror is looking much more likely at this point than just a quiet purging of the bureaucracy and re-branding of the American political system. And in such a scenario, putting a slip of paper in a box would have done little more than doing nothing.

                • jim says:

                  It will likely to do little or nothing, because in the coming election who is counting will matter more than who is voting.

                • Anon says:

                  Agreed. But let me put it this way: if you’re relying on you praetorians to disobey career bureaucrats, and career bureaucrats are intent on escalating to open civil war, secession, insurgency, or Red/White terror, and your lower level praetorians are the type of people who watch sports or the news, and find out that Trump won or “lost” the election, then it may be worth taking 5 minutes to fill out a ballot so your praetorian class starts thinking that it’s better for them and their paychecks to start following Trump and not career bureaucrats…

          • >Naziism was a holiness spiral, but did not aim on exterminating Germans.

            I have the feeling that this sub-discussion is missing a point. A holiness spiral can kill you directly, in this Prog “we are awful, so we deserve to die” way.

            Or it can kill you the opposite way: “We are the best, we are invicible, we can defeat anyone” and then that leads to getting killed by for example not allowing you to retreat from Stalingrad because admitting the inferior Russkies won that one goes against this kind of spiral of the religion of superiority.

            ANY kind of spiral leads to a massive denial of reality if unchecked and Gnon is merciless, that kills you one way or another.

            Granted this second kind of spiral is far more natural. Men like to boast, and it is normal to be loyal to your ingroup, leading to eventually thinking your ingroup is utterly superior and utterly invicible. Of course that can get you killed. Sure, it is a more glorious death than the self-whipping ethnomasochism which is unnatural and disgusting and just pitiful. But still your folk ends up with fewer descendants in the future.

            This second kind of spiral was just as important and just as deadly in Naziism than the first one. This led to many Germans getting killed in Stalingrad.

            Because like all spirals, it massively denied reality. I mean, even, look at its origins. A people who got defeated in WWI. With that, massive inferiority complex. So some dude comes and offers the opposite, a superiority complex. Sort of understandable, but right at the beginning it starts with reality denial “we did not really lose WWI, just the Jews and our own cowardly aristocratic generals backstabbed us” etc. etc. look a bit closer and you find things like the Ahnenerbe expedition to Tibet, which is very much a we-wuz-kingz pattern, and every time people do that, you should know they are trying to deny the realities at hand. Because of a spiral.

            It even worked for a while, conquering everthing from Dunkirk to the outskirts of Moscow was impressive. But reality caught up.

            • jim says:

              > look a bit closer and you find things like the Ahnenerbe expedition to Tibet, which is very much a we-wuz-kingz pattern,

              Nuts. I look at that expedition and I don’t see anything like that.

              The Aryan race, which scientists can no longer refer to as the Aryan race, arose somewhere between Asia and Europe. People had a rough guess of the location about seven hundred years ago, and people continue to look. Somewhere near the Capian sea is now popular, which is approximately the center of the very broad guess that Saga Period Icelanders made. Nothing stupid about looking for it. Tibet was a bit far from the widely guessed locations, but not absurdly so.

              Tibet is a bit far from the Icelander’s guess, but it is not too far from the Caspian sea. Not silly to search there.

              Germans were looking, scientists are still looking, though they have to cloak what they are looking for in elaborate euphemism. The genetic data and archaelogical data indicates that some Aryans spent at least some time in occupation of what is now Tibet.

              • Okay, fair point. My point is the more general one: focusing much on ancient glory tends to be a signal of ignoring the realities of the present.

                The euphemism is not very elaborate, though, they call them Proto-Indo-European speakers. Books like The Horse And The Wheel. Wrapped into the usual politically correct Flak Deflection Shield (I think this should be a term, FSD) that book says clearly they were an actual people, not just a language.

                Though the language evolution model in that book, moving in the direction of simpler pronounciation, makes me wonder. Why did the old ones want to have difficult pronounciation?

                • (One of the FDS’s is when they piously explain the PIEs were not some kind of a pure race and piously condemn a cardboard-cutout version of a simpleton Nazi who would think they were. Of course no race ever was entirely “pure” because it is extremely difficult to keep everybody from fucking or marrying someone from another tribe, especially that men tend to like variety, like this “yellow fever” thing these days. Hence, races are always statistical clusters, with sharper edges around hard to pass areas like the Sahara and less sharp edges elsewhere.

                  By attributing the strawman belief of racial purity to a hypothetical lowbrow Nazi and piously condemning it, they can get away with saying they were an actual people. Which, one who can read between the lines understands as a group of interrelated humans, a statistical cluster in genetics i.e. a race.)

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure they were smarter than we are. There has been a tendency over recent human evolution to substitute large scale communication over distance and markets for technological self sufficiency. The old ones had to be smart enough to sustain the technology needed to deal with extreme differences between summer and winter within a single nomadic extended family. Back when the elite was smart, eighteen hundreds, the elite tended to have elaborate diction also.

                  Pretty sure they talked more slowly than we do. Considerably more slowly. Spent a lot more less time communicating in words, and put a lot more time into social and non verbal communication. Less trade, less commerce, and less chatter. Said less, and took more time to say it.

                • Dave says:

                  “Said less, and took more time to say it.”

                  One does not let one’s mouth run freely in a society where petty insults often lead to a duel with deadly weapons.

                • dspcer says:

                  @jim
                  Pretty sure they were smarter than we are.

                  No. This is a myth that just won’t die. After Caesarean sections were normalised, there has been a trend of children surviving with bigger and bigger heads, and thus brains (also selecting for women with ever narrower pelvises, but that’s another story). If anything, the smartest kids today are have raw intelligence considerably greater than the wise men of old.
                  Which begs the question, why do we feel society dumbing down around us? The reason for this is that elite society has been gutted. Being an elite scholar in school marks you out for abuse from envious, under-achieving competitors, and talking like an elite in life marks you out as “pretentious,” “prissy,” “highfalutin” or any number of other terms of insult. Using dumbed-down language is the key to social camouflage, which is essential for survival.
                  To take an example, Classical Sanskrit is considered to be one of the most structured, unambiguous human languages. It is also notoriously difficult to learn and use, and verbal pronunciation is extremely rigid at the level of syllables and even gestures the speaker must perform when reciting specific formulae. To master this corpus not only requires very high raw intelligence, but also a lifetime of rigorous study and regular practice. All this is of no relevance to the average 80IQ peasant, however, who just drinks his moonshine and defecates in the fields. He considers Sanskrit and other such stuff that he does not understand simply as “Brahmins doing their own thing,” pays respects from a distance, and lives in his own segregated village, where he is high status.
                  “Mass appeal” as a criterion for status is a recipe for the dumbing down of society. This is already seen in, for example, the Harvard Debating Society, and is reflected in the “coolness” of speaking defective English (one of the easiest languages to pick up). Even cognitive elites are motivated to hide their speech lest they be ridiculed for “fag talk” (cf Idiocracy). This is in no way indicative of the actual ability of the elite today compared to the elite of the past.
                  In short, Past Elite > High ability > High achievement < High status. Present Elite > Higher ability > Higher achievement < Low status.
                  I have no doubt that chip designer Jim Keller is of equivalent intelligence to Sage Panini (creator of Classical sanskrit) in relative terms, and of more intelligence in absolute terms. However, there is a vast chasm between the social status of Panini (venerated as a demigod) and Keller (who can be purged at any time).

                • jim says:

                  > @jim
                  > > Pretty sure they were smarter than we are.

                  > No. This is a myth that just won’t die. After Caesarean sections were normalised, there has been a trend of children surviving with bigger and bigger heads, and thus brains

                  I seem recollect fossil data indicating that the cranial capacity of skulls is smaller today than it was in the late neolithic – earliest bronze age.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Yes, there seems to have been shrinkage. A couple of popular references provided.

                  https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229690-900-has-social-living-shrunk-our-brains/?ignored=irrelevant#.U34JXV72nwI

                  https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/the-human-brain-has-been-getting-smaller-since-the-stone-age

                  https://phys.org/news/2018-02-humans-domesticate.html

                  In recent years, I think part of the decline has been due to the willingness to let new, idiotic voices contribute their knowledge (zero). There is a distinct lack of scientists willing and able to plainly tell people they are morons and should work somewhere far less intellectually demanding, a la Greg Cochrane.

                • dspcer says:

                  @jim

                  Yes and no.

                  @Anonymous 2

                  Thank you for the references.

                  The problem with statistical analysis is that it is often meant to deceive. I know that the Cro-Magnon man is considered the physical epitome of man, as regards height as well as brain size.

                  However, the fossil record is skewed. Birth rate was (obviously) as high as physically possible, in the past, but mortality was also extremely high. Infants to adults suffered from various diseases, hazards, and even simple starvation on a very large scale. Those who survived to adult age and thus reproduced were the cream of the crop – the most physically robust and mentally capable men, not to mention the “luckiest.” Effectively, all survivors were elites.

                  After agriculture came around, death rate from infectious diseases increased, but other mortality factors decreased, and have been precipitously decreasing into the modern era. You simply do not have to be very smart or physically robust to survive in a sedentary farming village, and doubly so in a modern post-scarcity environment. This leads to natural segmentation in the population when elites mate eugenically while the rest breed naturally, i.e, dysgenically. In such a society, the number of proles is obviously higher than elites, but that is offset by proles engaging in hazardous activities more that get them killed at faster rates.

                  The average human is evidently skewed towards the prole phenotype, because of the nature of statistics. But the “average” in this case is meaningless, as it is the average of different categories. Just like an “average” of grizzly bears and polar bears tells us nothing valuable about either type (even though both are the same species).

                  Hence “average” past statistics (where there was an elite-only world) must be normalised to current elite averages to be significant. Which statistics are not available, and are impossible to collect due to crimestop. So I resort to indirect measures. The accomplishment of today’s elite is considerably greater than past elites in absolute terms, and similar in relative terms. Moreover, human population has exploded to levels unthinkable in the past. Even based on the standard bell-curve analysis, the number of “elites” in absolute terms should be much higher than in the past, and the probability of existence of super-geniuses is higher as well.

                  The problem today is not a lack of number of elites, but that the overall trends are negative – non/dysgenic reproduction is not a problem for proles (whose existence is, and always has been, Malthusian). But it is a severe problem for everyone if elites have non/dysgenic reproduction, as is the case today.

              • lusaeb says:

                Tibet is an Aryan or at least proto-Aryan kingdom. The “ancient” Tibet known today is actually Buddhist Tibet, which is not so ancient (the Buddha was contemporaneous with Christ). Very little is known about the earlier Tibetan religion and culture, and research is extremely hampered by Chinese occupation. India also underwent a “Buddhist” phase popularised by Emperor Ashoka the Great, but later underwent a Hindu renaissance, so that the old traditions were never totally lost. Tibet still has Buddhist memetic supremacy.

                A similar fate seems to have befallen the Persians, who now live in dwindling numbers (mostly in India, some in Iran), with their home country dominated by Arab-Seljuq mulattoes LARPing as “Persian” in “Iran.”

          • Zach says:

            First paragraph is a parse in error. Claims are nowhere to be found. Including podcasts.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        It’s obvious he is broke because he took a writing gig for neocons and because he wants your credit card number.

        It is obvious he is not to be trusted because he took a writing gig for neocons and because he wants your credit card number. He also doesn’t take bitcoin.

        • BC says:

          That’s really sad. I still remember the day I discovered UR. I devoured it in a 2 week period. So many things that had been bothering me for years suddenly fell into place.

        • Not Tom says:

          Where and when did he ask for credit card numbers?

          As for writing for neocons, you’re talking about what, Claremont, because “American Mind” is one of their properties? I’d call them cuckservatives, for sure, and wouldn’t bother to read any of their other authors no matter how bored I was, but what exactly places them in the Bush/Koch orbit? I see their position described as Straussian, which is basically paleoconservative, not neocon. Or are you just using the word as shorthand to label any part of the lame and ineffectual “moderate right”?

          If he were getting glowing coverage in the New York Times or associating himself with the Dork Web then yeah, I’d agree it would mean he’s sold out completely. But writing a few posts on a barely-known branch of a minor paleoconservative organization as well as doing a few podcasts with some totally unknown interviewer hardly qualifies as selling out or going mainstream.

          Harp on the namefag issue if you must, but this kind of wild speculation is just silly. Certainly doesn’t hold water as evidence for the claim.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            >I see their position described as Straussian, which is basically paleoconservative, not neocon.

            Eh? Leo Strauss is like, the ur-neocon (pni). The founding father. When neocons say ‘the historical canon of western civilization, properly understood, is contemporary liberal expediencies’, that’s where they get it from.

          • The Cominator says:

            Straussian in the context of Claremont means they are outside the Overton window of cuckservatism but must check their language to appear within the Overton window.

            Claremont hosted the flight 93 election article, they host articles by BAP… they are /ourguys.

            • jim says:

              “Straussian” means that they are our guys under cover. Though it is hard to tell a crypto reactionary from a leftist.

              Namefags always lie, but “Straussian: means that their lies are made so that the discerning reader will see through the lie, and is intended to see through the lie. On the other hand, not always easy to tell the difference between our guy making stupid lies with the intent that his smarter readers will see through the lie to the truth, and just lying very badly because crimestop is making him stupid, with the unintended result that doublethink is plain to see.

              • The Cominator says:

                Exactly but Claremont is solid they are not people going hail fellow crypto extreme reactionary.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  It’s possible I am wrong about Claremont. I do not know much about it. I recently encountered it in a book about neoconservativism in which it was referred to as the main intellectual center of neoconservativism.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            If you give him your email address he asks for CC numbers in exchange for the hidden chapters of his writings.

            I don’t think his role in the organization is to be presented to progbots as a thought leader in the NYT . Why would it be? His role is to subvert dissidents: “hello fellow dissidents!”

            He gets paid [and protected] because he has serious credibility as a dissident that can’t be manufactured.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              How would you go about proving this? Your ISP has your credit card info and has been thoroughly compromised by USG, or China, or Russia.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Did you get lost and think you’re in some court where I have to prove things to you beyond any reasonable doubt? Take it as you like.

                Of course if USG wanted to kill me (today) it could. If I thought it wanted to and was willing to pay what that costs, I would arrange my life differently.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I’m laying down my saber and walking away from this one for now.

          • Zach says:

            I’d also add the writing by Boldy at AC is some of his most atrocious writing.

            The stuff at GM I think holds up a lot better. Boldy is being intellectually honest and dishonest at the same time. Where he decides to comment on any given topic he means it, but the important part is what he isn’t saying.

            He’s always been kind of a pussy.

        • Lachlan Midwit says:

          There is also the connection to Kantbot who is now openly Marxist.

          • Contaminated NEET says:

            Kantbot is just too cool for school. He has to be smarter, care less, and have more novel takes than anybody else. When he was interacting with progs, he was a right-winger so he could be cooler than them. Now that all the progs have blocked him and he has a lot of interaction with trads and rightwingers, he is a progressive so he can still be the coolest guy around. He’s no Marxist; he’s not anything except cooler than you.

            You’d know this if you read Herder.

            • jim says:

              If Kantbot wants to have novel takes, he can talk about hatefacts. Does he?

              Kantbot physically looks like a Soros shill. They usually have that face and that hair. I have not bothered checking his stuff to see if he is beating the Soros drum.

              • Contaminated NEET says:

                Back when he was being cooler than the progs, he’d mention hatefacts in his novel takes, although he was admittedly pretty sparing with them. Now that his peer-group and audience are trads and right-wingers, he crafts his takes to shock and discombobulate them instead. Hatefacts won’t do that job, so he tries to come up with novel defenses of progressivism and critiques of right-wing ideas.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Literally who?

                • jim says:

                  > he’d mention hatefacts in his novel takes

                  Did he now? Or did he, like Jordan Peterson, dog whistle around words that to the already darkly enlightened remind the hearer of hatefacts, without actually saying them?

                  Reflect on Jordan Peterson’s prescription of how to be a man (“Tidy your room”), and compare it with the Darkly Enlightenment prescription of how to be a man. (“Have a woman tidy your room.”)

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Jim, what is your position on Jordan Peterson on the /ourguy/ spectrum? He gets a lot of hate from both sides, which to me is an indicator that he has something valuable to say. He is also Canadian, which to me means he is best digested as the local opener for a touring band. I always thought his downfall had aspects that glowed.

                • jim says:

                  Jordan Peterson was not initially an enemy agent, but as soon as he attracted attention by going a little distance out on a limb, he got co-opted by the enemy. He is not a scriptbot reading the enemy’s scripts, but he will not burn his bridges, and operates within limits set by the enemy, which makes him effectively an enemy asset. They jerk his leash whenever they need to, and he complies.

                  He attracts attention as Scott Alexander attracts attention, by hinting he is going to deliver the truth, but then delivering the lie. People are hungry for the truth, and he has credibility, but fails to deliver. By delivering the lie, he acts as an agent for the enemy.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I always thought his downfall had aspects that glowed.

                  I thought his rise to fame had aspects that glowed. Like Ben Shapiro, he was never required to debate against any serious intellectual opposition. His written work is quite literally incoherent, he has/had concrete ties to the entertainment industry, and when mainstream-ish media stopped talking about him he became irrelevant almost overnight. That demonstrates little organic interest.

                  Yes he’s said some things that look kinda sorta red-pilled under red ambient lighting, but one look at his daughter and his family life in general should tell you all you need to know about his real self.

                  Maybe “glow” isn’t the right word. I doubt he was an IC asset, just a convenient prop for the gatekeeping arm of the Cathedral. His purpose, like the rest of the Dork Web, was to help “deprogram” right-wingers who were becoming “radicalized”.

                  Vox, whatever some of us may think of him, did a lot of really solid investigative work on JP, and anyone with even a mild interest in JP’s work really owes it to himself to read those critiques. Even if you totally discount his personal life, his bibliography is chock full of gnostic and even satanic themes. No bueno.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Always good to find out just how poor your sensor data is. Better to be naked and afraid than naked and falsely confident. I grouped Peterson with Haidt. Can you possibly link me to anything that might clarify my misread?

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >Did he now? Or did he, like Jordan Peterson, dog whistle around words that to the already darkly enlightened remind the hearer of hatefacts, without actually saying them?

                  Huh. I went back and looked at some of his old writings to find an example or two, and you’re right: there is no serious and unambiguous heresy on race or sex.

                • jim says:

                  > > Did he now? Or did he, like Jordan Peterson, dog whistle around words that to the already darkly enlightened remind the hearer of hatefacts, without actually saying them?

                  > Huh. I went back and looked at some of his old writings to find an example or two, and you’re right: there is no serious and unambiguous heresy on race or sex.

                  The alt right is the dissident right.

                  If someone sounds like he dissents, if he purports to be in our ingroup, claims to be alt right, but does not dissent, probably a shill, falsely pretending to ingroup membership of a group he hates and seeks to destroy, though the true shill test is to attempt to discuss a matter where any truthful answer is thought crime, or requires discussion of hate facts. His evasiveness or robotic scripted character then becomes apparent, and you realize you are not talking to a human, but responding to to a spambot, or talking to a human that is lying about his political beliefs.

                  Some people tend to talk but not listen, which does not make them spambots or shills, but strikingly selective failure to listen while simulating interactivity reveals the lie.

                • Peterson is a deeply broken man who cannot function without his pills. His line is “take your meds”, and his takes are for men who are on meds. His story on how he convinced his wife to marry him made me vom. Just listen to him.

        • pdimov says:

          The implication here is that he was once to be trusted. But his positions haven’t changed.

          • Tom Hart says:

            Peterson talks a great deal about Nietzsche and Jung, but he misrepresents Nietzsche and hides a lot of Jung—assuming he has actually read them in depth, which he must have done.

            CG Jung:

            “No matter how friendly and obliging a woman’s Eros may be, no logic on earth can shake her if she is ridden by the animus. Often the man has the feeling – and he is not altogether wrong – that only seduction or a beating or rape would have the necessary power of persuasion.” Jung, CW9i para. 29

            Jung also held that the collective unconscious, a concept Peterson uses extensively, was a racial unconscious; this view could still be found in mainstream university textbooks as late as the 1970s, but it has since been memoryholed. In other words, the mythical journeys Peterson describes as guides to life, per Jung, should differ between racial groups. There are commonalities between myths, but a Westerner cannot live out, for example, a Chinese mythological journey.

            I think Jung was based and red pilled, but Peterson, as a mainstream Western intellectual, has trained himself not to probe too deeply.

            • ten says:

              There is a gun to Petersons head which would fire if he stepped overly out of line. Instead, he follows the leash around his neck, staying in line.

              Of course he knows Jungs racial views. Were he in disagreement with those views, he wouldn’t just ignore them, bur he must ignore them, because of the gun.

              Maybe that makes him effectively an enemy asset. If so, any and all public discourse is an enemy asset, because it must follow these rules. Peterson was pushing it enough for the left to be ready and willing to undo him, but careful treading of the line has let him go on. Vox day could not do what Peterson does, because he would step out of line and be undone.

              I don’t know if Petersons game is a bad game that effectively always works for the enemy. If so, his judgement in playing it is an error, but following the rules of the game now when he is (or was, maybe it’s over) playing it certainly is not an error.

              To me it doesn’t look like he doesn’t probe deep, it looks like he very carefully avoids topics and implications that would end the game for him. This understanding of what is forbidden and what is merely suspicious on the contrary indicates understanding of what lies behind the red tape. If he avoided it due to conditioning and lack of understanding he would occasionally misjudge and step over the line.

              Not saying his secret power level is over 9000, he’s a modern at heart. And he obviously is not capable of mastering women, although he did speak for “enforced marriage” being a central lost social technology, indicating he gets it but just isn’t a chad.

              Am saying that speaking genuine thoughtcrime would be a really shit idea for him. Gun goes off, dies a pauper, loses the game and whatever influence he is attempting, wins +1 respect point among anon dissidents.

              • Tom Hart says:

                Peterson really believes a lot of what he says; he’s not holding back something he knows—his conscious control never lets him go anywhere too dangerous to start with. Just as it was obvious to many people that Stalin’s obsession with abolishing private property and Hitler’s obsession with the Jews were delusions, it is obvious to other people when Peterson is deluded—it is less evident to him.

                A good example of this came when a clever progressive journalist interviewed him. He asked a question to the effect, “You’re against the government compelling someone in speech and with regard to their property: what if a black man wants to stay at a guest house and the owner refuses to let him stay? Should the government compel him to accept the guest?”

                Peterson just stuttered, because he’d not thought his position all the way through to its logical conclusion. He effectively said that, obviously, this was a different case to the type of compulsion involved in pronoun use for transsexuals. As a conservative, his classical liberalism is only as good as classical liberalism from 30 years ago—it is an amputated classical liberalism that gets more amputated every year. Free association and property rights mean the owner should be able to refuse service on whatever grounds they choose, and not even have to explain themselves. For Peterson, it was already ideologically hardwired that free association and property rights do not apply to race—and that it’s actually evil, possibly literally Hitler, to do so. He hadn’t even allowed his mind to go there.

                Ironically, this made it look like he has a particular problem with transsexuals; he was happy for the government to compel with regards to race relations—a concession made before he was born—but when it came to sexual orientation, it was a bridge too far. That is part of how the Left’s rhetorical strategy works: “So, what you’re saying is, Dr Peterson, that you’re okay with blacks being protected by the government, but you just hate transsexuals in particular? How do you feel about black transsexuals?”.

                Because Peterson can’t think clearly in this regard and can’t articulate a consistent classical liberalism, he gets owned. Fortunately, not all of his interviewers have been as clever as that one, so he has had a relatively easy ride in that respect—otherwise his inconsistency would be more obvious. It’s a consequence of thinkstop; he couldn’t even contemplate applying his compelled speech position across the board, including to race. His conscious control wouldn’t let him go there.

                He could turn full NRx and be fine financially; he would be demonised, but he had been pretty much fully demonised as it stands—he would carry a big enough support base over to be okay, though he would be harried in terms of credit card processing etc. He won’t do so because, as I said first of all, he really believes a lot of what he says. He was literally trained at Harvard; he is a true believer—just like the Old Bolsheviks at the show trials he thinks there has been a revolutionary excess in his case that will eventually be corrected because the system is basically sound, if dangerously misguided at the moment.

                Peterson is hated so strongly because he is a slightly heretical true believer and hence dangerous. If you were never a true believer, then you’re just a demon so far as the system is concerned; you’re condemned, but your existence doesn’t threaten the certainty of the faithful so you don’t get the full Two Minute Hate treatment. Peterson shakes the faithful.

                He’d never go NRx because the viewpoint is too cold; he’s a practicing psychologist, he likes to use emotions—he’d perceive the dark enlightenment’s approach as overly cruel and cold. And, anyway, he is a priest in the system; it’s hard for him to even consider the system in the way NRx does, he can only be a dissident within progressive discourse—he can’t go outside.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Yes, Jordan Peterson is basically an intelligent normie academic annoyed with feminism and willing to show it. I don’t think we should expect too much from him.

                  However, if his power levels should rise, I would recommend him, rather than answering yes or no, to take that question in a direction the interviewer perhaps wouldn’t expect. Start by examining the safe spaces for women, blacks, LGBT, etc, then finally ask why the white men are not allowed to say no. Even better, first read up on what the various grievance departments and government groups claim in this respect and incorporate it in the crescendo.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Peterson is hated so strongly because he is a slightly heretical true believer and hence dangerous. If you were never a true believer, then you’re just a demon so far as the system is concerned; you’re condemned, but your existence doesn’t threaten the certainty of the faithful so you don’t get the full Two Minute Hate treatment. Peterson shakes the faithful.”

                  Exactly so, and his heretical progressivism is EXTREMELY anti feminist and the woman question is the most central issue.

                  As such I do not think he is controlled op even if he is intended to be they are doing it wrong.

                • jim says:

                  > As such I do not think he is controlled op even if he is intended to be they are doing it wrong.

                  You listen to Jordan Peterson’s prescription for being a man, you will not be a man.

                  People listen to him because they know they are being lied to, and are hungry for truth. They listen to him, they do not get the truth. They get Cathedral lies mixed with fragments of truth that mildly irritate the Cathedral but do not threaten it, thereby giving the Cathedral lies more credibility.

                • jim says:

                  > Because Peterson can’t think clearly in this regard and can’t articulate a consistent classical liberalism

                  Namefags must always lie. Don’t listen to namefags, unless you are considerably smarter than they are, and able to analyse their output for the grains of truth they use to carry the lie. And most of Peterson’s followers are not smarter than Peterson. Everyone that regards Peterson as OK is less smart than Peterson.

  22. Icon says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Name the Jew who has been funding and arming the troubles in Portland and Chicago, and then you can talk about the Jews.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        He really won’t Name the George, Jim? Really?

        I mean George can’t write him a permission slip or something? How hard can it be? Am I being stupid again?

        • someDude says:

          @Mister Grumpus

          He would never dare ask for permission from his HR manager to mention The George? Why is that? Because the entire chain of command between him and The George will start doubting his loyalty the moment he asks for said permission. So forget about him taking the initiative to ask for such permission at all. Similarly, it follows iteratively that nobody in the chain between him and The George will dare ask for said permission for the same reason.

          The only person who can give him said permission is The George Himself. But I don’t think The George concerns Himself with the minutiae of infliltrating and subverting reactionaries. If He does so, it will quickly become intractable as everything will get referred back to Him in no time and He will drown in detail. So this particular shill has reached the a very stable operating equilibrium. What is the nature of this stable equilibrium?

          Info keeps posting enemy spam, Jim deletes some of them and lets some of them in. HR monitors info’s output for ideological conformity, finds no violations and pays him for the posts that are out there and does not doubt his loyalty. Jim does not get infiltrated, HR gets paid, Info gets paid, Jim gets laid. And every thing is nice comfy and stable. Now Im sure info is in for nice bonus if we successfully infiltrates Jim. But he sure does not mind the steady paycheck minus the bonus either.

          I’ve just figured out partly how cohesion works and I can feel the neurons firing.

        • jim says:

          Evidently it is quite hard. I got a similar reaction with troofers on the FBI. Troofers can demonize the DIA all they like, but they cannot mention, or even acknowledge their interlocutor mentioning, the FBI.

          Icon has no end of shocking news about shadowy rich powerful evil Jews supposedly pulling the strings, except about an actual not at all shadowy rich powerful evil Jew who actually is pulling strings.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            If he really will never mention Soros, after being prompted to do so this many times, I come to believe that there are paid shills here.

            • Karl says:

              Initially I also thought why would someone pay someone to post propaganda on a blog most people have never even heard of, but then I learned that there are funds for just that. In Germany the going rate seems to be 0.5 EUR per post (for those who are not regularly employed, but I hear there is also regular employment where propaganda posting is part of the job)

              • someDude says:

                Might be worth going undercover to discover what this world is like. What if the blog owner modifies the comments of paid shills in such a way that the paid shill could get in trouble with HR scrutinizing his output? How would the paid shill explain to HR that his comment was modified?

                • jim says:

                  Would not work.

                  His masters see the comments as they are sent out, not as they appear on the blog.

                  Responses to his comments are counted by a machine, and humans above his rank do not get to see what is in the response. Maybe they need permission to check the content of the response, maybe they are too busy and important, or maybe there is a self imposed barrier of ignorance to protect them against the thought crime contamination that low ranking shills are exposed to.

                  His employers want a one way flow of memes, they want memes going out, not coming in, so he gets credit for “engagement” regardless of the nature of that “engagement”.

                • someDude says:

                  What you are saying makes sense. Of course, his masters see they comments as they are sent out and not as they appear. That makes sense. That’s how it should be. The enemy is stupid, but not that stupid.

                  My dislike for the enemy is causing me to wish him to be stupid, and this ardent desire is clouding my judgement as to what he is really like. Hard to be objective about someone you dislike at so visceral a level. Good that I am not a commander or a strategist. I’ll behead these bastards with Glee but I am not to be trusted with formulating a strategy that brings these bastards to the chopping block.

                • jim says:

                  The enemy is stupid in one important regard:

                  That a deleted comment spawned a lengthy thread is likely to be scored as “engagement”, and will reflect favorably on Icon’s job performance. That our enemy engages in one-way communication means that they are ignorant of what is happening.

          • someDude says:

            I’m still under influence of the High of discovering how social cohesion works. Man, this sort of knowledge is like a Drug. What a High! What a High!

            I’m feeling pretty much the same way I felt when I figured out how my Dad used to make that coin disappear in that magic trick I used to love as a Kid.

            I’m feeling pretty much the same way I felt when I discovered that women actually like it when you look at them sexually (Among other things).

          • someDude says:

            Jim, a thought experiment. You can modify the comments posted, right? I mean you can edit them, I’m pretty sure.

            So how about modifying Icon’s comments so that he explicitly mentions The George. For good measure, why not modify it to have him say some pretty unmentionable things about The George and the influence he wields. Since his output is subject to scrutiny by HR, that would cause Icon to lose his shit.

            So let’s see what Icon does after that? Will he post accusing you of having modified his comment? Will he demand you take it down? Will he stop posting altogether under the name icon? How will he convince HR that you modified his comment?

            This should be an interesting experiment to conduct, no? I’m surprised no one else suggested this.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          @someDude:
          “He would never dare ask for permission from his HR manager to mention The George. Why is that? Because the entire chain of command between him and The George will start doubting his loyalty the moment he asks for said permission.”

          Maybe it’s not in the asking, but in the using. Like a shibboleth kind of thing.

          Even if I got a permission slip to Name the George, as soon as I’m actually out there and using it, I’m looking and sounding just like an Enemy of George to all of George’s other people, whoever they are, only a few of whom know about me and my permission slip.

          If we’re a close-knit super-tight high-trust crew, us against the world, then it could work. Like 007’s “license to kill.” What’s so alluring about that, as a story element, is that it implies a close-knit super-tight high-trust crew who are all in on everything together, none of whom are squealing to nobody on the outside.
          (And notice how they can’t make movies like that anymore. All they can do now is “Jason Bourne” type who’s-who secret-identity double-crossing back-stabbery.)

          So if George’s Shill Shop was a similarly super-tight high-trust crew of true believers then it could work.

          But on the other hand, if it’s just a job, a way to scrape up a few bucks, from people I don’t know or trust very well, and who don’t know or trust me very well either, so I can trudge home to my polyamorous cuck den and day-old $22 humus, well then screw that. Tt’s just not worth it.

          And thus I circle myself right back to the Satanic common criminality “handkerchief with a map that appears pizza related” stuff again. Because there must be guys out there with these permission slips, surely, but goddamn, imagine what they had to do to get them.

          • someDude says:

            “So if George’s Shill Shop was a similarly super-tight high-trust crew of true believers then it could work”

            I think you nailed it here. Lefties, by definition are defectors. Defectors are inherently low-trust. Those that are low trust cannot be closely knit. Their only glue, as Jim says, is the prospect of knocking over an apple cart and stealing some apples. No apple cart to knock over, no glue.

            I think even the act of asking for a permission slip is seen to be suspicious, and given what we know of the left, with Good reason. So only alternative is for The George himself to give them a changed script which includes mentioning his name. People lower in the hierarchy to The George will simply not take the initiative to ask for a permission slip.

      • someDude says:

        I’m very suitably impressed.

        So this is what social technology means.

        So, This is how cohesion is built and maintained.

        So this is how one knows friend from foe.

        So this is how one knows a clansman from an entryist or a spy.

        Less hard to know prospective friend from Foe now.

        I’m very impressed and thirsty for more.

        Jim, How about a series of posts dedicated to social technology in the old testament? Or maybe Tagging old old posts with such information using the tag, “Soclal Technology”

        • acrrdu says:

          Maybe you should start reading Jim’s blog from the beginning. It was full of what would pass for LOLbertarian/Tradcuck content today, but then Jim used to be a LOLbertarian in the past (like me) and a Commie☭ pig🐖 before that (unlike me).

          • anon says:

            >Maybe you should start reading Jim’s blog from the beginning.

            Seconding this. The minority mortgage meltdown material is pretty good reading.

            • RedBible says:

              I’ve unironically have been doing just that, though I do tend to take week long breaks between “reading sessions” since 12 years worth of posts is going to take a fair amount of time to read no matter what.

      • Icon says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          If Jews are all one and the same, tell us about the bad conduct of the one Jew who most conspicuously exemplifies the bad conduct of Jews.

          • someDude says:

            Maybe they can just replace shills with AI? Pretty sure the AI will seem less robotic than these guys.

            • FrankNorman says:

              They tried that, remember? The AI learned from the Internet and rapidly turned into a “Nazi”.

  23. Someone says:

    I find the description of reality in this blog gets significantly more accurate the more insane things get. This isn’t a good thing because it is incredibly difficult to predict what way things are going to go. It isn’t Jim’s fault that the left wing are insane.

    However, the more insane it gets the more compelling I find the idea that behind this left wing insanity is a supernatural being we all know as Satan or Lucifer.

  24. Oscar_Cc says:

    The question is whether the woke coalition will hold forever. Here in Spain there is a huge dispute between trans rights activists and so-called TERFs online, and the dominant center-left party had to take account of it.

    I have seen somewhere that the 2020s risk being a decade of deep depression. That could be the breaking point.

    As long as UMC people are doing well nothing will change. I highly recommend this piece:

    https://colonyofcommodus.wordpress.com/2018/05/17/theres-no-power-without-downward-distribution/

    The “decent” and “productive” people are the least likely to revolt.

    • jim says:

      > As long as UMC people are doing well nothing will change. I highly recommend this piece:

      Nuts.

      Things have been changing rapidly all my life, and changing faster and faster. The acceleration is becoming dramatic and startling.

      If your theory makes predictions contrary to observation, examine your priors.

      Things started changing radically two centuries ago, and they have been changing faster and faster ever since.

      Why is it going to stop now? In the past millennium, many nations, peoples, and armed religions have travelled this path, and they always end up at the same destination. The slippery slope gets steeper and more slippery, until it is a long drop with utter annihilation at the bottom.

    • jim says:

      > The “decent” and “productive” people are the least likely to revolt.

      When black people riot, the liquor store and the pawnshop burn.

      When white people riot, continents burn.

      Poor people don’t make much trouble, except on a small scale as individuals. Members of the elite make trouble using poor people as mascots. The Antifa that were tearing down statues and burning stuff are trust fund kids from elite educational institutions. When you see organized Antifa violence on video, they are acting in the name of colored people, but they are whiter than a Klu Klux Klan rally. For example, the large scale group attack on the cops at the Columbus statue. They knew that browns and blacks would not be able to hold discipline, and forgot about affirmative actioning their mascots.

      When elite factions go at it, you are likely to see war between old America and New America.

      The cops in Portland are quietly disobeying the mayor. That is revolt by decent productive people.

      The far left is physically threatening the right and the slightly less far left. This is going to escalate sooner or later, very likely sooner.

      In the end, they will kill us, or we will kill them. They will not talk, they will not listen. War or genocide is inevitable, because communication has been silenced.

      • Oscar_Cc says:

        Pretty grim outlook, but plausible. We will see how things evolve. I also feel the acceleration.

        You might wanna check this blog, which is a perspective I share, the “alt-left”:

        https://thealternativeleft.blogspot.com/2020/02/why-do-right-wingers-keep-doing-that-st.html

        Cheers and thanks for your previous advice. It is much appreciated.

        • Sam says:

          It is wordy nonsense. Talking about why conservatives dislike queer rights without identifying the fact it is almost exclusively sodomites.

          • Oscar_Cc says:

            I read the famous Jim post ‘Gay must be suppressed’. It made me understand better why homosexuals are not liked in the Right, although I found it a bit too harsh.

            However the case of Israel proves that you can be both a gay-friendly country and very nationalistic/masculine, kinda like a new Sparta. Fertility rates are high there, even among secular Jews.

            • Not Tom says:

              It proves nothing of the sort.

              It proves, like so many other situations in the west, that it is possible for nations and institutions to coast for a very long time off of stored capital, including social capital. It proves that you can eat quite a lot of seed corn before you starve.

              Israel is becoming less masculine and less nationalistic by the day. They came within an inch of a left-wing coup this past year, and their military is becoming increasingly ineffective since they started promoting women to combat roles and open homosexuals to any roles.

              Israel isn’t some miraculous case study into liberal success, it’s yet another example of provincialism. The provinces always trail the capital, both in growth and in decline.

              • Yeah, the accumulation and spending of various kinds of capital is my go-to model, too. One thing that remained from my Misesian “past life” was “look at stocks, yoo, not only flows”. I.e. the results we reap are not necessarily the consequences we were doing lately. Accumulation and depletion means the cause and effect are distant from each other in time, making them harder to notice.

                Alan is working hard and saving all his money, living a really boringly penny-pinching life. Bob is lifting every day and lives on a really strict diet. Alan has money capital, Bob has body capital.

                Eventually they decide to spend it. Alan decides to live high on the hog, Bob decides to chase girls on the beach and drink sugary cocktails and eat pizza with them, before or after boning them, does not matter. They are having a lot of fun. Their lifestyle is obviously attractive.

                And in the beginning to an external observer it looks like a very good thing. They have it AND can spend it. Very good place to be.

                Eventually they spend too much of it. To the external observer their choices look more and more questionable. Eventually, they are ruined.

                The hell of the thing is that the external observer is going to think it is the early stage of spending that was awesome, because they both had it and could afford to spend it. In reality, that was already a road towards ruin, albeit slowly.

                My point is that what we might consider the golden ages, 1950’s patriarchy with super sexy housewives or whatever, was already a period of spending. And the period of accumulation was a whole lot less fun, really.

                And another darkly red pill is that if Alan and Bob want to turn it around, they have it harder than originally! Because A) they have to overcome their new habits B) they have debt to pay off.

                Smart money is that they won’t make it. Blackpilled or not, that is the most likely outcome.

            • jim says:

              Israel has not won a war since the US embassy imposed gay parades on them.

              They have a healthier society than us, as is manifested by their wall, and their unashamedly selective immigration policy, that cheerfully puts race and center while pretending otherwise, but the writing is on the wall.

              The Ashkenazi in Israel are losing control to political correctness, and their birthrates are plummeting.

            • Tom Hart says:

              The Spartans were not friendly to homosexuals; they prohibited homosexuality. This caused the Athenians, great boy-lovers, to mock the Spartans for being under the thumb of their women, hence unmanly—Athenian women were kept in strict purdah, hardly let out of the house. The Spartans, by contrast, taught their women to fight to some extent, so you could draw a parallel to the IDF’s female soldiers. However, Spartan women were never real warriors, and the Athenian attitude to homosexuality was not similar to the contemporary gay rights movement.

              That said, “Spartan” has become a popular name for gay clubs—perhaps leading to your confusion.

  25. TBeholder says:

    , with the left most part of the left moving left faster than the not so left part of the left, the leftmost become increasingly dangerous to the not quite so left.
    […]
    These fractures within the left eventually result in the left singularity being halted short of infinite leftism, as sooner or later, someone important decides “Yes, I do have enemies to the left and I have no choice but do whatever it takes to stop them.”

    Until things get really desperate, those who can’t keep up with Cthulhu have the choice of either going with habitual “no enemies on the Left…” or becoming the next “moderate conservatives”.
    But when does this stop? That’s not a single instant event. Most likely, the turning point is a stable power group considered part of the Left, but now recruiting those unwilling to swim Leftward to the bitter end. Then it becomes a contest between factions. Then it’s indeed “someone important”, specifically someone who can lead a faction.
    The Cromwell/Stalin variant works when one within their own movement has enough of power to stop them. When it’s not just within the Left, “no enemies on the Left…” habit is more likely to prevail.
    Stalin got enough of support to prevail when no serious enemies of bolsheviks remained within reach, so even those not completely disillusioned could see that their own maniacs became the greatest threat at least in short term.
    At the point when it’s extremely clear that the ever-leftward motion will end with them on the frying pan, the Left splits. But even then “avoid the obviously suicidal path” sub-faction can be minority.
    For one, that carpet-gnawing dude could not rule Germany for a single day if overwhelming majority of communists allied with social-democrats until NSDAP is irreversibly crushed — but instead they chose to squabble until national-socialists could take power and make their squabbles irrelevant by imprisoning and/or killing them.
    The Left’s own lunatics must be even less alarming while there’s any outside hostile group nearby.

    but Pelosi is headed for removal soon enough

    Probably. Didn’t “The Squad” try to oust her for years? And now she’s getting senile too.
    https://grrrgraphics.com/aoc-alien-vs-pelosi-predator

    • acrrdu says:

      > GrrrGraphics disallows access from Tor.
      > Most of his valuable readership is on, or soon will be on, Tor.

      Tradcuck till the bitter end.

  26. chad_thudercock says:

    Jim some of the paragraphs are repeated.

    For example “That pretty girls no longer walk the Embarcadero,”… but there are a couple others.

  27. carbontater says:

    To quote Francis Berger from last week

    “The campaign they have unleashed comes at us from multiple fronts and from every conceivable angle. It attacks the mind, restricts the body, and, most significantly tempts the soul. What we are currently experiencing, ladies and gentlemen, is intense spiritual warfare. This is what it looks like. This is what it feels like.”

  28. Nebraskan says:

    What’s interesting to me about “honor and obey,” as I grow older, is I notice that this is for the good of wives, not (just) for the sanity of husbands. Women grow less emotionally stable and their ability to organize themselves declines, rapidly, and they do not notice it. Not so with men.

    • Dave says:

      So too declines their ability to manipulate and appease their husbands with sex. Best to stop shit-testing and start obeying before he loses all interest in you.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Saint Efan of Molyneux talked about this.

        When young, women get stuff through sexuality. Quietly too. When old, through their children, who are quite naturally emotionally attached to them and happy to help out.

        But if they get to middle age without children (or even to 25 but without a path to children?) then the only tool they really have is just nagging. Nagging strangers in public. Escalatingly.

        In countries where essentially all women have children, any nagging is almost entirely in private behind closed doors. How nice.

        But without kids they congeal into these pain in the ass verbal terror cells.

  29. imnobody00 says:

    Great post, as always. I have always been intrigued about your historical comparisons. For example, before you, I have never seen Sulla as the restoration after a leftist revolution but it is obvious to me now.

    Do you have any posts that explain these past revolutions with more detail from this point of view?

    • The Cominator says:

      I disagree slightly on the Sulla narrative here, with the exception of the radical cynics the kind of lefists they had in Rome were realistic that no kind of egalitarian society the way the modern left at least claims to want is possible.

      Sulla purged to raise money and because the people he purged were thought to be supporting the enemies who in his view forced him to take the extraordinary step of marching on Rome. Marius during the time of the civil war started was I think 80 or so, imagine if Joe Biden were an extremely popular war hero but similarly senile and easily manipulated and also delusional that he was still the military genius he once was.

      Sulla strengthened the authority of the senate over the plebs because Marius and Cinna (the guy really controlling Marius) used the plebs to enact the outrageous law depriving Sulla of his consular command (despite Sulla also being a war hero and in his prime rather than senile).

      So when people say Sulla eliminated all the “leftists” it didn’t work… not quite what happened I think, the closest thing to leftist craziness was the Marians allying with Samnites against Sulla.

  30. acrrdu says:

    Charles the Second could then restore normality by merely massively purging the state Church, executing a handful of people, burning one particularly obnoxious and obstinately holy heretic at the stake, and encouraging large numbers of clerics to get out of England.

    Which heretic are you referring to, here? The last heretic to be burned in England was Edward Wightman, which happened during the reign of James I (Charles I’s father).

    • jim says:

      I stand corrected.

      • The Cominator says:

        I’m pretty sure there was some Unitarian woman (and I think it was a woman see if you recall that as well) executed during Charles II reign maybe the charge wasn’t heresy but for some reason I’m having trouble finding it.

      • Frontier says:

        I think Jim was thinking of Elizabeth Gaunt, an Anabaptist who was burned at the stake in 1685 for her involvement in the Rye House Plot to assassinate Charles II.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rye_House_Plot

        • jim says:

          Ah yes – that is the one. Not heresy. But she was an extravagantly and obnoxiously holy women – she was a heretic, and motivated by heresy.

          So I technically correct to say Charles the Second burned one heretic at the stake, but I misremembered, or incorrectly implied, that it was for her heresy. It was for the fruits of heresy.

          • The Cominator says:

            I would have been okay with the Rye House plot if James was the only target… James was a holy fanatic in his own way and the fact that the English had to get rid of him weakened the monarchy.

            Its true the monarchy didn’t lose all its power until George IV but the Glorious revolution damaged the monarchy more than Charles II agreeing to exclusion ever would have.

          • calov says:

            Anabaptists had to be killed in Germany repeatedly for insurrection too. I’m not sure how they eventually settled down and became Amish, but that’s not what they were like at the beginning.

        • acrrdu says:

          Thank you. Her wiki reads curiously like a hagiography. She was only helping poor souls you see, no plotter she! Also, she went to the flames with a smile that left even the executioner impressed. (Even Jesus is supposed to have cried out in doubt and terror at least once). I would read more about this but there appear to be no accessible primary sources.

    • Charles II hanged Thomas Harrison, some Fifth Monarchist dude (a heretic) who was going around raising trouble. He was obstinately holy, holier than Cromwell, holier than Barebone, and dangerous, because he was a military officer.

      After hanged, drawn, and quartered, his guts were thrown in a fire, which is probably what Jim was thinking of.

      • jim says:

        Nah, I was thinking of Elizabeth Gaunt.

        Though it took Cromwell some significant violence to quell the fifth monarchists.

  31. Robert says:

    So we just wait for our Stalin I guess. There is still some affordable land in Midwest.

    • James says:

      Ideally, we get our Octavian. I don’t see anybody who could be a Stalin (Obama is seriously our best bet, that’s how bad it’s looking), but I see a whole mess of potential Pol Pots.

      The way I see it, if we don’t get our Augustus moment, we’re going to end up with a nasty civil war, and any Stalin we get will be a general in that war, rather than any part of the existing political structure. If we’re unlucky, the civil war will go the way of the Khmer Rouge.

      Reading the wind a bit here, if Trump doesn’t secure his power in 2020, we’re looking at a very short window, one or two Biden presidencies at most, before civil war becomes inevitable. Once the Old Left dies off, there will be nobody remaining to keep the activist left appeased. If the right doesn’t have secure power by then, there will be blood and fire in the streets, instead of just fire, as we’re seeing today.

      • calov says:

        “Reading the wind a bit here, if Trump doesn’t secure his power in 2020, we’re looking at a very short window, one or two Biden presidencies at most, before civil war becomes inevitable”

        You think that long? I am assuming that if Biden wins we will be in internment camps in his first term, or there will be civil war.

        • Pooch says:

          I’d imagine Biden likely will cede power pretty early to the VP. Then we will be at the mercy of President Shaniqua.

        • James says:

          Biden and his supporters are too normie for internment camps. It will be economic recentralization, crushing regulation, granting of more autonomous zones to Native Americans, an open southern border, etc. This is less holy than internment camps, but Biden is basically running on being less holy.

          As long as he’s alive, there will be a veneer of normalcy (however much a cold civil war rages in the background). Once he’s gone, though, the war becomes open.

      • Sam says:

        I don’t think it will last that long. We get to 2020 and we get both sides pulling different voting totals and different claims as to who gets to be president.

  32. It feels like in the last 3-6 months, 10-20 years worth of leftward spiralling happened in the US. Not here in Austria, aside from one actually peaceful BLM rally, it is the usual Kurds and Turks fighting, the result of former leftism, not more leftism as such. I wonder what will happen here, will at some point an even later, even much lefter US leftism just sweep things here away like a huge shit avalanche, or it will boil over before that. Iook around in the subway. No tension or nervousness in people. Maybe they will have a rude shock. But I am not sensing more aggro vibes than usual from the nonwhites either. Tvey do not look like preparing to deliver that shock. Maybe the shock troops will be freshly imported.

    • Pooch says:

      There is a lag between events at the epicenter and the fringes of the empire. Notice the George Floyd riots came to parts of Europe weeks and even months after the height of the violent activity in Minnesota.

      • Karl says:

        Well, either events come to the fringes of the empire with a time lag or the fringes break away from the emprire.

        After the UDSSR dissolved all easter european countries that joined NATO and EU become part of the empire, but today the governments of these countries do not believe in diversity and in contrast to western european countries do not accept immigrants from shitholes. They broke away from the empire, Austria might do the same.

        • No, you are absolutely misreading it. Every nation that does not have enough tanks to play great power is going to be a vassal, protectorate of one that has. The law of nature that sovereignty, power is conserved is especially true for military power, being truly independent is a rare luck of highly defensible territory (Switzerland), the far more usual outcome is that either you are strong and you have your own empire, or you are not, and thus you are a part of someone elses empire.

          And they, especially Poland, do not want to be the vassals of neither the BlueGov nor Moscow. So they are trying a balancing act, mostly trying to ally with RedGov, but the problem is that does not really exist anymore. Slovaks or Hungarians might be cool with bending the knee to Moscow, but for historic reasons, Poles, the biggest of the four, absolutely do not want that.

          Another thing is that in the V4 status does not come from holiness but from money. Many V4 citizens make money working in Western Europe, or working on projects the EU is financing at home. So trying to exit the EU would be political suicide. Rather, they have to balance.

          Advisors of Orban in HU have a blog whose title is best translated as “leeway” or “breathing space” or “elbow room”. That is, they are keenly away they cannot break away, they have just “room to manouvre”.

          This might be closed down if the Soros Department cracks down.

          • BTW if you want to check my claims, get in touch with the https://unser-mitteleuropa.com folks who are German expats living in Hungary running this dissident site.

            • Karl says:

              I do not doubt your claims, but at the fringes of empire there is some wiggle room. At the fringes, people can get away with stuff that is not tolerated at the center.

              • jim says:

                > At the fringes, people can get away with stuff that is not tolerated at the center.

                They get away with quite noticeably more of it when they are at the edge of the Chinese or Russian Hegmonies, though sheer distance from Harvard helps quite a bit.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I’m glad you said this, because the Empire/Vassal relationship is not currently Iron Law status. The more one looks, the more one finds many corners, pockets, and regions that are truly beholden to none. It comes at a cost, though. See: Somaliland, Transnistria, Uzbekistan, Angola, Congo, Namibia, CAR. In many of these “freizones” there is active struggle between Blue Empire v. Locals, China v. Locals, etc. But the incompetence of the former and the inexperience of the latter leads to room for maneuver.

          • Karl says:

            I was misunderstood. I try to phrase it differently.

            a)The empire wants immigration Africa and other shitholes to every country of the EU.
            b) V4 does not want this immigration. There is no immgration from shitholes into V4.
            c) If a) and b) is true then V4 is successfully disobeying the empire in this respct.
            d) If V4 can do it, Austria might do it as well.

            Where do you disagree?

            Please note that my post was in response to Pooch’s statement about a lag between events of the center and the fringes. I present V4 as an example that some events, e.g. barbarian immigration, never happen in the fringes. I called ths “break away” which was possibly a poor choice of words.

            • Pooch says:

              Because under no protection of nukes, I’d imagine their disobeying is only temporary and buying time. Eventually the Cathedral will come for them too, especially if Trump loses power.

              • James says:

                The cathedral isn’t anywhere near memetically strong enough to invade Poland against actual organized governmental resistance. If protestors aren’t backed by the local government implicitly, they lose. Their power, even when they are in power, is immensely fragile on the fringes.

                “Racism” as a casus belli really only worked once, against South Africa, and they didn’t actually war with them, just engaged in a trade war. So outright war is unlikely.

                They can’t trade war Poland without bankrupting Germany, so it will either be a no go or it will backfire tremendously.

                I think the main concern V4 should have is whether it is able to fend off Russian influence and Western infiltration. I don’t see the West truly cracking down on the Slavs, but I do see the West deciding it isn’t worth it to stop Russia from integrating them.

                • jim says:

                  The Cathedral has invaded lots of countries against massive government resistance, often killing very large numbers of people in the process, Libya being recent example.

                • Karl says:

                  No, it is wrong to say that “Racism” as a casus belli worked only once against South Africa.

                  It also worked against Rhodesia, for example.

                • James says:

                  Nobody has overtly contradicted the main thrust of my post, only fragments of it in isolation.  I am going to clarify my position a bit in response to those replies, but y’all are really missing the forest for some very nitpicky trees. I really hope that none of you actually think that the Progs could successfully take Poland, but in case you do, I’m going to put out a case against that scenario more thoroughly.

                  The Cathedral is Unofficially Official.  Not Officially Official.  Which means that in general it isn’t great at overtly wielding Official Power for its own means. It generally has to non-overtly wield Official Power for its own means by inventing an Officially Official casus belli: something like human rights abuses, terrorism, etc. (as in the case of Libya)

                  What it’s good at doing is quietly making life hell for people trying to mind their own business, and even that they occasionally lose at. They can rule against the cake shop owner in a court circuit that they own, because the cake shop owner isn’t powerful, and doesn’t have much by way of Official protection in that court room. However, at the national level, the cake shop owner did have protection, and the actions of the Cathedral was ultimately overriden (mostly) by Official power. Thus we see the limits of their power.

                  Were the prog religion Officially Official, this would not have happened. The cake shop owner would be baking the cake from the gulags.

                  So it is with Poland. Overt war (which is what is needed to overcome official government resistance to Unofficial NGO action) is the most official of official actions. They can pull that off against middle eastern nations, because they can come up with an official reason for war that people will buy (false flags, terrorism, etc), and the cost of invasion is small due to a lack of economic integration with those nations. Poland will be a lot harder to drum up a suitable excuse for. It would require much larger atrocities to justify invasion, and it would be harder to sell. Poland has numerous and deep connections to many people in Cathedral territory. Drumming up a palatable reason to invade Poland is really beyond the capability of the Cathedral, especially since everywhere east of the Hajnal Line has learned to see through BlueGov’s bullshit and are constantly on guard for it.

                  If hard power is ruled out, then the threat cascade necessary to make soft power work goes away. Soft Power and asymmetric warfare only ever works when backed by Official military power. In Poland’s case, that isn’t a credible option. It would take decades of posturing to make an actual, official war happen.

                  Since they can resist both Soft Power and Hard Power from the Cathedral, they remain independent. Those are the two far ends of the force spectrum.

                  In the middle, there are basically economic sanctions and covert military operations, both of which are costly long shots. Europe is tremendously dependent on Polish coal plants (to support their ineffective green power grids). If economically sanctioned, Poland could just turn off Germany’s power at night and on cloudy days, and they’d have no recourse. That’s far too costly for the German public to palate when they’re already pretty pissed off over “refugees” they’re supposedly sanctioning them over.

                  So, the only action left on the spectrum is covert military operations. However, in the same way that the cathedral is uniquely effective at taking the judiciary, they are uniquely ineffective at getting the support of high quality fighting men. They’re mostly too smart to fall for Cathedral lies, and they are also mysteriously impervious to the few prog buddyfuckers who make it into their ranks. Dangerous things happen in the field, and sometimes you just can’t save everybody. Pity it’s always the holy ones constantly reminding us of our holy duties in view of our superiors who die young.

                  Across the entire spectrum of action, all the Cathedral has are costly options that are unlikely to be effective. Poland is safe and will be for some time.

                • jim says:

                  > So it is with Poland. Overt war (which is what is needed to overcome official government resistance to Unofficial NGO action) is the most official of official actions.

                  The Cathedral does not do overt war. It instigates color revolution, and then assists the oppressed color revolutionaries – often by measures that curiously resemble overt war.

                  Color revolution is the most unofficial of official actions. It is an adaptive response the Cathedral being officially unofficial.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The reason the Cathedral won’t touch Poland is its a buffer state with their hated enemy Orthodox Christian Russia.

                  Poland is untouchable by the Cathedral as long as they remain anti Russia no matter what which because of centuries of hatred (even though they were better off under Stalin then they would have been under Generalplanost) they likely will.

                • Dave says:

                  There’s no need to invade Poland when young Poles are so easily lured away by the promise of high-paying jobs. The fact that “Bang Poland” is a book and “Bang Dagestan” is not shows that Poland is doing a piss-poor job of controlling its young women.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  In the recent election, there were just a few percentage points between the based winner and the LGBT etc. contender. It doesn’t take a war to flip Poland. On the other hand, one interesting option would be to roll in the NATO forces in preparation for some fun and games in Ukraine, as advertised in 2015. Two birds with one stone.

                  However, I’d guess the Cathedral strategy is more like how they turned based Ireland into migrant/homo/abortion Ireland. It didn’t take all that long once the necessary pieces were in place.

                  Best of luck to Poland and the Polish people.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Or, come to think of it, why not fire up the tanks in a bit of military support of a coming color revolution in Belarus. We shall see.

                • James says:

                  > “The Cathedral does not do overt war. It instigates color revolution, and then assists the oppressed color revolutionaries – often by measures that curiously resemble overt war”

                  Yes. But what measures do you say they can take to assist the color revolutionaries in Poland? They’re thin on the ground, they’re being shut out, and they can’t bomb them.

                  I’m suggesting that this is the step where it all breaks down. The typical Cathedral escalation script has no mechanism for working in Poland, in the same way that the typical shill (seemingly) can’t infiltrate these boards. Effective countermeasures for their script were found, and they just can’t go off-script.

                • jim says:

                  Well, I don’t follow what is going on in Poland all that closely, and cannot follow it because I don’t speak Polish. Do you speak Polish?

                  Poland is definitely in play.

                  The end point for the Cathedral is that peaceful protesters assemble, and the president peacefully resigns in favor of Cathedral Junta because he might be peacefully dragged out and hung because the cops might be so peaceful as to not stop it.

                  That was what was planned for Lafayette Park.

                  The presidential guard at the WhiteHouse was sufficiently unpeaceful that it was not very plausible that Trump might be peacefully hung, so he declined to peacefully resign. At which point the peaceful protesters started peacefully throwing rocks and peacefully burning down buildings, while the Park Police remained strangely peaceful. Cathedral strategy was working, part of the way. Next step would have been to shoot some of their own protesters and blame it on the insufficiently peaceful presidential guard as in the Ukraine. Take the insufficiently peaceful presidential guard out of the picture while the shooting is being investigated, which investigation will never get completed, because when the unpeaceful presidential guard is out of the picture and replaced by sufficiently peaceful cops, Trump will peacefully resign, to be replaced by a Cathedral Junta that makes sure the investigation goes nowhere.

                  If another country, for example Poland, the Cathedral kills a bunch of its own protesters, and then, if the insufficiently peaceful presidential guard is not removed while the matter is being investigated, threatens to bomb them. If they are still not removed, actually bombs them.

                  Trump was ahead of them and placed countersnipers.

                • ten says:

                  Poland has some things going for it which makes cathedral memetic infiltration more difficult, but it is still in play. You write like you are polish or at least have personal insight, so i assume you also know that the social media virtue circuit among the young and cool in Poland is exactly the same as in the west, and that western decadence is fully in vogue, only that the alternatives and opponents in Poland have some muscle.

                  A cathedral takeover of Poland would use this vector, is using this it, and could happen unless met with proper response from government, church and right wing culture warriors.

                • Mike in Boston says:

                  I am sure Globohomo finds Poland’s historical animosity towards Russia useful in keeping it a NATO buffer state. But there’s no reason to think they wouldn’t be happy were it to more fully embrace the new state religion of negrolatry and gaymarriage.

                  As Anonymous 2 wrote, as it stands it doesn’t even look like they’ll need to bother mounting a color revolution, because the Irish model is working fine. Already over 10% of young Poles identify as “LGBT”, more than the EU average, and despite a Catholic, conservative party holding formal power, religiosity has declined while support for gaymarriage has increased. Anatoly Karlin extrapolates current trends to predict that Poland will legalize gaymarriage by 2028.

                  What might reverse these trends to make Globohomo seem less appealing to young Poles, and the prospect of a healthy society more appealing? It would sure be nice if the Polish right took advantage of its time in power to cuck less and go on an effective memetic offensive. But I’m not holding my breath for that.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Mike in Boston

                  Anyone who believes women are equal to men and believes in equal marriage vows are supporters of gay marriage… that includes 99% of Christian leadership.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  As it happens, 1000 US troops soon to move from Germany to Poland. Hardly an invasion force, but I’m sure it will be an enriching experience.

                  https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/protecting-natos-eastern-flank-poland-host-1000-us-troops-leaving-germany

                • James says:

                  I have a few Polish-American friends, I’ve visited the country, and I’ve had a bit of a fascination with it on and off for years.
                  I’ve kept up with Polish national laws and politics for some time, and it’s a totally different beast from America or anywhere else int he West.

                  The Sejm, their main legislative chamber, is about 80% right wing, with about 50% being some variant of “far right”, and the remaining being a center-right party for cuckservatives. Their most “left wing” major party is more right than left.

                  That’s the background in which all of this is happening. Official power is strongly consolidated into nationalist-conservative hands.

                  Then they have numerous laws restricting NGO funding, but in particular they passed this:

                  https://www.neweurope.eu/article/new-funding-law-polish-ngos/

                  Basically, NGOs in Poland are now funded principally by a central government agency. Inevitably, it was the globohomo NGOs that complained, which tells me this law works and they are hurting.

                  More recently, they’ve been working on a law to compel NGOs to disclose all foreign funding sources, as well. Naturally, the globohomo NGOs are yet again the ones to complain. The noose tightens.

                  Yes, they have young “LGBT”, but culture is downstream of politics. They’re most likely 80% young college girls who fuck men while claiming to be lesbians or bisexual, and within a few years they’ll all be married off to straight white men, and more concerned with their family finances and the health of their children than with the poz. The pareto principal of poz, in my estimation, is that 80% of LGBT consists of hypersexual young women who are waiting for their daddy to spank them.

                  I think what’s far more consequential is the ability of the cathedral to fund and organize, and that’s under currently and increasingly strict regulation.

                  The Cathedral playbook does involve escalation to bombing, false flags, and so on — but to reiterate what I’ve said, I don’t think that bombing is a viable option in Poland’s case for a lot of reasons working in tandem.

                  I think false flags can’t work without on the ground NGO infiltration or overt military intervention. I think that a government smart enough to stop NGOs from infiltrating is smart enough to prevent covert military infiltration, as well. That’s just an intuition, but one I have a lot of confidence in.

                  And overt military intervention, for reasons stated above, I also think won’t work. They’re an official NATO ally, they have Russia to call upon if they absolutely must, and they have too much leverage over Germany, core Cathedral territory, to risk pissing off any time soon.

                  Protests are meaningless without foreign funding and organization. Foreign funding and organization is useless without the ability to bomb, false flag. Bombing and false flags are useless when they can’t be used to escalate to war. At every level of escalation, the grasp of the Cathedral becomes more and more tenuous in the case of Poland.

  33. someDude says:

    SFO is not really Silicon Valley. Do you think White Flight will come to Actual Silicon Valley, i.e. San Jose, Milpitas, Cupertino etc? While whites may not be allowed to defend themselves, Indians and probably the Chinese as well are unable to defend themselves. I mean they can’t. Their culture teaches them to either Flee or bend the knee. And in all probability the Indians are also deficient in courage. Therefore, will not fight. The thought of fighting back won’t even occur to them. So White Flight out of Si Valley means Indian and Chinese flight as well.

    Are they so stupid to let that happen? As Spandrell said, if those riots come to Si Valley, it will be minutes before the CEOs take all their IP in a briefcase and turn up in Shanghai or Singapore.

    • Nils says:

      Stupid? What happens to the chief of police if police kill negros rioting in Nerdlandia? If he can’t kill negros negros can do whatever they please. What happens if he does nothing? Jim calls it purity spiraling because the sewer won’t break today but the crowd can kill you today, vote crowd not sewer and you might live to see the sewer break(London’s sewer is failing and cannot build new sewer) purity spiral has obviously begun, no longer pure subversion, heretical hysteria is torching buildings and ripping down statues(making men with real violence angry, very dumb move, but if you say it’s dumb then you are a witch and loose your job) this ends when big daddy says elon musk can kill rioters with fully automatic fire, then follows up with heavy artillery on the apartment block said rioters came from for being insufficiently obedient. No big daddy and heavy artillery means toilet swirl till the biggest daddy of them all steps in, gnon, killing everyone untill dysgenic government fails and eugenic clans begin. Not great, but no way the prisoners break out of the real prisoners dillema, rat on the woke mafia get capped today, don’t rat and die tomorrow, not great, won’t get better till people are less afraid of woke mafia than something else. So the real question is why save silicon valley? Why defend woke mafia?, Smart reason is because that would end America’s financial bubble real quick, Nerdlandia fails we get crash and hyper inflation, but is Washington more afraid of economy failing or the woke mafia? My money is on the left monster scaring Congress more than Trump, coup time is coming one way or another.

    • ten says:

      Uighurs maybe falsely accused of raping a han woman at toy factory; han go full apeshit, kill 2, hospitalize 118.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaoguan_incident

      They really aren’t as docile as people like to imagine. Look at videos of elderly or skinny asians very courageously and with no hint of submission as alternative slapping the shit out of black thugs in their noodle shops with whatever cooking or cleaning utensil they happen to have around.

      Han are by nature calm, calmer than whites, and by nature orderly, like whites, would prefer not to engage in chaos. And also like whites, when pushed enough, would snap and clear the board, remove the entirety of the chaos.

      殺殺殺殺殺殺殺

      • someDude says:

        Hans are a majority in Guangdong, no? And also the local law enforcement is on their side, no? How well would they do as a minority when the local law enforcement is absent or indifferent?

        • ten says:

          They are a solid majority in every province, including inner mongolia, xinjiang and tibet. Hong Kongers sort of don’t consider themselves han, and they look like frogs.

          I imagine they would kill literally everyone, have a cup of baijiu and sleep soundly and happily every night after. They really like massacring everyone who gives them trouble, always did.

          Local law enforcement claimed the rape was a hoax, which sounds like minority protection damage control to me. The han are not happy about their troublesome minorities and will rant about ingratitude and nukes incessantly when asked about them.

          They do have their version of affirmative action and minority protection, enforced from above as promised by the communists to minority nationalists as payment for service against chinese nationalists, while solidifying han majorities in all regions anyway, to secure the impossibility of secession.

          • info says:

            The Chinese rebels led by Huang Chao slaughtered Christians, Muslim Arabs, Jews, Muslim Persians, Zoroastrians (a.k.a. Parsees or Mazdaists) when they seized and conquered, according to Arab writer Abu Zayd Hasan Ibn Yazid Sirafi. Huang Chao’s army was in Guangzhou during 878–879.[10][11][12][13][14][15][16] Mulberry groves were also ruined by Huang’s army.[17] According to Liu Xu (887–946), the lead editor of the Old Book of Tang, one of the official histories of the preceding Tang dynasty, thousands of Arab and Persian traders were killed when Yang-zhou was looted by the army of the rebel Tian Sheng-Gong.[18]

            Most of the victims were foreign and wealthy.[19]

            The death toll could have ranged from 120,000 to 200,000 foreigners.[20][21][22]

            Foreigners have at different periods settled in China; but after remaining for a time, they have been massacred. For instance, Mohammedans and others settled at Canton in the ninth century; and in 889, it is said that 120,000 foreign settlers were massacred.[23]
            — the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society, The Baptist missionary magazine (1869)

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guangzhou_massacre

            • The Cominator says:

              Massacreing Muslims doesn’t prove anything as they cannot help but provoke themselves to be massacred, no non Muslim nation should tolerate Muslims in its borders (maybe some of the non Koroanic sufis okay). The Chinese have apparently had Jews for the past 1000 years and perhaps other than the communists under Mao they’ve mostly been left alone.

              • someDude says:

                “maybe some of the non Koroanic sufis okay”

                NO.

                All Muslims are all like that (AMAALT)

                • ten says:

                  Sufis are a remnant of eastern monasticism, subjugated enough to islam to be left alone. There aren’t enough of them to be an issue for anyone, and their biggest problem is islam.

                  The problem with islam is that it encourages individuals to personally aggress against kaffir, making peace with islam impossible, and that it destroys everything it touches, making subjugation to islam suicide.
                  Shia exists as a response to this, an attempt to escape the suicide, making shia less of a pure anticosmic corruption, maybe redeemable in spite of still being quite hostile.

                  Sufism however never followed these islamic patterns. They do not aggress, and they do not destroy themselves. They are cryptochristian monks under the rule of islam.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Read ten’s post, there are sects of Sufis who reject Koranic literalism they are borderline mystery religions and considered heresy by Orthodox Islam.

                  The Alawites and the Ismalis for example will not likely be a source of trouble the way Orthodox Muslims are.

                • someDude says:

                  @The Cominator and @ten

                  I offer the stage to the one group of non-Muslims who have the greatest experience of Islam. Cowards, meek, weak and Timid they well might be, They may not have much to teach you, but when it comes to Islam, you better listen to them.

                  Here they talk about the Sufis
                  https://www.opindia.com/2020/06/islamic-jihad-india-sufi-khwaja-moinuddin-chisti-garib-nawaz-nizamuddin-khilji-hindus-forced-conversions/amp/

                  Nothing to be ashamed of. Everyone get’s the Sufis wrong. They are more like a Trojan Horse. Trojans were fooled. So who are we?

                  However, I do have a correction to make, it is AMALT and not AMAALT. As far as non-muslims are concerned, All Muslims Are Like That.

                  If you prefer, Prof Bill Warner (Emeritus, Physics) at the Univ of Tennesse is another expert. Here is his riveting introductory Talk, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y

                  @Jim is another expert on Islam from the Kafir perspective. He can correct me if I err.

                  Lest you Forget, AMALT

                • ten says:

                  Interesting.

                  Your link is saying Sufis do not deserve saint status as the good muslims, because they still sided with muslims instead of comitting suicide by siding against muslims, and because sufis participated in the conquest of india.

                  Well. Is it not to be expected?

                  For me to truly reconsider i need more, perhaps things that are not possible to produce, such as conflicts between sovereign sufis and kaffir, not controlled by other muslims, and afaik there has never been sovereign sufis.

                  I admit it is a good counter point to my argument though.

                • someDude says:

                  @ten

                  It’s too exhausting to dig through all that and it’s probably just an academic qustion. It’s much simpler to just eliminate them with the others. It’s okay to mistake a stick for a snake a 100 times. But it’s much more dangerous to mistake a snake for a stick.

                  I’d rather just eliminate or expel them all and worry about some other stuff like the economy or the Chinese instead of keeping one nervous eye on them all the time. It violates the first law of politics. The squeeze is simply not worth the Juice.

                  Alternately, I could test the Sufis for compatibility by having them do the unpleasant job of demolishing all the Sunnis and Shia mosques in addition to offering helicopter rides to the sea for the most radical jihadists. Any hesitation on their part will result in them being dumped into the sea along with their cargo.

                  ‘Nuff said

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Alternately, I could test the Sufis for compatibility by having them do the unpleasant job of demolishing all the Sunnis and Shia mosques in addition to offering helicopter rides to the sea for the most radical jihadists. Any hesitation on their part will result in them being dumped into the sea along with their cargo.”

                  The Alawite and Ismali ones will have absolutely no hesitation about doing it.

                • someDude says:

                  If so, we can keep them. But what is the source of your knowledge? Ismailis have been creating some shit in Japan when there was absolutely no need for them to. This after having been given asylum in Japan, which translates to protection from Sunnis of Pakistan

                  https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2008/05/23/national/anime-stokes-ire-of-muslims/

                  I don’t know man. You were wrong on the Sufis and now on the Ismailis. What is it about the Alawites we both don’t know? Based on Israel’s experience, I am more than willing to Keep Druze Muslims and not helicopter them. But Alawaites? I’m not so sure.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  My meme level understanding is that alawites are essential an ethnic group descended from levantine christians who covered up the cross with a burka, and that orthodox muslims (so called ‘radical’) also view them as crypto-christians, which is one reason why tranzis were so enthusiastic to fund them to try to kill Based Assad and everyone else (not that they ever need much incentive anyways).

                • The Cominator says:

                  Article about Japan is behind a paywall.

                  I find it hard to believe the Japanese gave anyone from the Middle East Asylum they generally are too smart to let in anyone from any trouble spots and with even esoteric muslims would be prone to err on the side of caution.

                • someDude says:

                  Japan does take in about 12 refugees a year. Some of them were from Pakistan and they were Ismailis. Pakistanis are not middle east. I remember this news from 2008 when the Ismailis were kicking up a huge stink about Mohammed in Anime.

                  The Japanese of course, being a superior race, learnt from it and that was the end of any one from Pakistan being taken for all time to come. But the point is not Japan. The point is that as far as non-muslims are concerned, all Muslims, including Ismailis (the ones protesting in Japan) are the same. If you are a frog, the species of the snake does not matter. Or if you prefer, if you are a Mouse, the Colour of the Cat does not matter.

                  AMALT

              • The Cominator says:

                “Khan writes that Sufism was not accepted among most Muslims till Imam Ghazzali weaved tenets of Islamic orthodoxy into the body. The sects of Sufism that did not follow the orthodox ways, like the Bishariya Sufis, were brutally persecuted by Islamic rulers.”

                From your article, those are the good sects of Sufis I’m talking about the ones the orthodox muslims consider outright heretics.

                I’m not talking about the sellout sects who are as the rest of the article says.

                The Alawites and Ismalis did not accept the Orthodoxy or Koranic literalism and in the case of the Ismalis (aka the Assassins) got the other Muslims to leave them alone by making themselves so terrifying to Islamic rulers that no one would fuck with them at least until the Mongols destroyed their mountain fortress. The Alawites have faced borderline genocidal persecution for most of their history.

                • upeeuc says:

                  The writer Khan, a Muslim, or ex-Muslim at any rate, commits to defending Islam anyway. You have (and Christcucks in general) have no idea about how to deal with the Muslim problem, possibly because it is so foreign.

                  “Sufi” or any such “moderate” movement (Islamic heresy) is violently crushed by other Muslims very rapidly, the latter of which wear the skin suit of the erstwhile heretics and carry on with their more murderous brethren.

                  In effect, the “moderate” sects are diplomats for their Jihadi Army, who only serve to psychologically soften up their targets for conquests and may act as fifth columnists when the time is right. This was seen repeatedly in the Muslim incursions in India, when Hindu kings (stupidly, in retrospect), thought this cult of moon-worshippers to be yet another sect like Buddhists or Jains or early Christcucks, and provided them with religious freedom and mercantile prosperity, all of which turned to nought as soon as the first Muslim armies showed up on the frontier.

                  You cannot have any significant Muslim population in your country, or have any Muslims state on your border, without getting entangled in serious trouble continuously either until your own culture gets assimilated, or you expel/genocide the Muslims.

                  Alawites, Ismailis, blah blah…

                  They are also trapped in the holiness spiral of Islam. They hate you and me, people who want to give them a chance, and support (in their hearts) the Salafists who want to murder them. The leaders of Syria may present as “anti-Imperialist” “protector of Minorities” etc but the people will side with the “terrorists” in a heartbeat. A good litmus test is Palestine. Whatever their internal divisions and quarrels, Muslims unanimously side with Hamas/PLO against anybody else. You can witness al Qaeda (Sunni) and Hezbollah (Shia), otherwise mortal enemies, join together in agreement to murder Christcucks. But wait, what about “muh Jews!!!!?” They’ll switch over to Muslim sovreignity as soon as necessary. Jews have least problems while living under Muslim rule, and Israel/Palestine was at peace for a very long time under the Caliph before the British decided to make trouble.

                  PS: I said “Christcucks in general” because till date there has only been one Christian country which has managed to successfully reclaim its territory and people after Muslim conquest – Spain. And that required fairly brutal measures. And till, date, there has only been one other country that has also successfully managed to come out of Muslim rule, though at great cost, through astute manipulation of global events. That is India.

                • someDude says:

                  @upeeuc

                  India may have come out of Islamic political rule, but the demographic challenge still looms. 15% of it’s population is Islamic and growing at a rate that doubles in proportion every 70 years. For context, it was only 7% in 1950.

                  More-over, India is not under Hindu rule the way Queen Isabella’s Spain of the late 1400’s was under Catholic Rule. India is still ruled by the Cathedral, Hindus are still low-status as compared to Muslims, Modi is still Evil Hitler Rightwing Hitler Hitler,

                  In summary India cannot be compared to Spain. To date Spain from the 1490s is the only Post-Islamic society. India is still a question mark. India’s story is still being written. Only time will tell whether India can give company to lonely Spain in the list of post-islamic societies. The signs though, are not encouraging.

                • upeeuc says:

                  @someDude
                  Agree completely. Most smart fraction Indians agree too, that’s why everyone who can is bailing out of India.

                • someDude says:

                  @upeeuc
                  How smart can they be if they are bailing out of India to go to the west. That’s like exiting the Frying pan to jump into the Fire. They may have exited the religious civil war coming to India only to find themselves in a race war in the west where every other ethnic group has a greater capacity of violence than they have.

                  They are escaping a war to walk into a massacre. This is compounded by the fact that no ethnic group in the west like Indians. Not whites, not blacks, not latinos and certainly not the Muslims. They are quickly going to find out what happens to groups that are all of weak, rich and disliked in a Foreign land. I’m afraid to even look.

                  Now if they were exiting India to go to Japan, SEAsia or SouthAmerica, that would be something. But they are not. And here-in lies the Rub.

                • upeeuc says:

                  @someDude > India may have come out of Islamic political rule, but the demographic > challenge still looms. 15% of it’s population is Islamic and growing at a > rate that doubles in proportion every 70 years. For context, it was only > 7% in 1950.

                  The demographic challenge is far more dire than your statistics show. Civil War was only averted by partitioning the nation into three arbitrary states, one of which is now nuclear armed with the “Islamic Bomb” too. In this way Indian statisticucks can hide away what should be civil war statistics into “state-vs-state war.” India vs Pakistan/Bangladesh is a civilisation-ending catastrophe at this point, far, far worse than if the question had been militarily settled in 1949 itself. The 15% Muslim population in “India” is but a small fraction, a fifth column at most, for the nuclear-armed Mujahedin that Hindus face.

                  To wit, the only “secularisation” movement in the modern subcontinent resulted in the destruction of a … Hindu monarchy in Nepal. Secularism somehow never seems to apply to Muslim theocracies. Destruction of Nepali monarchy was a massive folly by Indians, and provided the Chinese with the trans-Himalayan foothold they needed against India.

                  So yes, the signs are not encouraging, to say the least.

                  How smart can they be if they are bailing out of India to go to the west. That’s like exiting the Frying pan to jump into the Fire.

                  Most Indians have had no idea things were this bad in the West. Remember that India is an outpost of the Cathedral, whatever “Hindu nationalism” exists is despite Cathedral efforts, and is decidedly low-status. In this country, Parker Pen and Harley Davidson eg: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/cji-sa-bobde-tries-out-a-harley-davidson-photos-go-viral/story-o6bQXMAr2MgXB5gO0ppVeO.html are symbols of high status, and even 100% Indian owned and made Royal Enfield bikes will never highlight their Indian-ness. USA could be the land of milk and honey as far as most Indians are concerned (changing in the Internet era, but that is <1% of the population).

                • someDude says:

                  @upeeuc

                  Secularism was never intended to apply to Christians and Muslims in India just as Western Feminism was never intended to apply to Jeremy Meeks. Just like being forced to Bake a cake for a gay wedding was never intended to be applied to Muslim owned bakeries in the west.

                  It’s a coalition of the Fringes thing. Game theory talks about this. All power struggles eventually break down to a Bipolar competition. In the west, its Christians Vs the Rest. In India it’s Hindus Vs the rest.

                  You guys need a King. You’re either suffering from Chronic kinglessness and need a King or you’re suffering from too many Kings and need one to eliminate or subordinate the rest. Do you have any candidates for King?

                  Considering that Modi and Yogi are Celibates, Could you possibly persuade Shah to do a coup and take over as King Shah the First? Addressing him as your Majesty, even ironically, even in memes, might be a start.

                • upeeuc says:

                  @someDude

                  It’s a coalition of the Fringes thing. Game theory talks about this. All power struggles eventually break down to a Bipolar competition. In the west, its Christians Vs the Rest. In India it’s Hindus Vs the rest.

                  This analysis is very common in reactionary circles, but leaves me dissatisfied. Take Christian France for instance. The impetus to “secularise” came from within, not without. Maybe Jews were involved, maybe not. In a simplified way, it can be said it is Christians vs the rest.

                  My question is, where are the corresponding movements in Saudi Arabia? Egypt? Even color-revolution ground zero Tunisia? Name a single Muslim country where treatment of minorities or sexual deviants is even a serious political issue at all. The only notable exception seems to be Pakistan, where at least Hindus are not genocided outright.

                  Reactionaries will say this is only due to white male ubermensch being racially superior and thus targets for inferior races. Their religion just happens to be Christianity and thus Christ becomes a target. Why are Hindus then targets for similar treatment? Do Muslims and sundry NGOs consider Hindus also ubermensch that must be destroyed? What does Hindustan have that they so desire?

                  Early Theosophy seems to provide an answer. It considers Hindus as distant cousins of Europeans via the Indo-European chain, and the hatred that Semites and Africans feel for either is simply a racial animus with no logical explanation, game theoretic or otherwise. (Not that I avoided the magic word so many papers bend over backwards to avoid: Aryan). While this a seductive explanation, it is much too fanciful for me. May have a kernel of truth tho.

                  You guys need a King.

                  No shit. America too. Caeser Augustus, meet Samrat Vikramaditya.

                  You’re either suffering from Chronic kinglessness and need a King or you’re suffering from too many Kings and need one to eliminate or subordinate the rest.

                  Both, actually. Classic anarcho-tyranny in operation in India.

                  Do you have any candidates for King?

                  No, and therein lies the rub. The Congress Party is notoriously hereditary, and Smt Indira Gandhi came very close to achieving Sovereignty, but after her heir and Prince Sanjay Gandhi mysteriously died (suspects range the spectrum from CIA to KGB), the whole operation failed. The current scion of the family, Rahul Gandhi, is a Cathedral stooge. Merely listening to him drone on is guaranteed to decrease testosterone by 5%. Modi’s BJP, OTOH, is dominated by the swine right, which collectively have some strength, in the same way that a herd of wildebeest is powerful. But also stupid.

                  Modi and Yogi are Celibates

                  It is worse. Modi is a degenerate. He actually threw his wife out to go full-time into politics. His family story screams “homosexual.” The man doesn’t even have any affairs or MeToo’s to speak of. Even his party stalwart, former PM Atal Bihari Vajapyee asserted in an interview that though he couldn’t get married at the proper time, he wasn’t celibate. No truck with Modi. I fundamentally believe that one who doesn’t intend on establishing a dynasty is not fit to be King.

                  Yogi was born into the warrior caste, which is a good thing, and commands fierce loyalty among his monk followers, but is a member of a religious order promoting celibacy. After the scandals came to light regarding the Catholic Church, I have come to consider all “celibate” religious orders as either already infested by, or begging to be infested by, homosexuals. Again, not fit to be King.

                  Shah is a dark horse, but we don’t know if he has it in him, having lived under the shadow of Modi for so long. Memeing “Samrat Amit I Shah” would be lulzy, I agree!

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Muslims have throughout history tried to wipeout the Alawites and for a long time they also tried to wipeout the Ismalis (but they gave that one up because the Ismalis were also known as the assassins and were known to kill Islamic rulers who fucked with them).

                  The sellout sects were treated more gently.

                • ten says:

                  @upeeuc

                  Instead of mindless racial animus from lower races towards higher, try satanic, anti cosmic destructive impulse versus the civilizations that uphold and regenerate the cosmic order. Maybe indias version of that is indeed an aryan heritage, but not only aryans have held high civilization, and we certainly tried anticosmic locust swarming as well.

                  Christians vs the rest – well, france was christian once, but grew a corruption that conquered it. The whigs, revolutionaries, socialists etc of France and europe are and were not christians except at times by false name, they were not part of our regenerative, gnon ordained structure, and were satanically hostile to it, so were “the rest”, not christian. So yes, christians vs the rest, even though many of these hellspawn were heretic “christians”.

                • someDude says:

                  The Genius of Islam is that it does not allow a coalition of Fringes to include any anti-Islamic faction. Coalition of Fringes only applies to liberal democracies such as India and the west. It does not apply to authoritarian regimes such as China or North Korea either.

                  Dr. Bill Warner can answer all your questions better than I can regarding Islam. Here is a riveting introductory video on Islam
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_Qpy0mXg8Y&t=2s

                  The Muslims don’t necessarily want to kill all non-muslims, nor do they want to necessarily convert all of them. What they want is that Non-Muslims must live under Sharia Law. Yes, Hindus are untermensch to them, not even being people of the Book as Christians and Jews are. so for you, it is a survival fight.

                  Jim is emphatic that the west is suffering from Chronic Kinglessness and that the founders of the USA were evil evil men. I was just introducing the same concept to you along with the idea that Gandhi was probably an evil evil man.

                  Whatever your qualms about Modi and Yogi, it appears to me that they are the best you can do at the moment. You go to war with the Samurai you have and not the Samurai you wish to have. This is a problem with the Trump critics in the reaction as well. Trump is the best they can do at the moment and it would be better to back him with all you have at the moment instead of constantly complaining about this or that. Modi and Yogi buy you time. And if you have time, you have hope.

                  Modi abandoning is wife is a red herring as an argument. Samurais sometimes do things and have to do things that commoners who have never risked their lives can never understand. Did not your beloved Lord Rama abandon his pregnant wife and also force her into a trial by fire? We now understand that reason for the trial by fire in context of game and male authority.

                  If Modi or Yogi were even the least bit gay or there was any inkling of it, it would be all over the news. The Cathedral would be all over that shit. It would like Trump being photographed on Lolita Island with Epstein. So you can rest easy on that count. I think they are genuinely Celibate. It can be done. Both Newton and Tesla were Genuinely Celibate without being Gay or some shit like that.

                  Finally, go easy on these insinuations of Modi or Yogi being Gay or degenerate. The Hindu Right might think of you either as an entryist or an enemy agent or a shill.

                • upeeuc says:

                  @someDude

                  Yes, Hindus are untermensch to them, not even being people of the Book as Christians and Jews are. so for you, it is a survival fight.

                  For all of “reaction’s” Deus Vulting, you have hit the nail on the head. From our point of view, Christians are on the same list of enemies as Muslims, and both have been known to collaborate whenever opportune to attack Hindu interests. This is why our ears prick up when Trump pasha starts talking about “religious freedom” for Christians. Rest assured that “Christian” NGOs are not ceaselessly working to destroy Iran or China, like in India.

                  Why Europeans prefer to live in the thrall of false, foreign, Semitic prophets is completely beyond me. Jim is the so far the only one that has at least tried to square this circle, equating “God” to GNON, and “Christ” to the Logos, while using Biblical references to bolster old society’s red-pilled views. This might be the only way, I don’t know, but current year Christianity seems completely irredeemable.

                  We are content to worship our God King Rama, who once was mortal, but is actually immortal (being an avatar of Vishnu) and will always be with us, and his loyal servant Hanuman, the immortal monkey god, the giver of strength. 🙂 Too bad there isn’t an actual God King in power, or these problems wouldn’t exist.

                  Jim is emphatic that the west is suffering from Chronic Kinglessness and that the founders of the USA were evil evil men. I was just introducing the same concept to you along with the idea that Gandhi was probably an evil evil man.

                  Oh we know about Gandhi, of course. Our Cathedral membership requires us to pay obeisance to the Mad Mahatma, but you can get glimpses from time to time that surprisingly large numbers of people actually venerate the man who killed Gandhi.

                  Whatever your qualms about Modi and Yogi, it appears to me that they are the best you can do at the moment. You go to war with the Samurai you have and not the Samurai you wish to have. This is a problem with the Trump critics in the reaction as well. Trump is the best they can do at the moment and it would be better to back him with all you have at the moment instead of constantly complaining about this or that. Modi and Yogi buy you time. And if you have time, you have hope.

                  Completely agree, and a spot-on analysis, both regarding Modi/Yogi and Trump. They all have their failings, but a vote for any of them is better than for the opposition.

                  Modi abandoning is wife is a red herring as an argument.

                  It is not an ideological argument. It is literally his inability to start a dynasty that precludes him from becoming Samrat. Same with Yogi. They are, at best, Moses-like figures. This same failure was what doomed Hitler’s Reich. They talked a big game about a “Thousand Year Reich” but had no plan of succession for when the Führer died or, as happened, went insane. The basic command of a man is his own household. One who fails that duty is not to be trusted. Our scripture and history is perfectly clear on this.

                  If Modi or Yogi were even the least bit gay or there was any inkling of it, it would be all over the news. The Cathedral would be all over that shit. It would like Trump being photographed on Lolita Island with Epstein. So you can rest easy on that count. I think they are genuinely Celibate. It can be done. Both Newton and Tesla were Genuinely Celibate without being Gay or some shit like that.

                  This was my thinking 15 years ago, too, in the Vajpayee era. Not any more. Ensuring biological succession is also the Dharma of a good King, and hermits/cultists are to be kept away from the throne. Their job is only to pave the way for the King (as Modi and Yogi admittedly seem to be doing).

                  Finally, go easy on these insinuations of Modi or Yogi being Gay or degenerate. The Hindu Right might think of you either as an entryist or an enemy agent or a shill.

                  The Hindu “right” in a reactionary sense (monarchy, scripture, “Ram Rajya”) does not exist. I do not care about the opinions of the cucks/swine that pass for “far right Hitler Hitler” in India. Even the Hindu religion is under the sway of Cathedral-allied priests like Osho Rajneesh or various current “Gurus.” No-one will give the time of day to an authority on Scripture. Nothing new in this. Vishnugupta was also humiliated and thrown out of the Academy before he decided to change the course of history by laying the foundations of the Great Mauryan Empire which defeated Seleucus in the west, secured Hindustan’s borders, and ushered in a new golden age attested to by Megasthenes.

                  Another thing the Hindu “right” lacks is high IQ people. Unlike the West, leftism in India still attracts the smart and disaffected. The left has a veritable army of intellectuals to the right’s few and far between sparks. People willing to breach the Overton Window to the right, IRL, are thoroughly excoriated by not only leftists, but the entire “right” as well. This is why I feel they are controlled opposition. Kind of similar to the corrupt US Republican apparatchik.

                  Maybe what India needs is a right-focussed dissident blog :P.

                • someDude says:

                  It’s okay. Modi might not have known he would be king. I am willing to bet that when he left his wife, he was not even thinking about politics. He probably wanted to be a monk like Stalin and somehow found himself in politics.

                  I think Modi is plenty smart. Maybe the English speaking Hindu right wing is dumb. But it is entirely possible that the Hindi speaking right wing is plenty smart. Modi-Sama’s consecration of the Rama Temple on the 1-yr anniversary of Art. 370 abrogation, when juxtaposed with his declaration of Dec 25 as Good governance day tells me he is very smart. Thats a brilliant status reduction move.

                  And co-incidentally it also comes around the same time that Hagia Sophia was converted into a mosque. Which led to the spectacle of the same Islamic orgs first insisting that Hagia Sophia conversion does not destroy the secular fabric of Turkey while the Rama Temple does. That’s brilliant timing.

                  I’m pretty sure he does not read Jim. So he must have come up with those ideas himself. That’s very smart. Cut him some slack.

      • The Cominator says:

        I imagine the moon worshippers had done a lot before that to piss them off the “rape” was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Asians are naturally pretty redpilled on women so its not so plausible to see them overreacting to “rape” in and of itself the way Westerners would.

        • ten says:

          I also imagine that, and if not those uighurs specifically, then uighurs generally have done a lot to piss han off.

          In japan, when white soldiers from american bases fuck japanese girls, not a big fuss is made. When black soldiers fuck japanese girls, great shrieks of rape are heard from men around the girls.

          Orcs don’t get to play that game, and chinese do indeed stop orcs from playing games they are not welcome to. No reason to think they would be meek and compliant to negro hordes, unless forced to be by whites.

  34. Anonymous 2 says:

    The spiraling this summer has been quite intense.

    Add to what is written above the autonomous zones inside the sanctuary cities. One wonders what holiness will sprout inside these zones.

    Several blue governments appear to have collapsed (not unlikely by controlled demolition). Portland seems particularly abject at the moment, or rather in some stage of belligerent, drunken, overdosed hallucination. The only solution may be to sit on its neck until it reconsiders.

    As regards the activists and LGBT contigent and similar, they are best seen as Cursed By God.

    • jim says:

      The Portland Mayor ordered her police to not coordinate, nor communicate, nor cooperate with Trump’s police. They did not obey her. It is blue state regime collapse.

      The plan was that Trump would collapse. The Park police in Lafayette Park refused to control the rioting and vandalism, thereby supposedly demonstrating that Trump was powerless, that he was hiding in the Whitehouse basement from the mighty wrath of the people united. It was eventually revealed he was preparing a counterstrike from the Whitehouse basement.

      Supposedly the Park Police were powerless against the mighty wrath of the people united. Therefore, supposedly, Trump was powerless. They drank their own Koolaide.

      • Inquiring Mind says:

        The mayor of Seattle is a babe.

        They tell me that the mayor of Chicago is a tree.

        The mayor of Portland is a dude, man, who hasn’t change personal pronouns quite yet.

        Did you mean that he is hitting the soy milk, pretty hard?

  35. leftist spiraller says:

    Post status = abstract

    A
    B
    S
    T
    R
    A
    C
    T

  36. cia wojak says:

    It’s an abstract kind of post.

Leave a Reply