The counter coup unfolds.

A couple weeks ago, Trump condemned congresswoman Ilhan Omar for dismissing 9/11, and all the left and all the mainstream media united around her, and repeatedly told us she was black, and Trump hates blacks, and a woman, and Trump hates women, and he is lying liar.

Lo and behold, by a strange coincidence, an investigation of congresswomen Ilhan Omar comes out revealing she has committed no end of illegal acts – but until now these laws were never enforced against Democrats.

At almost the same time, the black leftist Democratic party House Oversight Committee chairman is discovered to have been cheerfully embezzling from charities, shortly after he complained about a whole lot of Trumpists getting security clearances that would enable them to see information formerly only visible to leftists in good standing, information that will likely reveal a whole lot of stuff that Democrats would prefer buried.

I predict that thanks to a change in leadership of the FBI and the justice department, in particular the resignation of Mueller, there will be sudden drop in criticism of president Trump, and a sudden drop in anything likely to attract a hostile tweet from president Trump.

By another amazing coincidence, ABC news reporters who cheerfully and openly committed illegal acts find themselves facing dawn raids and charges from the Australian government in relation to their most recent illegal act.  It is interesting that these utterly unprecedented and extraordinary actions, for enforcing laws against leftists is unprecedented and extraordinary (laws are for us, not them) happened at almost the same time.

Because of ever more laws, whosoever controls the FBI and the justice department holds the political process by its throat.  A very short while ago, no end of people connected to Trump were getting the dawn raids, and being charged with a multitude of legalistic crimes that were difficult to explain or comprehend.  That was a dangerous escalation of a process that has long been in motion, and escalation is not always passively accepted by the victims, nor is Trump a man who is inclined to passively accept escalation by his opponents.

It was inevitable that the use of the coercive power of the state to manage electoral outcomes would eventually be used against the left itself, though I expected and predicted that the left would use it against each other. But using such means against the president himself was the most dangerous use of that power possible, and Trump probably the most dangerous man to use it against.

The right using the power of the state against the left is unprecedented, despite a huge volume of complaints by the left projecting their own conduct onto their enemies.  Nixon used “plumbers”, but Obama used the FBI.  And now Trump is using the FBI.

Now that the dawn raids on Trumpists have stopped, I predict we will suddenly find a whole lot more Trumpists around, and a much bigger pool of loyalists for him to hire.  And as loyalists get appointed to positions where they can destroy their enemies and protect their friends from destruction, this will in turn make it easier for him to hire more loyalists. And now that the dawn raids on mainstream media reporters have started, at least in Australia, I predict that the quality of “fact checking” on Trump’s tweets will show a dramatic improvement.   When Trump does something like talking with the veterans of D-Day, it will mysteriously become a whole lot easier to find in the mainstream media.  It seems to me that reporting has improved already.

I am not yet sending in an application for the post of Grand Inquisitor.  Maybe after Trump gets re-elected in 2024.

984 Responses to “The counter coup unfolds.”

  1. vxxc says:

    R/T this post ^ infinity.

    Yes this is winning.

    Thank you Jim.

    To the naysayers that follow…

    Bullshit. This is winning.

    • Iudicalicker says:

      So there’s a temporary cessation of hilariously nakedly NKVD-esque jackboot activity. Yawn.

      Let’s see mass emigration, a wall, a Space Force, the trust bust of SF/LA, demolition of NSA’s billions of flagrantly illegal wiretaps, greenbacks rapidly taking over FRN circulation, and classical music playing as intros and outros to TED talks.

      Then I’ll be impressed.

      • jim says:

        What would impress you are solutions to a list of coup complete problems. And we are moving towards a coup. A little while ago it looked like a left wing coup, and I figured we would get the usual instability until a Stalin, a Napoleon, or hopefully a General Monck, put an end to it. Worst outcome would be a century of instability and chaos as followed the Gracchi brothers defying term limits.

        So I get hopeful when I see a coup coming.

        And now I see a right wing coup coming. Early days yet. We may still have to go through a Stalin to reach a Putin. But the end of the use of state violence against Trumpists necessarily prefigures the start of state violence against anti Trumpists.

        • Iudicalicker says:

          Watching Mueller stand behind that podium and mumble out that a sitting President can’t be indicted is the funniest fucking thing I’ve ever seen, I’ll grant you that.

          But he has a year and a half left and he isn’t going to win another election—the demographics won’t allow it. If he needs another election to stay in power then he isn’t going to make it and America will be a moderately individuated province of the U.N. by next decade’s end.

          Leftist singularities don’t exist except as intelligently engineered phenomena.

          • jim says:


            Trump has 2020 in the bag, and 2024 starts to look promising. You thought it impossible he would get the nomination, and then you thought it was impossible for him to win 2018, and then you thought there would be blue wave in the Senate that would enable the Democrats to give color of legality to their coup.

            If he wins in 2024, then it will be obvious that there was a counter coup before 2024, even if everyone pretends to not notice the counter coup, as they pretended to not notice General Monck’s coup despite praetorians standing in front of their noses.

            Whether we get a communist dictator or emperor Trump, 2020 will likely be the last presidential election in which voters have significant impact, and therefore the last election in which importing millions of hostile foreigners to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democratic has any substantial effect.

            • Poochman says:

              How will he win 2024?

              • jim says:

                Recall the way Obama’s birth went down the memory hole.

                If he is really in power, the mainstream media will be on his side.

                Plus, the reason Trump’s investigation into electoral fraud went nowhere is because the states where there was obvious and massive election fraud declined to cooperate. If compelled to cooperate, he wins big.

                • BC says:

                  Honestly, I’m having a hard time seeing it. A birth Certificate that no can see is pretty different from running for a 3ed term, something that an entire Constitutional amendment was passed to stop.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Turns out the 22nd amendment actually just mandated gay marriage. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  -eliminate the amendment

                  -create a new position with the powers of the president and give it to yourself (Putin)

                  -Rename the presidency to lord protector and declare that since the name is different the 22nd amendment doesn’t apply

                  -blatantly violate the law and dare anyone to bring it up (Assad)

                • Spinoza says:

                  [*Repetitious troofer lies deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  That is not evidence. That is, as usual, someone announcing that evidence exists.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  > If he is really in power, the mainstream
                  > media will be on his side.

                  Holy smokes man I’ve been so accustomed to losing that I’d never even considered that.

              • The Cominator says:

                > How will Trump win in 2020

                Fire and blood.

                When the left revolts after the arrests of their leaders and he is in power for real.

                • Ron says:

                  If the left revolts, it will only be because he didn’t arrest their real leaders.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Chicken with its head cutoff.

                  Most of the NPC leftists won’t do shit because the media that became mysteriously pro Trump overnight will reprogram them* but the real antifa types will revolt.

                  *If he ever tracks down the probably theoretically “private” black budget CIA office that controls the fucking media, doesn’t seem like anyone on our side has any idea which office it is.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Antifa are the biggest NPCs of all. They’re weak cowards who would do nothing (effective) without media and police cover.

                  If they do choose to keep going then beating them for sport will be a nice bonding activity.

                • Ron says:

                  Very skeptical that the “real antifa types” will engage in non state sanctioned violence. Bc currently, as far as i can see, every last one of these people are only and always engaging in state sanctioned violence, albeit unofficially sanctioned.

                  When I look at these people I see priests, not warriors. Their speech is priest speech, their body types extremely lean, acetic. These are not rollicking good fun chads out to create havoc, they are pencil necked schoolmarms hoping to feel more powerful by swarming over opponents who wont defend themselves.

                  The moment the state no longer their violence, is the moment the chads are told the leash is off. This applies to blue uniformed chads, and un-uniformed chads. We are already starting to see this happen.

                  No, maybe you are right, but i dont see it.

            • Iudicalicker says:

              You’re making a whole lot of assumptions about a guy who shilled non-stop for Candidate Trump from mid 2015 to the night before the election.

          • shaman says:

            America will be a moderately individuated province of the U.N.

            u wut mate?

            What you just wrote is impossibly, unfathomably retarded, and you should probably stand over in the corner and reflect on your shameful deed.

            The UN is not merely toothless without American hegemony; it is literally non-existent without it. If USG goes down, the UN goes down – end of story. There is no “international community.” There is a US State Department, which does as best it can to dictate the foreign policy (sometimes more than that; the folks at CFR, for instance, are busy “prescribing” Feminism and poopdick globally) of all countries not under direct Russian or Chinese influence.

            The notion that the UN: a) is an independent body, or perhaps “controlled by the Rothschilds” or what have you; or b) has any role other than doing DoS’ bid, is flat-on-its-face absurd. And the people who promote this notion want you convinced that there is no Cathedral, that everything is down a shadowy cabal, rather than to leftist academics.

            Leftist singularities don’t exist except as intelligently engineered phenomena.

            2/10, would not bang bother to refute.

            You’re probably gonna explode in histrionics about the “Kalergi Plan” in 3… 2… 1…

            By the way, you wrote:

            Somewhere in the bowels of the think tanks and their Foundation patrons there exists a department, which may or may appear on any org charts, in which the social policies of the apparatus of social engineering are set. Like any discipline, the engineers have their own peculiar dialect, with their own unique words, unique meanings of common words, and moderately divergent grammar and syntax. The unique words are technical, the unique meanings are boring, and the internal publications are mind-numbingly dry and dopaminergically sterile, but the results, once applied to the society through the memetic repeaters of the Netflix and the Instagram and the Facebook, are profound.

            I’m not letting this go – where is your evidence, fucker?

            • Iudicalicker says:

              Government is a group of people and a schelling constellation and an energetic construct, but mostly it’s an illusion. In 1985 literally no ordinary person in the entire world thought that the second most powerful empire in the history of the world would snap its fingers, go *poof*, and dissipate like one of those fizzy fireworks, but it did. It wasn’t inevitable; it wasn’t because of communist oppression; it wasn’t because of populist movement; it wasn’t because of economic weakness; and it wasn’t an accident.

              It might be worth looking into what exactly caused the USSR to wink out of existence.

              If it could happen there, it could happen here.

              • jim says:

                At the core of every government is a synthetic tribe, a faith. The Russian elite lost their faith, so communism fell.

                The leftist singularity has to hit infinity in finite time, and after that progressives will lose their faith and the American state will fall.

                Trump is redefining progressivism, as in his D Day speech, to lead it away from suicide, which, to be successfully completed will require a crackdown, possibly a Stalin scale crackdown and at least a Deng Xiaoping style crackdown. And then, without movement ever leftwards to immanentize the eschaton, the faith will decline as faith in communism declined. And it has then to replaced or re-engineered into a very different faith, a tricky maneuver, which maneuver if not successfully completed will result in the US falling as Russia fell.

                Xi Jinping is trying to re-engineer communism into something that is not much like communism. I don’t know if he will succeed or not. It is tricky maneuver, and he is having big troubles, but it looks like he will succeed, thereby avoiding a fall like the fall of the Soviet Union.

                • The Cominator says:

                  However it took almost 50 years after the Russian elite lost faith (and indeed Stalin ruthlessly hunting down all the remaining true believers, with Beria someone who always pretty much an open nonbeliever in communism heading up the purge of the believers) for communism to fall.

                • jim says:

                  Khrushchev was a true believer, it is just that without progress towards immanentizing the eschaton, they gradually stopped believing. Stalin stopped the singularity. He did not kill the faith. But without the singularity, the faith declined. The true believers got older, died, and once they had died, then no one believed.

                  So leftists could go on ruling with fifty years, if they manage to go along with a (quite leftist) Trump dynasty that stops them from getting ever lefter. But sooner or later, preferably sooner, going to need a new faith.

                  Deng ruled through the old believers. Xi want to rule through new believers, is having big problems and is flailing.

                • Iudicalicker says:

                  I don’t envy your weltanshauung. It must be hellish in there.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  @lolicalicker why does the libfag playbook always go to the personal once you get trounced intellectually? Like a dog showing their belly in the presence of a stronger dog. It never fails.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I don’t envy your weltanshauung. It must be hellish in there.”

                  All the redpill (and I mean the real redpill) offers is the truth.

                • Iudicalicker says:

                  The Cominator, the real redpill is that you were born a slave and will die a slave. Unfortunately. And I can relate. Unfortunately.

                  Fred, I’m perfectly capable of ignoring your faggotry in order to explain exactly what I mean: that there is no singularity, no eschaton, no ratchet of progress, no Jacob’s ladder, no arc of moral history, no steady zeitgeist, no nothing. If things tend in certain directions it’s because of long-term products of technological development and power politics. “True belief” in governance is an anomaly, not a regularity, certainly not a necessity. This becomes clear when you accept that governments run on interests, not ideology. Interests are internal and eternal; ideology is external and transient. USG preceded racism, anal marriage, trannyism, and library drag shows for schoolchildren, and will survive them as well. Because it isn’t an ideological construct.

                • jim says:


                  Things are driven by the holiness spiral, in spite of technology, not because of it.

                  We have had holiness spirals before. They always end in a singularity, often a singularity that involves a fair bit of mass murder.

                  A holiness spiral is driven by ruling elite incohesion, as each element of the elite tries to be more holy than each of the others. You can see this right in front of your nose.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I don’t have to work anymore actually…

              • Not Tom says:

                This comes across to me as pointless reductionism. There wasn’t exactly one thing that caused the USSR to “wink out of existence”. You’ve got the socialist calculation problem, economic and military pressure from the Anglo-Soviet split, massive internal dysfunction from programs like Lysenkoism, and a disillusioned and probably angry population that, racially speaking, is more inclined to defection and violence than white Europeans. And depending on your interpretation of history, you have a ruling ideology that was probably entirely foreign in origin, and any non-morbid host body will eventually try to expel a foreign invader.

                The inevitability of the Soviet crack-up certainly wasn’t being pushed in the mainstream media and the Sovietologists, but of course it wasn’t, just like you’re not going to hear the IPCC report that actually they were all totally wrong about Climate Change, sorry everyone, thanks for coming and no refunds. There were, however, many individuals who predicted the decline, in fact there’s an entire Wiki article about it:

                And of course, a lot of what happened there could happen here. We’re running similar economic policies. Race and sex denialism isn’t too far off from Lysenkoism. Russia and China are triggering economic and military pressure, although not nearly as intense as what the US did to the USSR. And we’ve imported tens of millions of foreigners who are more inclined to defection and violence than white Europeans.

                I don’t think that anyone in the reactosphere denies the parallels, in fact we talk about them all the time. But so what? How does any of this prove the truth or falsehood of the coup-countercoup hypothesis?

                Things look very bad at macro-scale, but if you want to know whether a car is going to crash into that barrier up ahead, you need to look at the position, speed and acceleration. What we’re talking about here with Trump is analogous to the exact instant after slamming on the brakes; from an external vantage point, it may look as though nothing much has changed, but inside that car, you can feel forces pulling the other way.

                I do enjoy and appreciate the highly-abstracted reasoning, secular cycle theory and so on, but you have to be able to recognize differences as well as similarities.

              • Not Tom says:

                Oh, now I get it. After reading the rest of your posts in this thread, the “exactly” one reason for the Soviet collapse is supposed to be jooos, and we were all supposed to just instinctively recognize that the whopping 2% and declining Jewish population in America is a similar threat.

                Can’t believe I effortposted several paragraphs in reply, thinking that you had an actual argument to present.

              • pdimov says:

                >It might be worth looking into what exactly caused the USSR to wink out of existence.

                I’ll bite.

                What exactly caused the USSR to wink out of existence?

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  It is strange; i just began an in depth dialogue with one of my professors on this very subject. Will wait to see what @dipshit posts, assuming he hasn’t fled permanently.

                • @dipshit says:

                  The USSR winked out of existence because the men in charge stood to profit more by its dissipation than by its perseverance.

                  The result wasn’t great. The people suffered immensely. GDP halved IIRC. Rus lost her pride, and Russia was raped by international capital.

                  Observably, an immensely powerful military means nothing when things are arranged *just so*.

                • jim says:

                  A great many of the communist party and the officer class did very poorly. You speak of “the men in charge”, but it was glaringly obvious that no one was in charge – recall the coups.

                • pdimov says:

                  >The USSR winked out of existence because the men in charge stood to profit more by its dissipation than by its perseverance.

                  These kinds of explanations are incomplete, because they don’t address why, f.ex., the men in charge stood to profit more in 1989 or 1985, but not in 1981 or 1974.

              • >It might be worth looking into what exactly caused the USSR to wink out of existence.

                Which kind, economic or governmental. First, lets dispose of a survivalist / prepper myth: economic collapse does not cause governmental collapse. It is perfectly possible to still keep order by shooting rioters and suchlike. Think North Korea, Irish famine, Ukrainian famine etc.

                Elite defection causes governmental collapse. Naturally, economic collapse is a very good time for a group of elites to defect. And it can be easily in the interest of defecting elites to let public order collapse as well. To let government collapse.

                The Soviet governmental collapse was caused by elite defection, some elites deciding to turn into “capitalist” oligarchs and suchlike. The economic collapse was caused by the governmental collapse – well they had an impossible economic problem to solve anyway, trying to play military superpower on an outdated, small, and centrally planned economic basis. That was like just the last straw.

                My impression is that Deng managed to get Chinese elites onboard with reforms. But in the SU reformcommunists, technocrats, glasnost-perestroika types could not get the old Leninists onboard with reforms, they pushed back, and their infighting caused the governmental collapse.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Deng’s military position was far stronger because he successfully led a coup, was effectively the Emperor, and could purge his enemies. He was also sure of what he wanted to do.

                  The Tiannamen protests was the 1st stage of a would be attempted coup by leftists but he crushed it.

                  In the USSR although no one still believed in communism some of the apparatchniks wanted to defend their status so Deng style reforms were impossible because Gorbachev was both not the Emperor and unsure of what he wanted to do.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  First, lets dispose of a survivalist / prepper myth: economic collapse does not cause governmental collapse. It is perfectly possible to still keep order by shooting rioters and suchlike. Think North Korea, Irish famine, Ukrainian famine etc.

                  Good point, and another reason those who say, “Dude, as soon as the national debt bubble pops, we’re set!” are chasing a mirage.

      • TBeholder says:

        But why would there be “Space Force”?
        It was a transparent threat: “I can reboot NASA with fresh command chain taken from Pentagon, if it annoys me enough, it’s not like you guys didn’t give me a lot of pretext”. Then NASA became more cautious, and mostly stopped prostituting reputation built by their predecessors for leftist “megaprojects”, or at least toned down a lot. NASA representatives don’t go on MSM to preach cow fart apocalypse. They purged that foul-mouthed transfurry intern on their own (bad time to collect any more infamy). Even “Wahmen IN STEM!!1” thing didn’t go anywhere from 2016.
        So the immediate problem was solved by threat alone. NASA eventually will have to be somewhat cleaned anyway, of course, but it’s not particularly urgent or important.

        • jim says:

          The Challenger inquiry was a power struggle between the military and NASA. All the members except one military guy and Feynman were NASA stooges. Feynman rapidly realized that the hearings were keeping him in the dark and feeding him shit, so he wandered off to do his own inquiries, failed to turn up anything exciting until the military guy pointed him in the right direction.

          But despite NASA’s massive fuckups being exposed, it got everything on its wish list, the guys who screwed up the first time kept their jobs and went right on screwing up in the same way for the same reasons, the whistle blowers lost their jobs.

          Military argues that rockets are artillery, therefore they should run the space program. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) built the shuttle to act and look as much like a plane as possible, rather than a rocket, because they claimed that they were planes, therefore civilian control.

          That is why they never built a rocket that lands the way a rocket should land. It is incredibly ridiculous and expensive to build a rocket that is also a plane, just so that it can land like plane, as results have proven.

          We should build space based weapons, even if not a sensible military weapon, because that means that the government will pay for science and technology that is actually useful for putting stuff into space. Rods from God can also project power without mass casualties and mass civilian damage.

          Rods from God have a good basis, because they can hit command and control anywhere without warning. A Rod from God capability would deter rulers. Have them orbiting in low earth orbit, a bit above Musk’s internet in space, with the capability to suddenly change course downwards and proceed through the atmosphere with active inertial targeting. Chinese strategists appear to believe that aircraft carriers are now vulnerable, hence of limited value in projecting power over distance. The USG could take out Muammar Gaddafi with carrier power, could not take out Bashar al-Assad with carrier power. Rods from God would be immensely effective in projecting power over distance.

          But Musk’s internet in space will also do the job of creating demand and funding for space capability without the risk of getting us into stupid wars. Signals can get from end to end faster than through fiber optic, because signals move at the speed of light, while fiber optic is about half the speed of light, and because they can take a more direct route. Of course most of the delay is in the routers. He is also going to need faster routing to take advantage of faster transmission time, which is why he ditched IP in space for physical location in space. You don’t want to do an IP lookup for every packet in every router and you don’t want packets buffered in every router. It should be possible to get ping time down to twenty milliseconds, rather than two hundred milliseconds, between end users with their own base stations, which makes twitch based multiplayer combat workable. Game players will fund our space capability.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            “Military argues that rockets are artillery, therefore they should run the space program. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) built the shuttle to act and look as much like a plane as possible, rather than a rocket, because they claimed that they were planes, therefore civilian control.”

            A good example of this struggle between military and NASA was the DC-X VTVL rocket (military) vs X-33 spaceplane (NASA) in the 1990’s. The DC-X successfully launched and landed, as rockets should land. The X-33 never flew.

          • Iudicalicker says:

            NASA was founded in sin. Its predecessor institution was NACA, a legitimately great institution. NACA successfully shepherded aviation from the Wright brothers to DC-3 to early Boeing 7xx, a track record virtually unparalleled by any Organization before or since. NACA was split into NASA, which proceeded to successfully jerk itself off from then to now, and FAA, which put the screws in aviation and killed it to death. This was circa 1963 IIRC. Most small, single-engine airplanes are still certified under NACA rules because to get them through the FAA process is almost literally impossible.

            Fuck ubiquitous Internet. I want Internet in a box on my desk in my basement. I don’t want it following me around everywhere I go tracking literally my every move. Musknet can suck my thick veiny cock.

          • TBeholder says:

            Pretty much like that. Not too hard.

            We should build space based weapons, even if not a sensible military weapon, because that means that the government will pay for science and technology that is actually useful for putting stuff into space.

            Recycling schemes. :] That was SDI.
            Also, there’s a treaty banning such things. Most likely, it could be given a specific exception with agreement of all participants for an asteroid-blasting project, however.

            Chinese strategists appear to believe that aircraft carriers are now vulnerable, hence of limited value in projecting power over distance.

            They always were.
            In WWII fog of war made them viable. But with Cold War era capabilities, carriers had two uses: against those unable to adequately fight back (in hope the other big guys won’t escalate the ongoing mess by giving them high-end weapons), and when everything goes up in smoke anyway (carrier is doomed, but pilots could shoot down many cruise missiles or bombers before dying). Now carrier-sinking capabilities increased, carriers are even more expensive, no one really expects the nuclear war and standards for deniability of equipping “moderate rebels” grade clients lowered. So what’s the point, except kickbacks?

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              Automate the carriers. Submersible drone launch platforms. Make em cheap, and make a lot of them.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                > Automate the carriers. Submersible drone
                > launch platforms. Make em cheap, and make
                > a lot of them.

                I could swear I read about this in the 90’s, about how the Navy was accepting that its non-nuclear surface fleet was asymptotically approaching the role of “cruise missile vending machines”.

                And now drones too, which I guess have to be in satellite contact with Virginia or Nevada to be useful anyway.

                It makes you wonder. If Predator drones were single-shot disposable, that sure sounds horribly wasteful at first blush, but maybe there are other strange counter-economies that can be brought to bear as well that none of us have thought about.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            > Military argues that rockets are artillery, therefore
            > they should run the space program. NASA (National
            > Aeronautics and Space Administration) built the shuttle
            > to act and look as much like a plane as possible, rather
            > than a rocket, because they claimed that they were
            > planes, therefore civilian control.
            > That is why they never built a rocket that lands the way
            > a rocket should land. It is incredibly ridiculous and
            > expensive to build a rocket that is also a plane, just so
            > that it can land like plane, as results have proven.

            Thank you very much for making the “reason” for a Space Shuttle so clear: NASA desperately trying to make it look like an airplane, so that they’d get the money instead of the military.

            I mean they’d been picking up space pods from the ocean for decades with no problems, so what the hell, right? Now I understand that it was “the wrong they”.

            There are some great YouTube videos now about the Soviet “Buran” Space Shuttle, and frankly how awesome it was. But it was still stupidly expensive. But the Russians made it anyway, because they were just SURE that there must have been SOME kind of bond-villain evil-genius military reason why the Americans would be making such a crazy thing, so they couldn’t be caught with their pants down not having one too.

            And that’s interesting, isn’t it, that they held us in such honor that they’d break their own bank on a Soviet Space Shuttle, rather than stick their own math and logic, and conclude that the American Space Shuttle was nothing more than what you say it was: Inter-bureaucratic optics theater.

  2. Anonymous says:

    God, I can’t wait for the good guys to win.

  3. vxxc says:

    If I may Jim a review of the stakes:

    Half the country is sick.
    Morally and from this all our social ills flow. Most of them know but lacking alternatives they can see (or Fathers to show them) they vote for sustenance.

    As far as the Republic – and I only mean our political arrangements – some is intact, much of New Deal forward govt is not republican.
    Now that is actually a settled matter of LAW.

    You see the President since 1937 actually CAN’T fire just anyone in the Executive Branch (humprey’s executors) and 1946 administrative procedures act.

    The military is utterly at the will of POTUS. Constitutionally.

    The CIA is “Independent”.
    The CIA being independent is as dangerous as the military being Independent, but the CIA is Harvard so they’re not fazed.

    The CIA answers to…
    Also the FCC, the ICC… etc

    So what we have here is an bureaucracy independent of…the President.

    Or Congress.

    Of course the courts as well…

    The pre new deal govt is Constitutional (the Executive controls) the New Deal forward is not.

    This is our core political and constitutional conflict: legally much of the government is above the Constitution.

    Now Trump merely brings this conflict into the open.

    Frankly its a sign of the idiocy of our elites that they are resisting openly at all. Its one thing when the American people don’t know. Its another to bring it to their attention.

    Especially when the military is bound by the Constitution, and the people are alerted to the open defiance of their elections.

    Now its imperfect but its what we have – and it has legitimacy.

    The other party’s – the bureaucracy – has some legal legitimacy but there it ends.

    Any political arrangement id imperfect. Its difficult to get purity and perfection in life. Impossible to get pure and perfect good and intelligence, certainly in politics.

    It is much easier however to find nearly pure and crystalline stupidity and evil, banal, chernobyl level incompetence: I present to you our grotesquely idiotic foes- The Deep State.

    Sawing off the branch they sit on into the waiting embrace of the peasants with torches, pitchforks (and assault rifles) below….lynching themselves on their own tree.

  4. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    The whole world changed to fit around the unchanged Trump.

    Or, in the real world, Trump’s cucked so damn hard at this point, the Dems have nothing to compete with his level of compliance and usefulness.

    I don’t even think the press *were* especially kind to Omar – the main people defending her were white nationalists. The state wasn’t acting *contrary* to the press but in cahoots.

    Now that Trump’s on board with the highest legal immigration ever, relaxed about the highest *illegal* immigration ever, and obeying every edict to come out of the Israeli alphabet lobbies, he’s suddenly getting a lot more respect.

    Funny that.

    Or yeah maybe you’re right, maybe the President’s doing a coup that just coincidentally involves cucking to Israel and letting the browns flood across the border.

    • jim says:

      I don’t even think the press *were* especially kind to Omar – the main people defending her were white nationalists. The state wasn’t acting *contrary* to the press but in cahoots.


      The Huffington Post: “Ilhan Omar Is Being Threatened For The Crime Of Being A Black Muslim Woman Antithetical To Trump” is white Nationalist?

      The New York Times is white Nationalist?

      Politico is white nationalist?

      Slate is white nationalist?

      The New York Magazine is white nationalist?

      You are inside such a fanatical bubble of leftist delusion that anything less than enthusiastic full throated fanatical praise of latest insanity of leftism sounds like criticism by oppressive evil capitalist overlords. Because not every single section of the mass media everywhere got enthusiastically on board with dismissing 9/11 or blaming it on Jews, rather than on Muslims, you see the the evil capitalist overlords attacking poor Omar.

      > Now that Trump’s on board with the highest legal immigration ever,

      He is very far from being on board with it.

      The problem is that his position is a little too frail to give the judges helicopter rides.

      So instead he just sanctioned Mexico for allowing it. Since the judges will not allow him to enforce the law – the illegal immigrant just has to say the magic words written for him by the lawyers and he gets sanctuary, Trump is going to bend Mexico’s arm to enforce it for him. He is finding workarounds against judicial obstructionism short of helicopter rides to the pacific.

      • Spinoza says:

        >> Now that Trump’s on board with the highest legal immigration ever,

        >>He is very far from being on board with it.

        I don’t think it’s clear what Trump’s position is on *legal* immigration except that he wants Congress to revise it based on merit.

    • The Cominator says:

      You are also using a very bluepilled understanding of Trump’s proposed RAISE act.

      The RAISE act theoretically has a higher “cap” on legally allowed immigrants.

      In practice not 1/10th of that number would ever meet the RAISE acts standards to immigrate every year if the standards were actually applied.

      Now the cap does leave the problem of the Democrats in the future so stacking the people evaluating the immigrants that they start letting in illiterates criminals and terrorists the way they get in under the current immigration law and ignore the merit standard. So I would like to see a lower cap not because I’m worried about it under Trump but because I would worry about the cap being too high if leftists got back into power and made ignoring RAISE act standards a top priority.

    • Not Tom says:

      What is it with you retards and Israel this, Israel that? You simultaneously believe that Israel relies on American foreign policy largesse to advance its interests, and that Israel is running psy-ops to dismantle America’s ability to produce wealth. As if Israel were powerful enough to do either of those things.

      Israel is a third-rate power that is either aspiring or pretending to be a second-rate power. They dance to America’s tune, not the other way around. Or at least they used to; they sort of started flouting progressive globalist conventions at the same time they sort of started getting reamed by the Obama administration, which is right around the same time the ZOG rhetoric really started to escalate. Total coincidence and definitely not fedposting, I’m sure.

      • Iudicalicker says:

        The American IC lets the Israeli state purchase latitude in exchange for subversion of its greatest though witless rival, the gentile Republicon quasi-military rabble.

        Occasionally it also prompts the Israeli state to take direct action, sometimes going so far as to lower the American air defense systems and run coordinated training exercises. Everyone knows what I’m talking about.

        The goy isn’t allowed to speak for himself, so he gets Ben Shapiro.

        • jim says:

          The Israeli state does what it is damn well told, as is obvious in Gaza and has become obvious in the settlement of the Syrian war.

          • Iudicalicker says:

            Are you disagreeing with me? I can’t tell.

            • jim says:

              You are telling us that our enemies are Israel – not our glaringly obvious enemies.

              Therefore, a tool of our glaringly obvious enemies.

              • Iudicalicker says:

                The Internet is indelible. If I said that then quote me saying that. You won’t, because you can’t.

                • alf says:

                  > The goy isn’t allowed to speak for himself, so he gets Ben Shapiro.

                  Its obvious to anyone what you are saying. Same old same old.

                • Iudicalicker says:

                  reading comprehension

                  > The American IC lets the Israeli state purchase latitude in exchange for subversion of its greatest though witless rival, the gentile Republicon quasi-military rabble.

                • alf says:

                  You ignore half of what you say, depending on what suits you. Liar.

                  Of course, you also ignore that the goy has gotten Jordan Peterson to speak for him, who is not Jewish but most definitely controlled opposition.

                • R7 Rocket says:


                  Why was 50shades of Grey so popular with women?

                  Do women have fantasies of being raped?

            • jim says:

              Your argument is that Feminism started 1963. Therefore Jews, not post Christian Puritans, are to blame for “progress”, since the people pushing feminism at that time were for the most part Jewish.

              They were also for the most part CIA agents, and the CIA was then thoroughly under control of post Christian puritans, which is consistent with the usual practice of rulers acting treacherously towards their own people hiring Jews to do their dirty work.

              There were two waves of feminism, one abruptly ending in the US and England when the Nazis won in Germany in 1933, and one abruptly starting in 1963. The suddenness and completeness of these turnarounds indicates the hand of the state, a state run by post Christian puritans, not Jews, and not Jewish bankers.

              But 1930 was worse, more feminist, than 1972. Therefore the Jew theory is false, and the post Christian Puritan theory is correct. Further, despite a recovery of the family between 1933 and 1963, the recovery was relatively small compared to the long term decline in elite families starting in 1820. It was just a blip in the long term trend of the destruction of the family, with elite families being struck worst and hardest.

              Therefore all the stuff you keep raising about Jews, bankers and such is an irrelevant distraction, which is why people keep ignoring your evidence and arguments.

              • The Cominator says:

                Women’s suffrage was the worst thing that ever happened but that aside… was flapper era feminism really worse then second wave feminism that started the whole career girl bullshit?

                • jim says:

                  The book of common prayer purged the wife’s vow to honor and obey in 1928, not 1968. That, not suffrage, was the worst thing ever, effectively abolishing marriage.

                  Mary Curie got, not one, but two Nobel prizes for washing her husband’s bottles while he discovered radium, while no one remembers the far more important discovery of radon, which happened at about the same time for the same reasons, and had far greater scientific impact, but did not have the wife close enough to the bottles. Amelia Earhart got a presidential ticker tape parade for being flown across the Atlantic like a sack of the potatoes by a male pilot, much greater honors that Charles Lindbergh got for actually making the first solo flight, and the camp follower whore Florence Nightingale was made into the big heroine of the Crimean War, while the real heroes the Crimean War such as the Highlanders and Lord Cardigan were made into loser idiots.

                  During Pierre Curie’s life he was the discoverer of radium, and his wife sought to have him honored for that discovery. When he died, the papers said “Pierre Curie, discoverer of Radium, died” And then shortly after his death, Madam Curie suddenly became the discoverer of Radium, and Pierre Curie was erased from history.

                  It was not the Jews that took “honor and obey” out of the marriage vows, and reading from the Book of Ephesians out of the marriage ceremony. The relevant section of the bible that was deleted from the marriage ceremony reads:

                  22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.

                  23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

                  24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.

                  25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

                  26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

                  27 That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.

                  28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

                  29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

                  30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

                  31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

                  32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

                  33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

                  That was the worst thing ever, and though Jews have done many bad things to us, nothing they have done to us compares to what we have done to ourselves.

                  One household necessarily has one captain. If the wife does not promise to honor and obey, to submit and reverence, you are not actually getting married, because you are not actually forming one household, so no point in the ceremony, and, surprise surprise, people stopped holding the ceremony.

              • Iudicalicker says:

                You keep wanting to make this about jews for some reason, I guess because jews are still in your purechasteinnocent godschosenpeople category and any criticism of jews’ behavior you believe leads directly to another holocaust with real gas chambers this time. I’m sorry to disappoint you but normal people just don’t care about jews that much. Personally I’m almost entirely neutral and don’t really give a shit whether they live or die.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  >calls himself “Iudicalicker”

                  >bursts into the blog with a raging, homicidal hate boner for Jews and Israel

                  >spends a whole week blaming ZOG for his spoiled milk’s sour taste and funny smell

                  >deception gambit: Ascribe the Puritan Hypothesis to the slithery “Mischling Moldbug”

                  >deception, phase 2: Change the subject to a million different things when refuted, then go back to the hobby-horse of whining about ZOG, without addressing or even acknowledging the refutation

                  >”Actually I’m uhh kinda-sorta neutral. Hey yo, why are you anti-Semites all talkin’ about the jEWS suddenly?? What is it with the jEWS?? Hey, notice how I capitalize jEWS?? Clever, huh??”

                  >”Also I respect Moldbug, and I read some literature and so on, so you know just how smart I am”

                  >deception, phase 3: History started in 1963; Puritans, Quakers, Victorians, etc., are absolutely irrelevant; never heard about the Society for the Suppression of Vice, the Social Purity Movement, etc.; provides no evidence for his conspiracy theories, but assures us that they’re totes legit

                  >deception, phase 4: Let’s strawman the owner of the blog, because actually addressing or even acknowledging his point about the chronology and nature of the American memeplex proves too challenging a task

                  >keeps sperging out and flailing about ZOG, refuted again, fails to address or even acknowledge the refutation again, finally pulls off the tried and tested “Look, it’s a bird! It’s a bird right over there! Just look, come on, a real bird!”

                  >the deception is not working as intended for some reason, ups the sullen-faced faggotry

                  >”Jim is oy-veying like f**king kike in the oven”

                  >”Yes, that will show ’em”

                  You’re being purposely disingenuous, but your lawyerly “black is white and white is black” tricks are just not up to par. I’ve seen much tougher folks than you getting psychologically broken and bullycided to oblivion. You won’t last long, Fecalicker.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  @2019 is boring

                  I made a much longer reply to him and it is awaiting moderation, but we both called him a marxist, we both called out his illogic, and we both used dog metaphors.

                  We are trapperkeeper. We are one.

              • Iudicalicker says:

                But I can tell you I have certain fundamental assumptions about the world and I’m not going to be changing them unless you give me damned good reason to do so.

                The most important for this conversation is this: government exists to tax the commoners on behalf of the self-anointed aristocracy. That is, the fundamental occupation of government is wealth redistribution. All other governmental activities exist solely as means to most effectively and efficiently A) extract wealth, and B) keep the commoners in line and C) protect the sphere of wealth extraction from competitor entities, etc.

                If government is a carefully constructed illusion designed to collect energy and processed energy (goods and services), then it stands to reason that the beating heart of this energetic construct is the entity with the monopoly right to the representative units of energy.

                This essential principle persists across time. First it was the hunter-gatherer tribe, and then it was the farm, and then it was the manor, and then it was the naval merchant empire, and then it was the Standard Oil, and then it was the Federal Reserve. All roads lead to Rome.

                While Aldrich is stone cold dead and long ago buried and no one remembers his name, Warburg perseveres.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Eustace Mullins and Nesta Helen Webster made stuff up as they went along, and the “Sabbatean-Frankists” hypothesis has already been demolished and proven to be based on inaccurate information and con-artist lies.

                  Your eclectic flavor and mixture of Nazbol and anarcho-communism — if you were truly AnCap, you wouldn’t endlessly whine about (((evil mind control rays))) — is very pathetic indeed, and it’s evidently premised on “Capital is ruling us like a socialist despot,” the telltale hallmark of all Marxists and pseudo-Marxists.

                  And if I’m reading into you things that you don’t actually believe, then stop going around in circles like a famished dog chasing his own mysteriously elusive tail, and state clearly what you believe.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  “But I can tell you I have certain fundamental assumptions about the world and I’m not going to be changing them unless you give me damned good reason to do so.”

                  Read: I wont change unless forced to do so by powers outside my comprehension.

                  “…government exists to tax the commoners on behalf of the self-anointed aristocracy.”

                  Read: I don’t know much about society or economy, but what i do know, i got from Marx.

                  Evidence piece 01: “the fundamental occupation of government is wealth redistribution”

                  Evidence piece 02: Points A,B,C as reducto ad absurdum

                  “If government is a carefully constructed illusion designed to collect energy and [process] energy… then it stands to reason that the beating heart of this energetic construct is the entity with the monopoly right to the representative units of energy.”

                  Read: My assertion, based on no evidence, is obviously true and to deny its truth is to admit retardation. Therefore, i have proved that the things i do not like or understand are obviously the crux of the world’s problems.

                  I am not asserting that certain governments are not illusory; any country that lacks sovereignty could very likely be such a government. I am not asserting that certain governments are not wholly constructed to maintain a minuscule power elite; any single commodity country could very likely have such a government.

                  I am asserting two things:

                  1) you are an enormous marxist faggot.

                  2) governments are complex and complicated structures with very simple aims. if they fail to achieve those aims, the inherent complexity becomes a bureaucratic smokescreen wherein inefficiency becomes a benefit.

                  Point two ties into (i believe it was) your assertion that the SSR magicked away over night due to eldritch forces (it could have been koaninc, that sounds like something stupid he would say, and stupid fucking idiots tend to resemble each other). Jim already explained it to you: Stalin stopped the Singularity. Kruscev was left with a toolbox fit to metric and a contraption based on imperial (metaphorically speaking). Brezhnev was just the most innocuous suit in the room at the time, and Gorbachev was the only one dumb enough to take the job. Their system was smoke and mirrors, hence their government was mirrored smoke. While the US is becoming that, it is not that, as pointed out doggedly by Vxxc; it is a federated system. A republic of republics. Some are people’s republics, others are more traditional. The SSR was three main countries (Russia, Belorussia, Ukraine; this is in the original charter under the auspices that they were the only three union members who could opt out) and a bunch of satellites, inconsequential past whatever raw material they could provide. The US is ~25 main countries and ~25 satellites. The charter under all four republics has never changed that dynamic in its essence, rather it has weighted the balance by diminishing perception of state power and magnifying federal power.

                  If you were to assert that Baghdad was a joke, the Iraqi parliament was an illusion, and their autonomy was a farce, i’d agree with you. They are a colony with no colonizer. But to pretend that all governments are the same is just erroneous marxist horseshit.

                  I’m looking forward to you joining the Censored Roll.

                • Iudicalicker says:

                  “I’m looking forward to you joining the Censored Roll.”

                  Already there, friend.

                  Because apparently the notion that government exists in order to facilitate the luxury of the king is what passes for Marxism amongst some people.

                  To which I say: lol.

                • jim says:

                  You attribute to the ruling class the capability to act as one being, and then invent contorted and absurd explanations as to why whatever happened advanced the interests of the ruling class, which is 100% standard Marxism.

                • Iudicalicker says:

                  “You attribute to the ruling class the capability to act as one being”

                  1. anal marriage
                  2. trannyism
                  3. global warming
                  4. Trump’s decapitated head

                  Etc. The “ruling class” is obviously one being. It could not more obviously be obviously one being. The only interesting question is what (who) exactly is at the top.

                  I think it’s the Federal Reserve System, which on Christmas Eve of 1913 was formed by eight men comprising one-quarter of the world’s wealth, and I am prepared to make a comprehensive argument backed by plentiful evidence to support this position.

        • shaman says:

          “How do you do fellow right-wing goyim, our real problem is not leftist progressive academic shills like me, but those damn Zionists who oppress poor POCs.”

          Where do you think you are?

          • Iudicalicker says:

            make an argument, faggot

            • jim says:

              Your argument is “Hey look over there”

              He declines to address what is over there, and instead keeps right on looking at what you don’t want him to look at.

            • 2019 is boring says:

              make an argument

              Jewish political influence is detrimental, Jews are incredibly annoying, and Israel is not a nation of unblemished angelic beings. Hitler got carried away, but he was certainly not “the epitome of evil.” Jews should quit whining about the sixty gorillion.

              And, having said that, let’s delve deeper: The memes that predominate America are primarily Anglo, only secondarily Judaic; the spirit of the FBI is thoroughly Puritan, not Semitic; the criminalization of the family, of patriarchy, and of heterosexuality has been ongoing from before the Jews got into the elite; Progressivism flows from the US to Israel, not vice versa; the deep state, the police state, the prison state, the surveillance state, the bureaucracy state, the lawyer state, and the espionage state are all the direct consequence of Puritans (1890-1930) telling us that prostitutes are saintly, holy, and pure, and young prostitutes are super-saintly, super-holy, and super-pure; modern sexual liberalism is a direct consequence of “consenting adults” dogma, pioneered by Enlightenment ideologues prior to Jewish influence; victimology is the autistic daughter of chivalry, and not of Jewish origin; coverture was abolished by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and not by Jews; the Prusso-American School System was instituted by White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, and not by Jews; abolitionism is Puritan, not Jewish; the abolition of young labor, the promotion of female labor, the ensuing infantilization of youth culture, and the ensuing disruption of male-female relations, leading to an ever rising age of marriage, ever later and less fertile reproduction, and increasingly unstable marital relations, is the result of Puritan memes, not Jewish memes; Female Suffrage and Woman’s Liberation are white ideas, not Hebrew ideas; First Wave Feminism was through-and-through a white movement, not a Jewish one; gynocentrism is much more acute among whites than among Jews; it’s not the Zionist Occupation Government that is forcing the blue-pill down your throat, but the Puritan Government that is forcing the blue-pill down the Jews’ throats; it’s not Mossad that introduced Feminism to the world, but the Puritan Intelligence Agency that has been constantly pozzing up all countries; it was not then-non-existent Israel that brought Woman’s Liberation to Japan in 1945, but the triumphant Anglosphere; it was the Puritans who have been disseminating “trafficking” hysteria, not the Jews; institutionalized white knighting had occurred between 1820 and 1930, before Jews could substantially shape things; spontaneous eruptions of Satanic panics are common among Anglos, not among Jews; “We need to morally reform the whole world” is an Anglo-American idea, not a Jewish one; “Women are saintly and cannot be criticized” is an Anglo-American meme, not a Jewish one; “A real gentleman should strive to be a henpecked chump” is a post-Christian Puritan notion, not a Jewish one; Israel’s sex-crime legislation follows the US’, not vice versa; Harvard-Yale-Princeton-Oxford-Cambridge (“the Cathedral”) has been saturated with Puritan memes, and to get in, a Jew must mouth off Puritan doctrine about the inherent holiness of women; if America went full shitlord, the Zionists wouldn’t mind, and some may even welcome such a development – in contrast, if the Zionists went full shitlord, America would go berserk and apoplectic; the State Department is forcing Israel’s arm, Israel is not in a position to force anything; the FBI is very concerned about Israel’s treatment of prostitutes, whereas the Shin Bet is absolutely unconcerned about prostitutes in America; USG shills criticize Israeli Ultra-Orthodox for being “oppressive to women,” while the State of Israel doesn’t give a damn about the Amish being “oppressive to women”; the US keeps meddling in Israel’s borders in favor of the Palestinians, while Israel doesn’t care about the US’ borders (and Netanyahu publicly supports Trump’s wall); USG has created an entire blogosphere dedicated to hating Israel, while Israel has not created an entire blogosphere dedicated to hating America; and I can go on and on and on, and none of that will count as an “argument” for you, you filthy cocksucker.

              • Iudicalicker says:

                Very impressive. There’s just one problem: The stuff you blame on Puritans the Puritans didn’t actually do.

                Wait, make that two: The Puritans hadn’t existed as an ideopolitical entity for 150 years before the beginning of your stated timeline.

                Three: Not only can I go online and read what the 19th century American Protestants actually said, I have writings from my great-great-grandfamily saying similar things. One guy wrote a poem about blood and soil.

                Can DOS exist without FRN? Rhetorical.

                Your fundamental assumption is that if it wasn’t the Protestants, it was the Jews. I’m not saying that it was the Jews, I’m saying that it was not the Protestants. Let’s agree to disagree and agree to blame the Catholics.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There are certain things you can indeed blame the papists for. Woodrow Wilson’s election was largely their fault and the 1965 immigration act was to a large degree their fault given that it was very very unpopular with Protestants but generally popular among Catholics.

                  Irish Catholics at least are among the only non Jewish non single female white people who predominantly vote Democrat to this day.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Very impressive. There’s just one problem: The stuff you blame on Puritans the Puritans didn’t actually do.

                  1. Who abolished coverture, and what was their reasoning?

                  2. Who raised the AoC from 10-12 to 16-18, and what was their reasoning?

                  3. Who made prostitution illegal, and what was their reasoning?

                  Let’s start with these.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Who made prostitution illegal”

                  Women, the puritans and progressives were never strong enough (other then in the days of the Mass Bay colony) to get men to agree to that one (temporary shutdowns in response to syphilis outbreaks and such don’t count) until they got women the vote.

                  When women got the vote they of course acted immediately to narrow the competition.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Well, yeah. And this guy goes around in circles instead of stating clearly what the heck he’s here for and why he keeps zigzagging between various paid shill positions – because, obviously, stating clearly “I am here to shill for the Puritan Intelligence Agency, and to blame everything on the Israeli Jews” is not likely to receive much applause here.

                  We point out that First Wave Feminism and Female Suffrage were thoroughly non-Jewish, and notice how he quickly changes the subject; he will later just as quickly return to his previously stated paid shill positions, without even having acknowledged anything at all about Puritan memes that got rolling in the 19th century, and without even faintly recognizing that any refutation of his ZOG thesis has ever been provided.


                • The Cominator says:

                  I’d also like to add that come the restoration you’ll be damn sure that every reasonably sized town will have a brothel and every city several of them as it was before women could vote, and you’ll be able to get laid generally by something young and pretty for about twice the price of refilling your gas tank.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Obviously the Puritans weren’t calling themselves Puritans or Quakers at that point; they were calling themselves Progressives. Nor is this idle speculation; Moldbug presented immense amounts of primary-sourced evidence that they were literally the same people who used words like “progress” and “providence” interchangeably.

                  Even today, you can read any widely-available literature about mainline Protestantism and see a philosophy and religious tradition that is almost entirely indistinguishable from the writings of early Puritans, and the literature is confirmed by the actual publicly-stated positions of Protestant megachurches.

                  I think it could be reasonably argued that the Neocon movement was more Catholic than Protestant (in addition to being part-Jewish, obviously), but Neoconservatism is a failed movement and failed ideology that never achieved much more than to be a foil for the progressives. As evidence for ZOG, it’s thin gruel.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’ll give the stormnagger (and possible glownagger as stormnaggers tend to be) one concession and Jim can correct me or elaborate if I’m wrong.

                  Hes technically correct when he says the Cotton Mather Puritans (who were actual Christians of a kind) and William Penn Quakers (who were actual unitarian heretic Christians of a kind) aren’t responsible, it was after they lost faith in the original religion and it became secularized that they became the big problem.

                • jim says:

                  The Puritans of Cromwell’s England were already attacking marriage:

                  The traditional marriage vows and traditional readings from the bible commanding the wife to submit and reverence the husband, were removed, divorce was allowed, and adultery was the man’s fault.

                  The traditional marriage ceremony is that marriage is a sacrament conducted by the husband, not the priest. The husband takes the wife’s hand, places a ring on it, and says “With this ring I the wed”. They went with symmetrical marriage vows and took the sacrament from the husband. Marriage is a pagan addition, they said.

                  That was effectively abolishing marriage: One household necessarily has one captain. If the wife does not promise to honor and obey, to submit and reverence, you are not actually getting married, because you are not actually forming one household, so no point in the ceremony.

                  The old wedding vows are asymmetric. The wife promises to honor and obey, the husband promises to love and cherish. Then the priest reads some biblical verses telling the wife to submit and reverence.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Okay but how exactly did this weaken the husband’s authority?

                • jim says:

                  Symmetric vows weaken the husband’s authority. The woman should vow to honor and obey, the husband to love and cherish.

                  Taking away the sacrament of marriage from the husband denies the husband the backing of God, the ultimate top alpha male.

                  Symmetric adultery laws increase the woman’s threat power and reduce the husband’s threat power.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I know Cromwell’s laws on adultery did not include husbands screwing single females (I think there was a lesser fornication charge).

                  Adultery under Cromwell’s law (which was punishable by death unlike the pre and post restoration law) was sleeping with someone’s else wife or a wife sleeping with a man not her husband.

                • jim says:


                  Cromwell spoke English that is readily intelligible to modern ears. Parliament drafted laws that were a lot more intelligible to modern eyes than modern laws are.

                  What did the law say? What did people of that time say about the law?

                  All the laws of England remain in some great big books kept in the cellar of parliament. It should be possible to actually read the thing.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Here is the text of the 1650 adultery act.


                  It does not mention married men having sex with unmarried women as being guilty of adultery.

                • jim says:

                  You are correct and I was wrong. There is nothing unreasonable about their adultery laws, other than that they deny the offended husband the discretion of what to do with his wife. King Solomon’s death penalty empowered the husband. Cromwell’s death penalty disempowered the husband.

                  The fornication laws, however, are unfair and unreasonable in that the penalty for fornication is the same for men and for women, and the same for deflowering a virgin as sleeping with a harlot, which is quite unreasonable. You can see doctrine that men and women are equal and interchangeable sneaking in, that a man having sex and a woman having sex has the interchangeable social consequences.

                  The double standard is inherent in our natures. When you attempt to abolish it, you disempower hubands and fathers.

                • The Cominator says:

                  With this in mind I say that the political effects of 1st wave feminism were worse (women should NEVER have been allowed to vote that is the problem that makes reversing everything else impossible until the day Democracy collapses) but the social effects of second wave feminism (which encouraged women to work, most of their work being useless and only depressing male wages, because the glownaggers wanted to cheat Laffer) were worse.

                  Women had to be pretty nice to men back when they had to ask us for money regularly and were begging for any opportunities to get out of the house. Second wave feminism made it so they had little need of men for this (even if they would mostly financially self destruct in the absence of men anyway).

                • aleppochloride says:

                  Under capitalism sex producers are specialized into ones with a contract to buy as much of an attention producer’s attention as they would like for all their sex permanently and free agents, under socialism all sex producers are free agents, selling for dollars is forbidden, and sex producers get free stuff to make sure they can afford to sell for attention. The fact that sex producers voted against their right to contract is seen as an example of their claimed saintliness, they weren’t doing it for the issues, or the impact on their lives, which people stuck in old propaganda think are reasons to vote, but for the religion, as they were told to by top attention producers.

                  “Lips that touch liquor shall never touch mine” means
                  * an offer of sex for attention to political activists
                  * that the sex producer isn’t a free agent selling for dollars in a professional building with a liquor license, because selling to you for dollars is demeaning, but selling to me for a scrap of attention is empowering
                  * for middle class consumption, the middle class being men who need to understand the ruling religion well enough to pretend to believe it on demand, that women hate men who get drunk and abuse women, as seen in contemporary stories, that never portray a woman unsympathetically

                • Iudicalicker says:


                • jim says:

                  A response that engages with our discussion of the timing and origins of female emancipation will be allowed.

                  Confidently asserting for the umpteenth time, without explanation, that it did not happen until 1965, or what happened before 1933 did not matter, will be censored.

                  You can repeat your censored postings on the dissenter page for this article and perhaps get a reply, but you don’t respond to replies. Many of us, perhaps most of us, will see it on dissenter – but the net effect will be that there will be two streams of comments – one full of crap and marxist spam, and one not full of crap and marxist spam, enabling people to avoid the marxist spam if they so choose.

                  That you don’t want to reply on dissenter tells me that you just want to spam this blog to disrupt and prevent people you disagree with from talking to each other.

                  You don’t want to debate me, which you are free to do on the dissenter page for this article. You just want to disrupt our conversation.

              • The Cominator says:

                The man is probably guilty of fornication under the act but fornication is not a very serious crime, only three months imprisonment.

                The worst thing by far I see under the act is that it bans prostitution and the penalties are severe branding and three years penal servitude 1st offense and 2nd offense death (though I suspect this was generally not carried out as adultery convictions under Cromwell’s law as I previously showed generally met with jury nullification, don’t make me dig out the source again I did show this)… I think anyone who speaks of banning prostitution in the Restoration state ought to be judged a feminist and duly helicopter rided.

                • shaman says:

                  I think anyone who speaks of banning prostitution in the Restoration state ought to be judged a feminist and duly helicopter rided.

                  I’d say that anyone who promotes punishing johns should be judged a Feminist and helicoptered to the Pacific. But I’m not convinced that penalizing women for engaging in it is such a bad idea. It’s better to have wives than harlots.

                  That is the principle: Punish the women for misbehavior, not the men.

                  When England raised the AoC from 13 to 16, it was specifically intended to criminalize prostitution among young chicks, and they told us that men need to be collectively punished and held accountable for the misbehavior of these young whores. A red-pilled version of the AoC would punish the girls for being dirty little whores, rather than punishing men for fucking them.

                  I say the same thing about pornography. It should be perfectly legal for men to possess videos of 12-year-old whores squirting all over their cameras, but if you still want to minimize the circulation of pornography, then perhaps it should be illegal for 12-year-old whores, or for whores of all ages, to produce any kind of pornography.

                  See, that’s the thing: alt-righters, aka alt-retards, aka alt-puritans, tell us that porn should be illegal because “evil Jewish males own the studios.” In sharp contrast, a red-pilled version of that argument would go something like, “To make porn illegal, we will penalize women for making it.” Alt-puritans keep telling us that men need to be punished for female misbehavior, rather than having females punished for female misbehavior.

                  Not saying that I support the criminalization of porn and prostitution, but if they should be criminalized, then women — and only women — should be penalized for engaging in that stuff. This is not an unprecedented position, given that the Bible punishes women, not johns, for whoring.

                  A Bible-inspired prohibition of whoring (physical or digital) would penalize women, including disturbingly young women, not men, just as the Bible prescribes punishments for whores of all ages, not for johns.

                  Puritans have Satanically inverted the Bible to give whores, including young whores, a pass for their misbehavior – and instead to punish johns. The Puritans are anti-Biblical, and have been all along.

                • shaman says:

                  If your 8-year-old daughter loses her virginity to the Dobermann, the problem is not the lechery and licentiousness of the Dobermann, but the lechery and licentiousness of your 8-year-old daughter. Females are the gatekeepers of sex, not males, females can capitalize on their sexuality, not males.

                  Asking “Is the Dobermann horny?” is completely beside the point and a Satanic distraction. Ask whether or not your daughter has a creaming wet pussy, and what can be done to prohibit her from losing her virginity to alpha male Dobermanns.

                  Yes, I agree that Pitbulls will have to go back to Africa, but focusing on Pitbulls too much is pointless. Currently we are allowing a whole lot of Pitbulls to misbehave, but we throw Dobermanns in jail because 8-year-old girls can do no wrong, according to the Poodle Intelligence Agency and the Poodle Bureau of Investigation.

                  We don’t have a dog problem. We may have a Pitbull problem, but once the Pitbull problem — which is relatively minor — is solved, once Pitbulls are physically removed “in a Christian manner,” there are still going to be a whole lot of girls fucking Dobermanns, and then we’ll finally have no choice but to recognize that we have a girl problem.

                  But the blue-pilled low-testosterone Poodles are telling us that we don’t have a girl problem at all, and that girls misbehave because Dobermanns make them misbehave.

                  You see, because Pitbulls really do tend to misbehave, their presence in society helps the Poodle Intelligence Agency and the Poodle Bureau of Investigation, because then they can argue, “We have a dog problem, and our draconian measures are perfectly justified to punish dogs.”

                  When I argue with Poodles, they always bring up Pitbulls to justify clamping down on Dobermanns, even though Dobermanns did nothing wrong, and it’s the girls who should be punished for seducing them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Most women who engage in it even today don’t have any responsible male relatives who would pick a good suitor for them so no, anyone who speaks of banning it either way gets the helicopter.

                • jim says:

                  The early Australian colonies had a solution for that.

                • shaman says:

                  Most women who engage in it even today don’t have any responsible male relatives who would pick a good suitor for them

                  Right, but a few public incinerations would greatly incentivize whores (including sluts who spread for free) to turn their pimps into match-makers, or to grab the nearest beta orbiter and commit to him, and then the inceldom problem would pass from the world.

                  Marx told the proletariat, “You have nothing to lose but your chains,” and Jim is telling the inceltariat, “You have nothing to lose but your virginity.”

                  Escortceling doesn’t cut it – need Trad Waifus, including former whores and sluts. As long as they adhere to “Go and sin no more,” it’s not a problem. Sure, ideally the Trad Waifu will be a virgin in her mid-teens and not a 35-year-old used up post wall slag, but in the short term, that’s what we’ve got.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Penal colonies with an excess of socially undesirable criminal men and a desire to reserve what women there are for the non-criminal pioneers are different then a normal society.

                  England and America other then “the Commonwealth” and Puritan Mass did not try to ban prostitution until the progressive era and prostitution was by all accounts very very common (by far the most common profession with women outside of family farm work or domestic service). Legal prostitution is reactionary, banning prostitution is feminist and progressive.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Right, but a few public incinerations would greatly incentivize whores”

                  Strippers and whores are more likely to marry out of their profession then female lawyers for example… and of course we can encourage whores marrying out to old widowers and such (and allow rich men to claim them as wives willing or unwilling if they are crazy enough, I imagine that the whores should have an indenture contract to their brothel that is paid off over time… any man can claim the whore IF he can payoff the contract) but prostitution serves a purpose for reactionary society.

                  Not everyone even everyone with money is going to end up with a good wife even if we restore the old incentives for wives to be good, and I can’t imagine us allowing much divorce either. Prostitution will also reduce the incentive of social alphas to go after other peoples wives or for them to try to subvert the system latter.

                • John Sullivan says:

                  In the NT, 1 Thess 4 says a man should abstain from fornication, and Jude says Sodom and Gomorrha gave themselves over to fornication and were set forth for an example suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

                  In the OT, Ex 22 says fornication is punished with a fine paid to the father, but adultery is a capital offense in Lev 20.

                  Kant’s anti-Biblical idea that no one should do what they don’t want everyone to do is the cuckoldry that people accuse Christianity of.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Sodom and Gommorah were clearly practicing homosexuality not mere fornication.

                • shaman says:

                  I dunno, Cominator.

                  If we say that the male-female ratio is 1:1, then every woman who goes whoring with johns or slutting with Jeremy Meeks equals a man without a wife at all. Now, you can say, “This argument is excessively abstract, and also, there are slightly more women than men anyway.”

                  Okay, but there’s still the problem we have today: Women preferring to be the 7th on Jeremy Meeks’ booty call list, rather than grabbing their nearest beta orbiter. This is classic hypergamy. If we allow women to have sexual liberty, we’re gonna have an overabundance of thots, and an insufficiency of wives. So women should not have sexual liberty.

                  (Reflect on the sheer magnitude of pornography for a moment. If you’ve spent ages fapping to pornography, as most young men in the modern world have done, then you must surely be aware of just how many women engage in it. It looks like an infinity! See, this is what happens when women are given license to be sexually liberated)

                  I don’t consider the distinctions between whore, cam-whore, porn-actress, stripper, and slut to be particularly important. I know that instead of getting married and having white babies, these women spend their fertile years — approximately from 14 to 44 — not having husbands and not being mothers under traditional patriarchy.

                  In large part, that’s why TFR collapsed, marriage collapsed, and we’re having a society of incels and whores.

                  You write:

                  prostitution was by all accounts very very common (by far the most common profession with women outside of family farm work or domestic service)

                  Yes, and whenever sexual liberalism was allowed to run rampant, 80% of females got to reproduce versus only 40% of men. Civilization entails the curtailment of female sexual liberty, or else we’re descending to a society of incels and whores, as indeed we have descended.

                  Thus, in my view, the inescapable conclusion is that extreme incentives need to be provided to ensure that women will prefer getting married to involuntarily celibate betabuxxers, rather than extracting money or other resources from involuntarily celibate betabuxxers, while also banging Chads on the side.

                  Sexual liberalism means that multitudes of women acquire a select few “friends with benefits,” while those unfortunate men who can’t spin plates, and can’t even successfully chubby-chase or roastie-chase, need to content themselves with PornHub and escorts.

                  You saw it posted on Spandrells’ blog:

                  It’s well within the government’s power to incentivize marriage.

                  For one, imposing a heavy bachelorhood and spinsterhood tax on unmarried members of both sexes (starting from the legal age of marriageability) would prompt even promiscuous nightclub-dwellers to attach themselves to permanent — and, ideally, exclusive — sexual partners.

                  Two, government can play the role of matchmaker by setting up a national agency dedicated to that purpose. As a politicized incel, you must certainly be well-aware of the immense pains that many men take until (if at all) they finally manage to pair off with a mate. It does not have to be this way; the situation can be fixed by having the state launch a war on singlehood. A national matchmaking agency would go a long way towards eliminating involuntary celibacy.

                  In the same vein, government can subsidize and/or give tax cuts to private sector entities that provide the public with effective matchmaking services.

                  Every unmarried person past the legal age of marriageability who refuses to cooperate with the national matchmaking agency or with state-authorized private entities that provide matchmaking services would be subject to punitive measures such as a burdensome maximum wage ceiling and the termination of his or her welfare benefits, in addition to the bachelorhood/spinsterhood tax.

                  If this program strikes you as excessively statist and/or excessively egalitarian, then the government-free patriarchal alternative has to be preventing women from making their own sexual choices by legalizing marriage-by-abduction, as per the Bible.

                  And still, if it’s completely permissible for women to capitalize on their sexuality — and as long as the male-female sex ratio is approximately 1:1 — then we’re gonna have a society with a lot of incels and a lot of whores, as had been the norm before Christendom institutionalized patriarchal monogamy and restricted fornication. To not have a society of incels and whores, need shotgun marriage, or even more drastic measures as prescribed in the Old Testament.

                • jim says:

                  > For one, imposing a heavy bachelorhood and spinsterhood tax on unmarried members of both sexes (starting from the legal age of marriageability) would prompt even promiscuous nightclub-dwellers to attach themselves to permanent — and, ideally, exclusive — sexual partners.

                  It is easy for women to get married, just as it is easy for women to get sex. They just have to drop their standards from standards appropriate for hypergamy to standards appropriate for a one to one ratio. So, no point in taxing men, since it is females whose behavior we want to modify.

                  If we had a ten to one ratio of females to males, each male would be happy to marry ten females. No tax required.

                  More importantly, in sexual matters, women are extraordinarily resistant to monetary incentives, and astonishingly compliant and comfortable with outright coercion. Taxing would run into intransigent resistance. Auctioning them off naked and in chains will result in mere pro forma shit test style resistance.

                  Hiring whores is not cost effective, because women are unresponsive to economic incentives. Buying status and using that status to get women is cost effective. This is true even in the poorest of countries.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There was no inceldom for productive men during the age when England and America had excessive prostitution.

                  Prostitutes don’t fuck Jeremy Meeks (maybe he is their pimp) but he can’t pay for it and should anyone be foolish enough under a reactionary system to leave him alone with the women he won’t have to either.

                  Generally we will hang Jeremy Meeks and there will be excess women because we hang so many Jeremy Meek’s.

                • jim says:

                  Prostitution is not an economically effective way of getting sex because of female resistance to economic incentives in sexual matters. You can buy status and status can get you sex. It is cheaper that way.

                  Go to a poor third world country and you will find that more and better chicks want to be with you so that they can pose in instagram photos in front of a posh hotel, than want to be with you for price of a night in that posh hotel.

                • The Cominator says:

                  What is wrong with Spandrell lately, he starts blackpilling about Trump then he comes up with this stupid bachelorhood tax idea in direct contravention of reaction 102 (I say 102 because Moldbug didn’t deal with the woman question) “men are innocoent, women are guilty”.

                  A spinsterhood tax could theoretically work but very few women actually respond so much to rational financial incentives (and those that do tend to be frigid evil gold diggers out of a Film Noir movie).

                • pdimov says:

                  >but very few women actually respond so much to rational financial incentives

                  Exactly. In fact I was going to literally respond with “women don’t respond to incentives” to shaman’s “punish women for misbehavior.”

                • shaman says:

                  I was going to literally respond with “women don’t respond to incentives” to shaman’s “punish women for misbehavior.”

                  Financial penalties are not the only kind of penalties. Would you say that, e.g., publicly flogging women for committing fornication or other sexual immorality is “a step too far”? Corporeal penalties for misbehaving women would certainly be more in line with a society in which (barring exceptions) women neither own property nor earn extra-familial income, thus rendering the issue of financial penalties moot.

                  You can suggest prison time, but I’m not sure how keen Reaction is about prisons.

                  Then again, if patriarchy is restored, it will be possible to financially penalize patres familias for failing to control their daughters’ misbehavior. There needs to be an incentive, monetary or otherwise, for fathers to marry off their daughters prior to the age when they are expected to elope, because when they actually reach that age, they are not in fact going to elope, rather, they are simply going to add themselves to Jeremy Meeks’ booty call list while extracting shekels from thirsty lonely paypigs on the internet.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Then again, if patriarchy is restored, it will be possible to financially penalize patres familias for failing to control their daughters’ misbehavior.

                  That’s more effective than trying to punish women directly, financially or otherwise. IMO.

                  >Would you say that, e.g., publicly flogging women for committing fornication or other sexual immorality is “a step too far”?

                  Pillory, haircuts and other marks of shame… these things have been used in the past, so public humiliation probably works.

                • jim says:

                  Early Australian solution for thots was theoretically public flogging for speaking back to their new husbands. Which seems to have never been actually applied, but I would guess that women were turned on by the fact that it could be applied, just as all women like a man that could beat them, even though most women do not need to be actually beaten.

                • jim says:

                  There has to be an element of physical violence, physical domination, and physical humiliation. Girls love this stuff, and the more they hate it, the more they love it.

                  The sacrament of marriage, performed by the husband, not the priest, consists of taking the brides hand and placing the ring on it. “With this ring I thee wed”.

                  The story of the wise and foolish virgins implies a marriage ceremony with mock abduction, followed by a big party at which the new husband is the big alpha male.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Your Doberman and Pitbull analogy was well done and entertaining. You could start your own blog, I’d read it.

                  I like the idea of flogging whores in the street but biblically speaking, wasn’t Jesus against punishing misbehaving women? I’m bad with biblical interpretation, so what’s the correct interpretation of Jesus intervening on the stoning of the adultress?
                  Also what’s the reactionary position on race mixing? I’ve never seen it mentioned explicitly.

                  Pornography and prostitution should both be outlawed, every women attractive enough to be a whore could be spending that time being a mother. Even women that somehow failed to be married off could just become nuns. Besides we don’t want men wasting their time on whores.

                • jim says:

                  In King Solomon’s account of the punishment of adultery, he does not mention what happens to the wife, but he tells us that it is up to husband to kill the adulterer, or not.

                  So, what are all these priests doing in the story of Jesus? Seems to me that the priesthood was intervening in marriage.

                  And, if, in the end, no accusers, that means her husband declined to accuse her.

                  I would interpret this, when told in a strongly patriarchal society as Israel then was, as saying that the husband ought to let her off, and if he does the state should not meddle, rather than that the state ought to let her off.

                • jim says:

                  The stoning of the adulteress was theoretical, since the Romans had already forbidden that punishment.

                  The point was to put the squeeze on Jesus between his position of not confronting the Romans, and supporting the law of God.

                  If we, however, we go back to first Temple law, which is my favored position, we see that King Solomon presupposes that the death penalty for adultery is entire the husband’s choice, and the husband decides whether to pursue the offender, and decides whether to give effect to the penalty, not some crowd of busybodies, and it is generally the husband that gives effect to the penalty, not some crowd of busybodies.

                  Which has the effect of making the husband more manly in his wife’s eyes, and thus adultery less likely to occur. King Solomon’s account of events implies that the natural course off events (husband gets pissed, goes deadly) is in some unspecified way regulated and limited by temple and state, but the husband is the primary actor, the state is regulating and limiting, not replacing, the natural order and not unnecessarily inserting itself into the natural course of events.

                  So I would interpret Jesus’s position as that busybodies should not go around demonstrating their superior virtue by getting excited about other people’s families, which is consistent with his opposition to the pharisee’s holiness spiral. Maybe the husband was neglecting that wife and was not terribly surprised or upset by her infidelity. Husband is not mentioned as being present, whereas the husband, his legitimate and entirely justified rage, his entirely proper rage, is absolutely central in King Solomon’s account. King Solomon implies that if no rage, then no issue.

                  The response of Jesus avoids, rather than engaging, King Solomon on adultery. The pharisees wanted him to disagree with King Solomon, and he avoided the question. If the husband had been present and enraged, would have been difficult for Jesus to avoid engaging King Solomon. And if the matter had been dealt with as depicted by King Solomon, would have been difficult to bring the matter before Jesus.

                  The evasive reply of Jesus is consistent with the position of King Solomon, intended to avoid conflict with the position of King Solomon, that if no rage, then the matter need not turn deadly. We can draw a line consistent with both the old and new testaments: If no rage, the matter should not turn deadly, that for state, church and society to insist on a drastic outcome when family does not is holiness spiraling.

                • Dave says:

                  I never noticed this until Jim pointed it out, but I attract a ridiculous amount of attention from grossly underage girls. I’m about 50, tall, not balding, not fat, no tattoos, face is nothing special. They stare at me in the store, they’re super-friendly in social situations, and I wouldn’t dare get alone with one. One asked my daughter, “Is he your father?” in a tone of awe. Such interest is rare in 10-14 year-olds and nonexistent among girls of legal age.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  what’s the correct interpretation of Jesus intervening on the stoning of the adultress?

                  Jesus saw a crowd of Jews gathering to perform an extrajudicial killing, and basically told them, “This is a dangerous slippery slope. If you don’t maintain the Roman rule of law, one day this can happen to you – the adulteress’ fate may well be yours. Sinners should be punished with due process, not by a furious lynch mob.”

                  The Jews got intellectually BTFO and dispersed, at which point Jesus told the adulteress that next time she may not be so lucky.

                • jim says:

                  Nah, the killing was not extrajudicial. The Life of Brian depicts judicial processes in Israel accurately enough, though of course much sillier and more comical than they actually were. Recall the two Roman guards standing back and letting processes that they regarded as nutty and fanatical unfold.

                  These processes were indeed treated by the Romans as judicial processes. Insane, but judicial.

                  Indeed, my problem with the killing is precisely that it was judicial – that it took power away from the husband.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Also what’s the reactionary position on race mixing?

                  My own view is that it’s generally best for Aryans to breed with fellow Aryans, but if not, then mix with Jews or with East Asians – avoid the darkies.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  This is what Obadiah Shoher, in his anti-Christian polemic, wrote about it:

                  In Judea then, only the Roman prefect imposed capital punishment, though the Jews could appeal to him for a sentence under the Torah. So the question was rhetorical, since the Romans considered stoning homicide. For that same reason the reports of attempts to stone Jesus are dubious. Stoning might happen if a crowd got out of control but not as organized event and only when the Romans were not around. Moreover, stoning was strictly regulated, even humanized to a certain extent.

                  Even within the strict framework of the law, the woman was subject to trial. To ask Jesus seems absurd. Either the crowd was going to lynch her and needed no advice, or execute her legally by court order instead of consulting Jesus.

                  Many in Judea then had slim regard for the ancient law. Thus, “Once in Caesarea there was a judge of the city council who condemned to death the robbers and debauchees. Before he left the bench he was heard to say, ‘Last night I robbed and assaulted a woman,’” although this relates to a Gentile. Execution for adultery was rare; only conjugal infidelity, spoilation of virginity, and some specific cases of incest assured execution. John is not clear whether the woman was subject to punishment, and even if she were, the law was not strict. Suspects were given “bitter water,” a mild laxative, as a test. Since she survived, the verdict was not guilty. At about Jesus’ time, rabbis formally abrogated the test because husbands were also thought en masse. The tradition was even more tolerant of venality: “It is prohibited to throw a stone at the fallen one.”

                  If his sources are correct, then it was definitely extrajudicial.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  It does not conflict with your overall position – it actually affirms it.

                  According to this interpretation, the Pharisees opted to disobey Rome and commit an extrajudicial killing, which the Romans might or might not have tolerated, though it was certainly not officially sanctioned by them. Jesus advised the crowd to avoid such behavior, for it demonstrates lawlessness and truculence.

                  He is essentially telling them, “If you go down that route, it’ll be a two-edged sword for you; being sinners, you’re not safe from meeting a similar fate.”

                  And thus the Pharisees’ holiness spiral was halted.

                • John Sullivan says:

                  In the Bible, there aren’t police and lawyers and judges, and there’s a right to a speedy trial as conducted by the village elders. The idea that no police means anarchy comes from our anarchy plus a street constable. Law enforcement is too far from the people, and as Jesus said, the hired man flees when the wolf arrives, the owner protects his sheep.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  The “trap” described here:

                  6 They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.

                  only makes sense if one of the following is true:

                  1) The Pharisees conjecture that Jesus is generally opposed to stoning adulterers;
                  2) The Pharisees conjecture that Jesus is generally opposed to disobeying Roman law.

                  The former interpretation has Jesus as a holier-than-thou progressive; the latter interpretation has Jesus condemning typically Jewish truculence against the Romans.

                  If you claim that it was perfectly judicial, then “Jesus was a bleeding heart leftist prog” is the only interpretation left. But it was not perfectly judicial.

                  Jesus wanted to differentiate himself from Moreh Tzedek, Judas of Galilee, John the Baptist, Theudas, the Egyptian, and Simon Magus – by advocating compliance with the Romans. That’s why his sect won over.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  In the Bible, there aren’t police and lawyers and judges

                  As usual faggotmint, you talk out of your girly ass.

                  In Jesus’ time there was a Sanhedrin in place, and on top of that, Jews were subject to the Romans. There obviously were judges, even if their authority was restricted and they couldn’t implement the finer points of their jurisprudence. Thus, Jews couldn’t commit homicide in broad daylight without incurring the risk of severe Roman disapproval – they had to get permission to have sinners executed. And to even reach that point, the Sanhedrin’s involvement was necessarily required.

                  The idea that no police

                  You’re a dipshit and I’m glad that you were bullycided.

                  There obviously were Roman cops all over the place, as discussed in the previous threads between Jim and Eli. If you have no basic preliminary knowledge of Second Temple Judea, you better just shut up and keep your low-information spam to yourself.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  there’s a right to a speedy trial as conducted by the village elders.

                  The fuck are you on about? This proves once again that you have no idea at all about Second Temple Jewry and how their society functioned. Have you even read the New Testament? (Presumably you did, but your ability to historically contextualize events is about as good as your ability to produce testosterone – total crap)

                • shaman says:

                  Jim, I agree completely.

                  If Jesus had said, “Sure, go ahead, execute her,” that would have both validated the holiness spiral of the busybody Pharisees, and served as grounds to accuse Jesus — as indeed many Jews were rightly accused at the time — of agitating for violation of Roman law.

                  And if Jesus had said, “Nah, the Old Testament Law is all wrong, we should not follow it that anymore,” then the Pharisees could have accused Jesus before the Sanhedrin of heresy, of encouraging Jews to violate the Biblical Commandments.

                  So, instead of taking either of these positions, Jesus evaded the question, and took the winds out of the Pharisees’ sails. Now, if a husband had complained to Jesus about his wife’s adultery, and Jesus had said “Stoning adulteresses is always wrong,” then that would have made Jesus a leftist progressive. But, as you point out, the husband was not present, thus the Pharisees had no business stoning her.

                  If a husband has low testosterone and impotence, and tells his wife, “I don’t mind if you go out with someone else, I will turn a blind eye to that,” then the state has absolutely no business meddling in the affair. If, however, the husband is fuming with rage for being cuckolded without permission, he should be allowed to exercise, and even demand, lethal justice.

                • shaman says:

                  I will add that Church and society must passionately impel marital sexual relations, in accordance with 1 Corinthians 7:

                  3 The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband. In the same way, the husband does not have authority over his own body but yields it to his wife. 5 Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

                  All men should have enough testosterone to satisfy their wives, and, of course, all women must be legally obligated to always be sexually available for their husbands, which they will be inclined to be when we make husbands the ultimate alphas in the eyes of women.

              • Zach says:

                Great comment! Are you the guy that uses different names all the time?

        • Not Tom says:

          The American IC lets the Israeli state purchase latitude in exchange for subversion of its greatest though witless rival

          And I presume you have some evidence of these transactions? Or is it one of those cases where you would have hard evidence if only the conspiracy wasn’t so perfectly executed?

          What makes the Cathedral theory compelling is that even though a ton of coordination is implicit, we also don’t need to look that hard to find several explicit instances of coordination, going all the way back to pre-WWI days. Proponents of the Zionist Conspiracy theory, however, can’t ever seem to find a single clumsily-written contract, recorded meeting, or suspicious bank transfer. Those Zionists really are a crafty bunch!

        • pdimov says:

          Israel is a fully-owned subsidiary of the American military and intelligence. (Full SIGINT access, allowed to operate on American soil, etc.)

          What you’re saying is largely correct but analyzing Israel as its own independent entity is not very useful in the same way looking at the trade balance between America and China is not very useful. Half of America’s economy is in China.

  5. William of Orange County says:

    I’m not the first to make the comparison, but Trump is Augustus.

    Abraham Lincoln (regardless of your thoughts on him) knew in 1863 that the ‘Old Republic’ was dead and that restoration of the ‘Old Union’ was impossible. A new one would have to be embraced. That new version had a whole host of problems, but here we are.

    The country is split. There is no reconciliation with the left. If I must make a choice between a powerful central authority that at the very least pays lip-service to the traditions and the republic of old over the destruction and anarchy brought by those seeking my nation and race’s destruction, I will choose the strong central authority.

    I see it as inevitable. It was either going to be strong central authority for you or strong against you. In that view Caesar Augustus was inevitable, and the die was cast long before the Senate ever declared him ‘Divi Augusti’.

    I hope Trump uses the institutions and the courts to crush them, even if extrajudicially. If they resist then crush the institutions and the courts. Search inside the diseased body of this host, and tear out the evil.

    • The Cominator says:

      Trump may get something like the Augustan settlement (I think I was the 1st to hope for this in the comments a while back) but for that to happen virtually every Democrat within the political class must die 1st.

      Augustus could pretend to be ruling through a Republican veneer because all his serious political opponents were hunted down and killed by the Second Triumvariate long before. He had only to beat the other two Triumvirs.

    • John Sullivan says:

      SC remands abortion et al to the states, interstate tax transfers reduced, Caliphornia must justify expenditures and negotiate for water, higher profile officers start identifying with their home states like General Lee.

      The Russian Federation doesn’t control the entire Slavic or even Russian cultural region, while the German, English and French cultural unifications led to destruction. The Russian Orthodox Church is a unifying factor.

  6. The Cominator says:

    Glory and long life to his awesome and terrible majesty, our God-Emperor Donald Trump the Great, breaker of bugmen, hammer of globalists, harvester of liberal tears, the wall builder, bane of illegals, by the grace of God Emperor of America and all her possessions on earth and in space

  7. Not Tom says:

    I’m annoyed that I can’t remember the details anymore, but there was another instance just a few days ago of someone who had gotten on Trump’s bad side suddenly and inexplicably having several unpleasant details leaked about them. It does appear that Team Trump is finally ready to play hardball.

    Of course, if Trump was able to wrest some of the real levers of power from the establishment, then the establishment can wrest them back, so I’m not quite ready to give my standing ovation yet. For me, the bellwether will be the judiciary falling in line – including low-level district judges, not just Supremes – with more cases like this one:

    The establishment left may be on the defensive now, but rats are most dangerous when cornered. I doubt it’s a coincidence that we just saw another huge escalation in mass-deplatforming; it was supposed to happen much later, but they’re probably moving up the timetable in reaction to perceived (and likely real) loss of control.

    • The Cominator says:

      What they will try to do is either kill Trump or failing that kill Barr (Trump’s most indispensable man given that Sessions showed how much damage a disloyal Attorney General can do… its crucial that something bad happens to Sessions once it does Barr will be much safer). They’ll also try to steal the 2020 election but with the counter coup underway Democrats far less likely to get away with the kind of fraud they used in 2018.

  8. Spinoza says:

    I hope you’re right, Jim, but Omar apparently got a $500 fine for six campaign violations so I think the jury is still out.
    the social media magnates have violated various laws such as perjury to Congress, so I would expect indictments if they continue to hold tough through the election on persecuting Trump supporters. so far the Justice Department investigations of monopoly practices don’t seem to have had an impact so more may be needed.

  9. Vxxc says:

    The Deep State: Sawing off the branch they sit on into the waiting embrace of the peasants with torches, pitchforks (and assault rifles) below….lynching themselves on their own tree.

  10. Mike in Boston says:

    I predict we will suddenly find a whole lot more Trumpists around, and a much bigger pool of loyalists for him to hire.

    All this is certainly true and good, but that sort of “loyalist” will remain loyal only as long as Trump wears the crown. In case a Deep State backed lunatic like the one who got Nicholas Deak were to take out Trump, the Left gets the upper hand again. So the only Schelling point for the counter-coup is Trump himself, with all his flaws. It is the same as in Syria, where a whole lot of people who don’t really love Assad carry his portrait through the streets, because he’s the only Schelling point for those disinclined to the jihadis.

    It would be preferable, and I would have higher hopes of a good outcome for this country, if the forces of order and sanity had a unifying institution that was bigger than just Trump and immune to Leftist entryism. Or even a clearly articulated set of principles to serve as a Schelling point. That would seem a little less precarious than one man who is not above flogging MAGA Pride hats. Grasping at straws, hopefully the Republican Party can be re-animated to serve that purpose once it is thoroughly scoured. But its rot goes deep.

    • The Cominator says:

      We’re a nihilistic psychologically broken society and our side is made up of natural cynics (for most of the naturally religious people are on the side of the Cathedral) One man and a deep hatred of the system that made us this way is all we have, its all they left us with. Luckily the hatred of the system runs deep and wide.

      We cannot build up institutions until we destroy the enemy because the enemy will compromise them.

      • Not Tom says:

        First of all, who is “we”, what are you personally doing on this front?

        Second, how do you think anyone on the right is going to “destroy the enemy” without any institutions of their own? Jim has discussed this explicitly, e.g. with regard to the Federalist Society for the judiciary and the lack of a similar institution for public servants. To displace one institution, you need a different institution.

        And third, what do you think the outcome would be if all of the Cathedral institutions were “destroyed” without anything to immediately replace them? Peace and happiness and white men going about their business while everyone else gazes in admiration? Or a power vacuum being quickly filled by people likely much worse than our current elite?

        This “burn it all down” philosophy of yours sounds indistinguishable from garden-variety anarcho-communism. A “deep hatred of the system” is NOT all we have. In fact it’s against the reactionary program, which is not at all about vengeance but rather about restoring order and an orthodoxy based on what is good and true.

        The Prince is cold and calculating. He doesn’t give helicopter rides because he hates; he does it because he must.

        • jim says:

          > Second, how do you think anyone on the right is going to “destroy the enemy” without any institutions of their own?

          Ideas are more powerful than guns. As things fall apart, warriors take power. Warriors find that guns alone cannot rule. They need priests. That is where we come in.

          Destroying enemy institutions means the current official priesthood: Smashing the mass media, academia, and disempowering the judiciary. Observe judges overruling the the president on invasion by organized groups of hostile invaders.

          It does not mean destroying the army or the police force, and, sad to say, does not mean destroying the IRS.

          • The Cominator says:

            Thank you Jim. If you remember the nomination fight for Trump at the end Trump supporters had to throw a pretty powerful collective temper tantrum that we would never vote Republican again and let the whole country go communist if Trump was cheated out of the nomination.

            Sometimes to win you must absolutely be willing to burn it all down. Its not always the best way but sometimes it is the only way.

            • jim says:

              Better to have an outright communist dictator, than a cuckservative that we were forced to pretend we wanted, who then proceeds to implement much the same policies as the communist dictator would have. Trump is progress towards a Pinochet, and an outright communist dictator would be progress towards a Stalin. A cuckservative would just prolong the agony.

          • Not Tom says:

            There are certainly institutions that we can now do entirely without, such as the mass media and 99% of the college system – but unless they are literally outlawed, then merely being able to do without them will not prevent them from being resurrected and taken over again by the left. Something has to take their place. Supply expands to meet demand, and until it’s legal again for employers to administer IQ tests, they’re going to want some kind of filter.

            I have no issue with your chronology – indeed, it will be the warriors who take over in a state of chaos and they will look for priests, but I fear without some trustworthy reactionary institution (even if it is small), they will at best look for priests at the Heritage Foundation or American Enterprise Institute and we’ll be back to square one.

            Maybe I’m wrong, but I have a hard time imagining Emperor Trump or any of his successors recruiting random guys off the internet. Let’s see it happen *one* time, then it will be easier to believe it can happen again.

            I’m also well aware of the extreme danger of having any recognizable institutional organization offline. It’s a predicament. I guess it’s why the few real-world meetings that do happen are always very cloak and dagger.

            • Calov says:

              Well, there’s always the Hestia Society, right?

              • jim says:

                Recall the way communism folded in the USSR and puritanism folded in Britain.

                The left will fold – but if we still have open entry into the priesthood, it will reinvent itself.

                The solution is to shut down open entry into the priesthood.

        • The Cominator says:

          I am personally doing what I can to support Trump and to undermine belief in Democracy equality and liberalism.

          The king will have the job of building the replacement institutions. Neoreaction is an intellectual movement but it is not as yet an institution.

          Too much emphasis on “muh institutions” is characteristic of cuckservatives. Trump supporters were on the other hand much more willing to burn them all down in order that the left might be incinerated within. We had to threaten to burn the Republican party down and cede it all to Hillary in order for Trump to not get cheated out of the nomination.

          Your “NOT all we have” does not go against reactionary cannon, Moldbug said the people who overthrew the communist system in Russia didn’t agree on much. They just agreed they wanted the communist system gone.

          But yet it is not all we have now, we have Trump our God-Emperor. If you need a positive belief we must believe in him. We cannot believe in institutions though, the enemy controls them and for the most part they must either purged or destroyed.

          • Not Tom says:

            I refuse to deify any man. I think Trump is a good man, and may eventually even figure out how to do what’s necessary, but in order for me to take the God-Emperor label seriously (as opposed to funny rhetoric to annoy leftists), he must first demonstrate that he’s more than a man, that he has the mandate of heaven. I do believe he’s moving in the right direction, but he hasn’t met that exacting standard.

            We aren’t Russians living in the USSR. There are in fact basic cultural and ideological standards for being a reactionary beyond hating the current establishment, for example: an absolute monarch, an end to female emancipation, a formal aristocracy, kin-centered social organization, and private property rights. Most also support a state religion. These ideas might be so old hat to us that we don’t even think about them anymore, but they exist regardless, and are a far better platform on which to rally than merely hating the current establishment.

            • The Cominator says:

              We will not overthrow the current establishment with just neoreactionaries, people who hate the Cathedral are many. Actual neoreactionaries are few. As most people are not smart enough to really understand our ideas in total, we can however get some of our memes out to more normie right wingers and increasingly in the age of Trump we have been doing so successfully.

              Our only common positive thing we can rally around is Trump whatever flaws he may have, you will never find someone free of flaws on this side of the veil of tears.

              Destruction of the Cathedral is widely held negative rally point.

              We do not have more then this and cannot have more then this until the enemy is destroyed. I don’t think all of NRx agrees on formal aristocracies most do but there is broader report for a formal state church then a formal aristocracy.

              I have mixed feelings about creating a class that will consciously set itself above and apart in the US (we have a few assholes in Boston and DC… most who need helicopter rides… who are like that in the US but that kind of thinking has been less common here). Any absolute monarch who takes power in the US is likely to get a crown from the gutter (ie his soldiers or his normie right wing supporters) rather then a bunch of grandees and won’t have much incentive to create a real aristocracy.

              • jim says:

                > however get some of our memes out to more normie right wingers and increasingly in the age of Trump we have been doing so successfully.

                The meme warriors are on board.

              • Not Tom says:

                Who said anything about a crown? Most CEOs act as absolute monarchs of their own little kingdoms – and most large companies have something resembling an aristocracy, albeit not a hereditary one. Of course, their order is protected by the state, whereas a true king is sovereign.

                There is no ceremony required, only unchallenged rule. If you’re still hanging your hat on democratic governance, you’ve got a very long way to go as an aspiring priest.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “A crown from the gutter” was a term in the 19th century and the term comes from Frederick William IV.

                  The German (mostly shitlib) revolutionaries of 1848 offered Frederick William IV the crown of all Germany. As soon as he was safe with loyal soldiers he responded that he did not want “a crown from the gutter” but only via the consent of his fellow princes (probably figuring that the revolutionaries planned to use him as a puppet for a little bit and then murder him).

                  But in the US any “crown” (I agree the American king will not likely call himself king at least not initially) will have to come from the gutter is my point.

    • John Sullivan says:

      Ok, cool, an institution that doesn’t have a clear head, but is capable of acting, because everyone running it is responsible to reason and God. Run that up the flagpole and see who salutes. Normies will say skin in the game and make fun of reason.

      The fact that people who don’t actually like Assad like Assad should show you the strength of a monarchy, but instead it’s used to mock monarchy by claiming that everyone secretly doesn’t respect the monarch, even though they respect him in the way democrats measure respect for themselves.

      • jim says:

        We will have clear head when that man rules America, under God. Until then, no clear head. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, and warrior rule is the solution to the holiness problem. So, when a suitable man on horseback arrives, we will kiss his ass. But intellectuals are not in the warrior business. We are in the business of generating an idea system that justifies warrior rule, and when the man on horseback arrives in the presidential palace, we will then be in the business of generating asabiyya in the army and police force.

  11. kawaii_kike says:

    If Trump is in the process of a counter coup, then why does he apparently feel the need to endorse the gays?
    He’s selling pride hats on his website and openly endorsing pride month on twitter. Not to mention the declaration he signed that said he would attempt to export faggotry worldwide. He also gave government money to Truvada prEp, a drug that literally lets faggots fuck without the threat of getting HIV. But if it all ends in a coup then I guess he can just reverse all the faggotry.

    • jim says:

      > If Trump is in the process of a counter coup, then why does he apparently feel the need to endorse the gays?

      Because he is in the process of a counter coup. If he gets elected president for life in 2024, then we shall see what he has to say about gays.

      Recall that General Monck, even after his loyal praetorians had surrounded parliament and parliamentarian guards had surrendered, piously said all manner of completely cucked things. But what he then proceeded to actually do, while piously denying he was doing it, was not in the slightest bit cucked. Everyone back then saw which way the wind was blowing, despite Monck’s numerous pious proclamations that it was blowing in the other direction.

      • Booker says:

        You remind me of Charlie Brown lining up to kick the football Peppermint PattyTrump sets up. No matter how many times she yanks it away Charlie Brown never learns.

        There is no equating merchant Trump with hereditary warrior clans that spilled blood for their aristocratic power. No equating dreams of history with the reality of our debased time.

        Whoever may rule as you dream it won’t be a merchant.

        • jim says:

          Trump has done great things already.

          The wall is being built. The great centralization has become the great decentralization, saving Texas for Republicans.

          And best of all, he has given all you lefties the screaming heebee jeebees. Your tears are delicious.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          It was psychologist-capitalist Lucy, not bull dike peppermint Patty, that tortured Charlie Brown with the football gag. There may be a lesson in that…

  12. Vxxc says:

    Mexico folds.

    Now: Mexico WILL TRY AND FUCK US.
    But if so Trump can just turn around and reimpose tariffs ala Cuba, Iran.

    On Blood: Trump won’t draw first blood.
    There may not be blood- the Left doesn’t want to die.
    Its one thing to be violent when we’re leaderless (something we won’t be again, even if Trump dies) it’s one thing when Eric Holder is AG and the Left has top-cover. Altogether different with Trump and Barr are on top.

    We don’t have courageous leftists.
    They don’t have army or police.
    They don’t have armed peasants- we do.

    More on blood: Intellectuals advocating helicopter rides would be well advised to be prepared to give ‘em: whether ye think yer in the business or not. Getting hands dirty=being worthy.
    Also survival.

    This is just reality.
    Trump IS MONCK.
    This is what we’ve got.

    There is no man on horseback.
    No more than AI or cold fusion.
    There is no RW secret police.

    There is what we’ve got.

    There’s us, there’s the armed peasants who will shoot to keep their one shard of power (democracy), and there’s Trump.
    There is also a vast left wing apparatus waiting to pounce.
    You will die waiting for a man and men who does not exist.
    May I suggest: Be Trump’s priests and black hundreds now, lead the peasants under whatever banner they flock to and so live by working with what you’ve got; not shirking on pretext of waiting for what you haven’t.

  13. GermanyUberAlles says:

    Why would anyone like the Anglos or their silly ‘culture’? What kind of culture worships jews anyway?

  14. Booker says:

    Trump has folded again. Trump SUSPENDS tariffs on Mexico following talks.

    Just more talks. Again he balks.

    Remember the Wall?

    That has totally stalled.

    Mexico will stop 100 or 200 for show.

    Through the border will come 1,000,000 more.

    144,000 in May alone.

    300,000 anchor babies this year born.

    You delusional believers in Trumptalk are slowing any real action down. One day it will be different. One day, you say!


    You are hypnotized cheerleaders for FaTrump, believing in FaTrump wrongly.

    First you must believe rightly to do any action rightly.

    • jim says:


      Mexico has already shut down the money pipeline whereby Democrats were paying South Americans to come in and vote Democrat and has deployed the military to halt the flow.

      What more do you want than shutting down the money and deploying the military. How does this constitute Trump caving? Mexico has agreed to fix the problem. That does not mean they will fix the problem, but they have made a big start.

      Looks to me like the Mexicans caved, not Trump caved. Shutting down the money pipeline was huge down payment on the concessions that they made to Trump.

      Now it could be that like the Democrats, they will turn around and tell the military to ignore the invaders, and ask the Democrats for a bigger bribe to restore the money pipeline, but if they do, tariffs will be right back.

      Trump is pressuring the Mexican army to do what he wants ICE to do, but which would require a confrontation with the judges.

    • The Cominator says:

      You stormnaggers expect the impossible from someone who doesn’t have total control of the government.

      Mexico will try to cheat down the line but then the tariffs will come back.

    • jim says:

      > Remember the Wall?

      > That has totally stalled.


      The courts have ordered a freeze on funds, and yet, and yet, strange to report, building continues, and, strangely, is accellerating.

      Mexico caved, not Trump. Mexico has promised effective action, and has already taken the most effective action of them all – cutting off the flow of money.

      The Democratic coup was premised on the presupposition that conservatives would play by the rules, but the left, being the left, would not have to play by the rules. That is not working out to well for them, with their key assets in the FBI and Justice department, including Mueller himself now, purged and under investigation for their innumerable crimes.

      It was premised on the presupposition that Trump would cuck and the Republican party would cuck. Does not seem to be working out. Trump has balls, and I am seeing a quite remarkable spread of testicular fortitude in the Republican party.

      • Not Tom says:

        What’s this about cutting off the money flow? I read the reports on the Mexico deal but didn’t see anything about that.

      • Booker says:

        I like that Kofage guy with the amputations focusing on the wall. Very determined.

        But why do you post about the fence he put up on private land as fake evidence for Prez Tweeter’s promise of a BBWall?

        Here is the factual latest report from May 22, 2019:

        National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd told Breitbart News that ****no new border wall on new land where there were previously no barriers has been built by the Trump administration.****

        The Prez is only doing renovations like an OC housewife.

        Mexico was already sending troops to the border. All the Sturm and Drang from his tariff threat only made it official.

        So far the Prez’s Imperial Reign has been marked by the highest levels of illegal imms in 20 years. I don’t really blame Prez Tweetathon. The system is the system

        It’s not working though.

        What about what. actually. happens.

        • jim says:

          > National Border Patrol Council President Brandon Judd told Breitbart News that ****no new border wall on new land where there were previously no barriers has been built by the Trump administration.****

          Which means that any place the army sets foot and drops a “temporary” barbed wire entanglement, he can have ICE build a proper wall.

          And, under state of emergency, he can have the army drop a “temporary” barbed wire entanglement anywhere. State of emergency is a great pile of loopholes in everything.

          But you are ignoring the big win: Asylum. Under the old asylum rules we were on track to have two hundred million latin Americans by the end of 2020 and and four hundred million subsaharan Africans by the end of 2024, assuming the current exponential growth in asylum claims continued. Trump halted that.

          It is now absolutely clear that the 2018 was the flight 9/11 election. Hillary was planning to bring in four hundred million black male military age Muslims from subsaharan Africa screaming for infidel blood and white pussy.

          You are worried the plane is still heading straight downwards into the ground?

          But we got the hijackers out of the cockpit!

        • R7 Rocket says:


          Aren’t you going to answer my question?

    • R7 Rocket says:


      Time for a red pill test on women for this one…

      Do women like being raped by General Butt Naked? If so, explain why.

      Do women see male status the same way as men? Explain the reason for your answer.

      Failure to respond will count as a failure.

  15. Mister Grumpus says:

    Could all of this cucking to Israel, and anti-anti-semitism, and all that, have actually been Trump’s play to manipulate WN’s into publicly hating him? For electoral optics reasons?

    (This guy is good.)

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Highly unlikely. Near as to all WNs are feds. They already hate Trump, and were waiting for an excuse to cuck on him and start attacking. Nothing he does would have altered their attitude towards him because they are paid to hate him.

      • Koanic says:

        If nearly all White Nationalists are feds, then America is truly dead. But of course, it is not remotely so. What is true is that Feds are afraid of, and approved to hunt, White Nationalists.

        • vxxc says:

          All Whites are Feds.
          All Whites are Nazis.
          All men are Rapists.
          All Feds are Nazi Rapists.

          WE WIN.

          There. Fixed it.

          PS… No True WN _____

        • The Cominator says:

          “If nearly all White Nationalists are feds, then America is truly dead. But of course, it is not remotely so”

          Almost all professional white nationalists are Feds, almost all people who unironically call themselves white nationalists are feds.

          Non-feds usually use terms less toxic to normies like HBD.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            They fail the Redpill on women test all the time.

            • Koanic says:

              White Nationalist is kind of an older term for Xers and Boomers. It’s not fashionable among Millennials, probably because the Feds have so effectively persecuted it, and also because those fuddy-duddies have made it unfashionable with their moderate and cucked attempts to gain mainstream acceptance. Also white isn’t a nation, so it’s a bit of an “I’m retarded” and pro-imperialist flag.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Cominator gets it. Nearly anyone publicly identifying as a WN with their real name is a fed, because if they were not feds, they would get the queer and baker treatment. I am on the fence about Anglin, because he is sometimes solid on the woman question even though the legal action against him is strangely ineffective. Most of the rest that have come here are so pozzed on women that they might as well wear nametags that say “Hello, my name is Infiltrator!”

            • R7 Rocket says:


              These fed posters fail the RedPill woman question every single time. Either by giving a hilariously bluepilled answer (Communist Revolutionary) or refusing to answer (Booker, Iudilicker).

    • jim says:

      Trump is not cucking to Israel. Moving the embassy to the capital is cucking?

      He made the politically correct noises about Syria, and various symbolic actions seemingly directed at ensuring Jihadi victory and the extermination of the Alawites, but his actually effective actions defeated the Jihadi pets of the international community, and saved the homes of Christians, who were targeted, like the Iraqi Christians, for expulsion from the middle east, and saved the lives of the Alawites, who were slated by the international community for extermination, which concrete outcomes pisses off substantial elements of the Israeli government no end.

      While theoretically endorsing the International Community objectives in Syria, he redefined victory as defeat of the Jihadis, which was not at all what either Israel or the Democrats wanted.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        > Trump is not cucking to Israel.

        Gomi-na-sai. “Kabuke-cucking” I meant. Like the embassy and Golan Heights business.

    • IMHO it is far simpler. Jews are influential and the best thing is to play the nationalist/zionist jews against the globalist jews. Of course those who think jews are one monolythical block because of ethnocentrism won’t accept it. But those who understand Soros type and Netanjahu types really do hate each other, simply because they have two diametrically opposed solutions for keeping jews safe, will usually come up with this idea of allying with the Netanjahu types against the Soros types. After all what Netanjahu types want is just money, weapons, and occasionally fighting a war for them but I think they would easily settle for just money and weapons. And gestures like this. Soros types are far, far worse. Netanjahu types want to keep jews safe the way all other ethnic groups who are or were safe, are or were kept safe: by the proctection of a strong state. Soros types want to keep jews safe by trying to engineer a post-identity world which is a recipe for disaster for whites, and, incidentally, jews too. So Netanjahu types have an incentive for allying up with whites.

  16. The Cominator says:

    Jared Taylor is not a fed. All the rest of them I can namr almost certainly are.

    • Not Tom says:

      Probably why a lot of WNs complain that Jared Taylor is too “philosemitic”.

      • The Cominator says:

        Keeping the JQ in proper perspective (one where not every Jew is part of a nefarious international conspiracy to destroy white people, in particular zionists and Orthodox Jews are more or less our friends actually) is redpilled.

        The WN 1.0 view where they are all implacable eternal enemies is not bluepilled and not at all helpful, it would force Stephen Miller to side with the shitlibs for instance.

        Jim has the right take on the Jewish Question, activist shitlib Jews should be helicoptered with other activist shitlibs. They should (at least 99% of the time though the king should perhaps use dispensing power in some cases) be excluded from state and quasi state jobs (including high level banking which is quasi state) but otherwise their lives and property should be left unmolested.

        Jared Taylor tries to avoid talking about it because he knows it is like catnip for toxic idiots and feds.

        • Not Tom says:

          There doesn’t seem to be much of a consensus on this, but I always thought that the reason-based approach is to assimilate or ally with the tiny slices of various ethnic minorities that are 90-100% on board with the program, and expect and accept that this will result in a demographic that is roughly 90% white, which is probably a good thing because no body politic can tolerate rule by foreigners [actual or perceived] for very long.

          Race realism doesn’t have to be race determinism or race monomania.

  17. shaman says:

    USG employs three methods to control WN.

    1. FBI provocateurs encourage hot-headed white youths to conspire to commit acts of violence and terrorism. Then they arrest them. Excellent for the FBI’s budget.

    2. Agents of this or that alphabet agency (not necessarily the FBI) pretend to be White Nationalists, and proceed to flood the WN discourse with topics on the schizo continuum: flat earth, chemtrails, crisis actors, Freemasons, Illuminati, etc. They also go overboard with mouth-frothing Nazi posting and holocaust denial. The purpose of this astroturf campaign is to discredit WN and make it as unpalatable to normies as possible.

    3. In similar fashion, agents of this or that alphabet agency, having established WN fronts, proceed to turn WN into controlled opposition by ensuring that it pays attention solely to approved topics, has the “correct take” on them, and dismisses unapproved issues; another phrase for this operation would be “gate-keeping.” Thus for example, anti-Zionism and 9/11 troofism have been artificially made the consensus, while serious anti-Feminism is absolutely verboten. Known as a “limited hangout,” the purpose here is to make WN toe the Cathedral’s official Party Line, even if in an unorthodox manner.

    There is some overlap between these 3 types of schemes, although the respective players are not always aware of who’s doing what – it’s compartmentalized to the core, smoke-and-mirrors is par for the course, and in-fighting between (and within) the various groups is far from discouraged. Granted, a whole host of legitimately crazy people — not to mention those who are in it for shits and giggles — have attached themselves to WN, and to the unwitting observer it may all look the same. Sometimes they all amplify each other; other times they accuse one another of being sheep dipped operatives; it has always been a colossal kabuki theater of trolls-trolling-trolls and mutual infiltration.

    In my view, group 3 — limited hangout deception — is the most dangerous.

    Does that mean that there are no sincere (and sane) White Nationalists? No, there are a few of those; e.g. Jared Taylor mentioned above by The Cominator. But they are drowned out by the payrolled FBI provocateurs, the de-legitimizers, the gatekeepers, and the kooks.

    The problem is that even if you start out honest-to-God, uncompromised in your integrity and bereft of ulterior motives, group-think will gradually take its toll on your mental gears, and you’ll wind up parroting scripts written by TPTB. No blind spot or susceptibility shall go unexploited in order to prevent you from venturing off the reservation. If nothing else, NRx has the potential to provide a safe space for those truly uncontaminated by USG’s assorted psyops, and perhaps to attract those few White Nationalists who don’t glow in the dark or howl at the moon.

    • Not Tom says:

      It’s not as if they don’t try to infiltrate NRx spaces as well; but NRx was started as an intellectual movement, emphasizing quality over quantity, whereas WN and the various alt-right flavors were crafted or evolved specifically to maximize recruitment.

      Progressive leaders have roughly 200 years of experience manipulating proles. By making itself a prole movement (AKA, “populism”), WN was bound to be assimilated. What do you expect from a movement that refuses to acknowledge that literally half of its declared “members” hate it and will literally fight to the death against it?

      Jared Taylor, Peter Brimelow, Steve Sailer et al are all super nice guys and very intelligent, but these days they’re about as representative of white nationalists as the Birchers were of Conservatism.

      • The Cominator says:

        Do Brimelow and Sailier consider themselves WNist at all.

        I think they would say they believe in human bio-diversity but reject the WN label. Even Taylor to my knowledge avoids the WN label and uses the term huwhite advocate.

        Leftists shills and fedposters try to infiltrate all the time but Jim is very very good at identifying them.

        • pdimov says:

          Brimelow probably, Sailer almost certainly not. I don’t remember him ever referring to himself as a white nationalist, including any synonyms.

    • shaman says:

      To elaborate on their respective MOs:

      1. FBI provocateurs and informants are usually involved in meatspace, “taking it to the streets” type of activism. For the most part, they don’t have particularly active blogs, or if they do, it’s only a secondary activity meant to give cover and substantiation to their real-life pursuits. They’re looking for a pretext to throw you in jail, so naturally they’re inclined to unhinged radicalism and violence – that’s where the “fedposting” meme comes from. WN 0.1 was full of them. Back then there were underground militias and the thoroughly-infiltrated KKK; today it’s the Traditionalist Worker Party, Atomwaffen Division, etc. They mostly attract StormFront-tier trailer trash methheads.

      2. The de-legitimization clowns are the bread and butter of the tinfoil troofer movement. Usually they manage their own corner of the blogosphere, where they all link to each other, argue with each other, welcome “newcomers” to the scene – that’s classic astroturf. Their method is mixing legit stuff, dubious stuff, and stark raving lunacy, to cause as much confusion as possible, give you a mindfuck, and make their low-status kookery rub off on you. Sure, there are lots of actually insane people out there, but the ones who competently and cogently disseminate flat earth and Illuminati and suchlike are not actually whackos – they play a character, whether it’s because they’re trolls, con-artists in it for shekels and fame, or most ominously, USG employees who seek to distract and discredit the opposition. And they’ve been unbelievably successful.

      3. Worst of all (in my view) are those deep cover agents who’ve insinuated themselves into or attached themselves to the “regular” alt-right; they are familiar with all the shibboleths and on the surface are indistinguishable from rank-and-file posters – except that they have a very specific Cathedral-aligned agenda to promote. Usually, they pay excessive attention to the Arab-Israeli conflict — needless to say, they are vehemently pro-Arab — but they also tirelessly, indomitably spread Feminist memes such as “muh human trafficking” or even “Christianity is misogynist.” Needless to say, they usually dislike Trump and Putin, often accusing them of being compromised by the Mossad. 9/11, the USS Liberty incident, Jeffrey Epstein, and Sheldon Adelson all feature prominently in their material. Shrewdly, they don’t always agree about all issues, and their sundry narratives’ nitty-gritty details regularly diverge – yet their unmistakable broadest common denominator is always: “Jews, especially Zionists, are the final boss – and Jews are oppressing women.” They usually hate the Red Empire of the Bases and the Military-Industrial Complex. When they do criticize Feminism, it’s always the Second Wave, never the First Wave, that they criticize; that is, they may not be fond of the recent gender-bender stuff, but they’re 100% on board the Social Purity Movement’s ideology. If seldom they happen to criticize Moslems, under no circumstances will it be for their terrorism (they claim that it’s all zero-casualty hoaxes or Mossad false flag attacks), but rather for dispensing Red-Pills about women. Yahweh, Allah, and Saint Paul all strike them as excessively patriarchal, Semitic and non-Aryan, because “oppressive to women.” It does not take a genius to figure out what they’re up to.

      A guy who doesn’t fit any one of these 3 profiles is probably not a fed.

  18. Mandos says:

    This is encouraging. My primary concern however remains timing. Whatever happens over the next sixteen months, Trump needs to secure re-election while maintaining all the appearances of a fair and open process, in spite of the banana republic-levels of voter fraud he will most likely face during the next cycle.

    I hope he makes enough progress in time to secure it, and there is reason to believe he does, but he will need some spectacular action as well as serious resources on the ground to prevent key battleground states like Florida or Pennsylvania to flip.

    • BC says:

      If Trump really controls the FBI, which I still doubt sending a few agents to openly investigate the people committing the fraud should be enough.

    • R7 Rocket says:

      Trump could do what his GOP supporters did in 2018 Georgia and Florida… suspect voter fraud in Democrat districts, then stop counting votes in said Democrat districts. Have suitably packed courts uphold the counting stops, prosecute Democrat officials in those districts.

  19. vxxc says:

    Race realism doesn’t have to be race determinism or race monomania.

    Thank you. That’s practical and purity isn’t.

  20. info says:

    Looks like Bureaucracy can be eliminated in Business:

    This is what future governance will look like.

    • jim says:

      I would not say that Haier have abolished bureaucracy. Their internal market has quotas and such. But they have made a determined effort role back and reduce bureacracy, to have their internal market provide incentives, rather than the bureaucracy provide commands. It is internal de-regulation

      • info says:

        You are right. Good government will resemble or be a copy of Haier’s model. More akin to ecosystem than a command system as you have said.

        It would be good if let’s say officials will be automatically fired if they don’t show good results in 3 months or something like that due to the healthy incentive structures in place that ensure feedback that is as fast as possible. And pay related to results directly as in the case of Haier.

        There is more on this model:

        • Not Tom says:

          Looks to me like they’ve basically copied Moldbug’s Patchwork. Instead of centrally-managed divisions with budgets and transfers, they have semi-autonomous sub-businesses with profits and losses.

          It’s not really a new idea in business; the problem is, as always, the leadership of almost every large corporation today. Just as they’re incompetent and/or ideologically blind enough to accept that they need HR and Diversity departments for hiring and retention, they’re convinced that central planning is superior to market pricing as long as the right people (i.e. them) are in charge.

          And it’s harder to justify a $400 million salary when the main thing you do is not interfere. A patchwork-style business implies owner-operator to me; a CEO who does not actually own the company has strong incentives not to implement or even allow that model.

          • info says:

            “It’s not really a new idea in business; the problem is, as always, the leadership of almost every large corporation today. Just as they’re incompetent and/or ideologically blind enough to accept that they need HR and Diversity departments for hiring and retention, they’re convinced that central planning is superior to market pricing as long as the right people (i.e. them) are in charge.”

            Maybe. But then its the task for those who implement Moldbugs patchwork to out-compete those who are bureaucratic.

            Perhaps this may even have military application to outmaneuver and crush those who are as you say.

            And even to utterly defeat them so that they never arise ever again.

            • Not Tom says:

              If we were running vanilla capitalism, patchwork-style corporations probably would outcompete bureaucracies. As it is, however, with our 80%ish planned and regulated economy, bureaucracies probably have advantages that patchworks do not: political lobbying, regulatory capture, labor capture (hoovering up all the talent and giving them busywork just to starve upstarts), price fixing, holiness signaling, fending off lawsuits, etc.

              Which is not to say that any of this is truly by design, it’s just how large bureaucratic corporations currently maintain themselves under the current system. It’s not surprising to me that a Chinese company is doing the innovating; in many ways they are economically freer than we are right now.

              • info says:

                “If we were running vanilla capitalism, patchwork-style corporations probably would outcompete bureaucracies. As it is, however, with our 80%ish planned and regulated economy, bureaucracies probably have advantages that patchworks do not: political lobbying, regulatory capture, labor capture (hoovering up all the talent and giving them busywork just to starve upstarts), price fixing, holiness signaling, fending off lawsuits, etc.”

                It has to work with the situation. By playing with the rules of reality instead of rules simply made by men including all that you have said.

                I believe this kind of agile organization would have to outmaneuver all the pitfalls you highlighted and the inherent slowless and static nature of bureaucracy will ensure that it simply can’t keep up.

                It would have to be a black market considering the factors you have said.

        • Alrenous says:

          That’s roughly how I would run a business.

          The model has certain downsides. The biggest is cognitive transaction costs. It’s harder to be an employee in such a business. You can’t just do whatever your boss says. This alone makes it impractical for both American and Japanese firms because you need to be able to quickly fire everyone who can’t hack it. If your firm is structured as 1000 startups, then everyone has to be able to survive startup culture and many startup working conditions. The article mentions the fallout of this, though naturally the journalist is oblivious to the significance.

          Another is redundancy. Especially if you don’t have top-down budget/quotas, then to get proper price competition you need, for example, at least two accountants where previously you only needed one. However, the whole point of the model is that the budget system is significantly more expensive than the Platonic ideal system would be, so there’s a catch-22 there.

          Relatedly, secrets become a non-thing. One way to get price competition without hiring all your clerks twice is to make outside firms a possible option. Indeed that’s how you learn whole departments are redundant. But with your information streams winding in and out of the firm repeatedly, you may as well give up on having any of it contained.

          In any case the other thing is to replace bureaucracy with responsibility. Have a firm-wide policy, and say nobody will ever be punished for following the policy, but allow unlimited deviation, with the caveat that the person who made the decision will be punished or rewarded directly (as much as possible) on how it turns out.

          • info says:

            “But with your information streams winding in and out of the firm repeatedly, you may as well give up on having any of it contained. ”


            Some of the start-up men said something along the lines of your statement. They might as well play speed chess faster than everyone else.

  21. vxxc says:

    O/T but odd…

    2 former state senators, both GOP shot dead in 2 days- AR and OK.
    Probably coincidence however bears watching.

  22. shaman says:

    Your fundamental assumption is that if it wasn’t the Protestants, it was the Jews. I’m not saying that it was the Jews, I’m saying that it was not the Protestants. Let’s agree to disagree and agree to blame the Catholics.

    This proposition both fails at logic 101, and constitutes misattribution of an argument to an interlocutor; not the first time you’re doing that. That’s the kind of shills being sent here: at once illogical and dishonest. This is what had gone on inside your miserable stool-congested pea-brain before you started commenting:

    “I shall disprove Moldbuggian cladistics and closely-related heuristics once and for all by petulantly, passive-aggressively sniping at and griping about Neo-Reaction being JUDEO-Reaction, and then the formidable Jimian chassis will crumble to dust, mwahahaha! Yep, I’m totally just gonna drop the truth-bomb of all truth-bombs, causing a veritable (Flat)-Earthquake on Jim’s blog: Mencius Moldbug… is nothing but a stinking Jew. That’ll do it for sure, huehehehehe. Oh man, oh man, my radiating brilliance knows no bounds. Foolproof strategy!”

    Verily, your arguments (or, more precisely, spasms of sub-mental flatulence) all proved to be the weakest of weak sauce and the lamest of lame imbecility, self-contradictory, and dazzling in the sense of containing a lot empty verbosity; it certainly doesn’t look like you’re privy to the secret knowledge you so loudly boast of, and evidently you have not provided anything of the sort to substantiate such a perception. Your every breath is an advertisement for the Morning After Pill.

    Mental mosquito, stay incognito; or get your tard-face zapped.
    Not nourished or nurtured, internally tortured; your brain’s so handicapped.
    Oxygen lacks, prefrontally lax; your corpus callosum now rots.
    Involuntarily twitches, mind’s having glitches; it’s hemorrhaging clots.
    Not up to par, a toxic cigar; deep in your chest’s a poison.
    Glownigger shill, scripts must fulfill; constrained in your horizon.
    Handlers upset, thus you can bet: This month won’t yield a raise.
    Scamper to /pol/, there you can troll; don’t bring shame on your race.
    Make no mistake, you lawyerly snake; these tricks are yawn-inducing.
    Frame’s not maintained, host’s entertained; your salary’s reducing!
    Low-IQ spook, don’t overlook: The fact your hand is showing.
    Scheme’s misplanned, tomorrow you’re vanned; reap what you are sowing.
    You must be pissed, joining the list; Kookanic here awaits.
    I cut like Ted Bundy, a regular Monday; you won’t escape your fates.
    New assholes ripped, drained n’ blood-dripped; here is your psychic stress.
    Up on your gout, get the fuck out; or stay here mood-depressed.

    I’d make this one a bit longer and more entertaining, but this being 2019, I’m already quite bored with these diss tracks – meh. Point being, this guy had not done his homework before launching into his little incoherent Judeo-centric melt-down over here, so the results are altogether unsurprising. It seems that these shills have forgotten the valuable lesson every /pol/ack must know by heart – Murk Loar.

    • jim says:

      I notice that Iudilicker is not making arguments that a nazi would make, nor arguments that a nazi might find persuasive, but arguments that a nazi as leftists imagine nazis to be would find persuasive.

      • shaman says:

        Absolutely; it eerily resembles CR’s case.

        He has a completely leftist framework, so he thinks that Nazis view Jews the same way Marxists view Capital. Thus, when a Marxist pretends to be a Nazi, it always sounds like, “The Jews have all the money, therefore we are subjugated to them, and we must rid ourselves of the Jewish chains imposed on us by abolishing the exploitative Jewish class that owns the means of production.” They don’t even argue, as actual Nazis do, that Jews are using their power and influence to do bad stuff; the mere affluence of Jews is enough to make them villains. For a Marxist, that’s all that’s needed; there is no need to prove that Jews are using their wealth to misbehave, but being wealthy is itself misbehavior.

        A real Nazi is very likely to say, “The Jews are using their wealth to fund various pozzed causes, and that’s why I oppose Jewish influence.”

        Whereas a Marxist playing a Nazi is much more likely to say, “The Jewish class has taken all our money – so let’s take our money back from the Jews.” Marxists are unable to think outside the class-war framework, and unable to view their enemies as anything other than an adversarial (non-woke) totalitarian despot, one that is to be replaced — via class warfare, of course — with a friendly (woke) totalitarian despot. Iudicalicker explicitly says that everything that ever happens is always top-down socially engineered by conscious political-economic design, except that instead of blaming Capital, he is blaming Jewish bankers, or possibly Jewish money itself, which is his stand in for the old-fashioned Marxist “Capital.”

        He is accusing Jewish bankers of conducting evil psyops to micro-manage world affairs, in the same way Marxists accuse “the capitalist class” of conducting psyops to instill false consciousness in the proletariat in order to manage world affairs.

        So when Marxists play Nazis, it sounds all too familiar: The Jews keep the apple cart, therefore the Jews robbed us of it, therefore we need to kill the Jews and knock down the apple cart to grab some apples. Actual Nazis do not instinctively think this way, but leftist academics LARPing as Nazis instinctively assume that this is what Nazism is all about: Who knocks over whose apple cart to grab some apples.

        Nazis focus on what bad things Jews are doing with their money; whereas leftist academics pulling off a “How do you do, fellow Nazis” focus on Jews possessing a lot of money, regardless of what they’re doing or not doing with it.

        • The Cominator says:

          “He has a completely leftist framework, so he thinks that Nazis view Jews the same way Marxists view Capital. Thus, when a Marxist pretends to be a Nazi, it always sounds like, “The Jews have all the money, therefore we are subjugated to them, and we must rid ourselves of the Jewish chains imposed on us by abolishing the exploitative Jewish class that owns the means of production.”

          To be fair there was a considerable body of left wing actual Nazis who did think exactly like this, they were the most “pro-extermination” faction in the party (the more right wing Nazis Goering and yes Himmler were strongly opposed to extermination until the order was given), and they included Joseph Goebbels and Martin Bormann (who may also have been Stalin’s agent). Supports Jim’s theory that the holocaust came about because the Nazis were socialists.

          Of course they didn’t think that the Jews controlled the economy of the Reich directly after Hitler purged them that was too absurd but they believed that some nebulous monolithically organized forced of International Jewish Capital was the hidden hand behind the Western allies and the earlier economic war against Germany (the more right wing Nazis particulary Goering merely thought they were a disloyal disproportionately far left outgroup but that these kind of theories were stupid nonsense).

          Hitler came around to their way of thinking when he couldn’t feed everyone.

          • pdimov says:

            In an alternate timeline, Israel would have been Germany’s greatest ally, the only national-socialist country in the Middle East.

        • Pontius Pilate says:

          “Iudicalicker explicitly says that everything that ever happens is always top-down socially engineered by conscious political-economic design”

          Not everything, just the big ones:
          * trannies
          * gaymarriage
          * the Eurasian-Negroid race of the future (, replacement migration (
          * global warming (
          * the Federal Reserve (
          * etc.

          Any claim that I’ve blamed “the Jews” for this is factually inaccurate and malicious slander. I blamed the entity which I elected to call “the American IC”, a deliberate double meaning incl. {Intelligence Community, International Community}.

          Your and others’ bleating insistence that by “the American IC” I really mean “the Jews”, “Jewish money”, “Jewish power”, or similar is


          Your problem to deal with. Good luck with getting “the Jews” off “the brain”.

          Like Pontius Pilate, I wash my hands of this so-called forum!


          • jim says:


            These events happened, not because some very secret ruling class made a very secret decision, but because they were the next step in a holiness spiral. Telling us that they were central decisions of a single will is moron Marxism 101, whether you are blaming Israel or Capital.

            Observe what happened with gays and gay marriage and all that. Since tolerance for gays was holy, tolerance for gays forming political action groups to beat up people and destroy their property was even holier, so bingo, we had political violence to impose the gay agenda by violence and intimidation, but this was organized from the bottom up.

            And, as for global warming, we have the internal emails of that conspiracy: Priestly scientists wanted their faction to have higher status in the priestly hierarchy, so got their holy doctrines incorporated in the state religion. Not a bottom up conspiracy, like the gays, but more a middle upwards conspiracy – people who were in the ruling hierarchy, but fairly low status in that hierarchy pushing to get higher status in the ruling hierarchy.

            The only thing that has happened that is entirely top down centralized evil plotters is efforts to change federal electoral outcomes by the strategic importation of voters. Similarly, the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown was in substantial part an effort to spread out overly concentrated Democratic Party voters to avoid wasted votes in House seats, but even the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown was more a dispersed and distributed out of control holiness spiral, as we saw in the banking takeover bidding wars, rather than a sinister plot by senior Democratic Party politicians, even though there was quite a bit of sinister plotting by senior Democratic party politicians.

            But the rest of it was low to medium level plotting, and if it was not exactly happening in plain sight, it was happening in leaky mailing lists. We know how it happened.

            • The Cominator says:

              The glownaggers I do think contribute to the problem. Though they are probably caught in a leftist purity/holiness spiral themselves.

              • 2019 is boring says:

                Glowniggers invigorated Second Wave Feminism, but it’s not obvious that they necessarily expected it to go the way it actually went.

                During the boomer era, you had both hippie orgiastic LSD-using “sex-positive” Feminists who would probably be very much okay with legalizing prostitution and similar stuff, and then you had bra-burning victimological “sex-negative” Feminists who rabidly despised everything about men and male sexuality and claimed to be both political and sexual dykes.

                It is not obvious that the glowniggers expected the fanatical misandrists to win. (Indeed, in some places they have not fully won) True, Anglosphere spooks suckled Puritanism with their mothers’ milk, but I’m not convinced that they were significantly more prudish and hostile to healthy male sexuality than the rest of the population. If the fanatical misandrists won, it’s because there were more “takers” among leftist academics and among the general public for what they had to offer than for the “pro-sexual” variety.

                Now obviously Feminism of all kinds should be obliterated without leaving even the faintest trace, but the point is, Second Wave Feminism could have developed (i.e., memetically mutated) in various directions, and quite possibly, at least some glowniggers would not have liked to see the current unbridled hostility to normal male sexuality.

                (That said, today they are obviously all on the same page of misandric unceasing deafening “sex abuse” hysteria)

                • The Cominator says:

                  Our news media AND entertainment media is controlled and coordinated but its done so covertly and they and the news pushing a certain narrative AND the entertainment media pushing a certain social engineering agenda takes precedence over entertainment and profit. I love old Simpsons but I’ve noticed that ever since Homer male patriarchs either have to be buffoons or if not buffoons bad and sinister people really.

                  I can’t see how this is covertly done other then via glownaggery.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I cannot imagine they ever thought the “sex-positive” feminists would win out and the CIA wasn’t backing the “sex positive” feminists they backed Misandrists like Steinem and Friedan.

                  Ivy League Academia and the CIA at least at the time were closely intertwined, probably are today as well.

                  Helen Gurley Brown (the so called sex-positive feminist of the era) was NOT to my knowledge a CIA agent and never called herself a feminist at the time (decades later when the far left put a gun to her head she declared that yes of course she was always a feminist, and that she never meant what she said about liking random sexual aggression from male coworkers and lots of other wrongthink). She also wasn’t a fanatic she just thought her lurid magazine idea would make her a lot of money.

                • shaman says:

                  Yeah, you have a point.

                  Nevertheless, one would normally expect a glownigger agency whose operatives assassinate, kidnap, torture, sabotage, overthrow governments, train radical guerrillas, traffic drugs, run with the mafia, use honeypot prostitutes to conduct LSD-hypnosis research on innocent civilians, and generally behave like hardened badasses with no compunction, to not support a holiness spiral that completely sinks the social status of testosterone.

                  Ah, but CIA inherited Puritanism while SVR inherited the Soviet ethos and legacy (minus centralized economics), so I guess that’s that.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Nevertheless, one would normally expect a glownigger agency whose operatives assassinate, kidnap, torture, sabotage, overthrow governments, train radical guerrillas, traffic drugs, run with the mafia, use honeypot prostitutes to conduct LSD-hypnosis research on innocent civilians, and generally behave like hardened badasses with no compunction, to not support a holiness spiral that completely sinks the social status of testosterone.”

                  Those people all got fired or demoted after the Bay of Pigs and the commie faction (the OSS/CIA always had a commie factioN) that opposed the Bay of Pigs (which to be fair to them was a bad and hair brained idea) got promoted.

                  Thats also when the CIA started supporting feminism and coordinating the media towards liberal purposes and became in general the Cathedral’s invisible inquisition.

                • shaman says:

                  Still, something here is “off.”

                  If you said that FBI supported the anti-sexual Feminists, I would definitely agree: as a law enforcement agency, they benefit from sex hysteria and from its resulting criminalization of everything: bigger budgets, greater authority, more departments, expansion of personnel, (you know, Jerry Pournelle’s iron law of bureaucracy,) license to impinge on your privacy and liberty, and so forth. It’s in their rational self interest to spread sex hysteria – same thing with regular police.

                  But CIA specifically, as an organization, has nothing to gain from America becoming 1984 with its Youth Anti-Sex League. Surely there are still a few warrior types left in the CIA, and I doubt those warrior types would want to see their society re-designed to look like a nursery of crybabies and self-victimizers. Just the opposite: one would expect CIA to have recruited Hugh Hefner.

                  Then again, the issue is not so much CIA field operatives, who ought to be hardcore badasses, but the leadership echelon and its paid shill brigades, which, if our theorizing here is correct, has been staffed with shitlib true-believers who really have no idea what the fuck they’re doing.

                  The destruction of the family and the criminalization of heterosexuality are great for pigs, LEOs, judges, lawyers, and welfare bureaucrats like CR. Not so great for an organization running covert operations in enemy countries, which needs at least a minimal supply of non-eunuch men, some semblance of asabiyyah, and preferably a functional and stable society back home. As Jim says, incels won’t risk their lives for the homeland. Nor will they be inclined to fund those who do.

                  I guess I’m just really disappointed that no senior agent of the CIA’s domestic psyops department thinks, “Guys, what if — and I know it’s gonna sound totally crazy — but what if instead of collapsing our nation’s TFR, we actually try to raise it? Like, why don’t we use our evil-genius tricks to disrupt the war on men rather than promoting it? Won’t we benefit from that, at least in the long term?”


                • jim says:

                  > I guess I’m just really disappointed that no senior agent of the CIA’s domestic psyops department thinks, “Guys, what if — and I know it’s gonna sound totally crazy — but what if instead of collapsing our nation’s TFR, we actually try to raise it?

                  After the nazis were elected in Germany in 1933, first wave feminism in the USA was abruptly turned off, as if it was a tap with one man’s hand on the faucet.

                  So I guess that in 1933, someone said exactly that.

                • pdimov says:

                  >the OSS/CIA always had a commie factioN

                  “O.S.S., commonly known in military circles as the Office of Soviet Stooges”

                  – from Unz’s latest,

                • The Cominator says:

                  CIA warrior types to the extent they exist don’t get promoted and there aren’t many of them, there were some real ones in the 1950s.

                  Most CIA “field operatives” are like that Valerie Plame woman they operate under official cover attached to embassies and the foreign intel services know exactly who they are within a week of them taking their assignment.

                  Brennan the unironic commie voter muslim convert and the evil spirit behind Obama and the Trump plot was CIA.

                  Brennan (recruited and promoted because he was a fanatical commie) was just pretty typical CIA leadership following the Allen Dulles being sacked, Richard Helms was another huge shitlib.

                  The FBI only went over to the darkside after J. Edgar Hoover died. Hoover was many things but someone who would ever ever help support something like feminism… no.

                • shaman says:

                  The FBI only went over to the darkside after J. Edgar Hoover died.

                  I beg to differ. From the late 19th century onward, feds have been tasked with combating “white sex slave trading,” aka “human trafficking,” aka prostitution. The FBI and its predecessor bureaus have been contaminated with First Wave Feminism right from its inception. The anti-male entrapment stings they run today all have their root in old school WASP Puritanism; it’s not because of Second Wave misandric CIA Jewesses.

                  Puritans criminalized prostitution, and FBI has been on board ever since.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The other thing about the intel agencies is the compartmentalization/black budget/warring gangs phenomenom.

                  Not only do the various CIA offices have no idea what they are doing but the people above them don’t always have any idea what they are doing.

                  For instance while it seems like the media is controlled by some shitlib infested CIA office. It seems like nobody has any idea which office it is or who to fire or exactly how they do it… Trump seemingly can’t get rid of them though I imagine tracking them and getting rid of them has to be among his top priorities.

                  Or wikileaks Vault 13 revealing that different agencies and different departments of agencies all wanted their own knockoff version of the NSA’s ECHELON surveillance programme because non of them trusted each other and they developed them with no apparent supervision, approval, accountability etc. to anyone.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I beg to differ. From the late 19th century onward, feds have been tasked with combating “white sex slave trading,” aka “human trafficking,”

                  Hoover had absolutely zero interest in going after gambling or prostitution, remember that he maintained that the Italian Mafia (which mainly confined itself to the relatively benign rackets of gambling and prostitution during its golden era, the worst thing they did then was labor racketeering) didn’t exists until maybe two years before he died.

                  When he went after prostitution or gambling it was because he wanted to nail someone for other reasons.

                • John Sullivan says:

                  Pwn-positive serverism just means teaching computer science students not to hack and requiring a license to run netcat, where pwn-negative serverism means focusing more on throwing hackers in jail and requiring security scans of legitimate users. Heartiste just got b& for spreading hacking tools, what we need is for people to understand that hacking is impressive and it’s the admins’ responsibility to patch their systems.

                  Anyway, Homer was always how a leftist would imagine a moderate conservative
                  Exchange student: How can you defend a country where 5% of the people control 95% of the wealth?
                  Lisa: I’m defending a country where people can think and act and worship any way they want.
                  Homer: Maybe Lisa’s right about America being a land of opportunity and maybe Adele has a point about the machinery of capitalism being oiled with the blood of the workers

                • shaman says:

                  pwn-negative serverism means focusing more on throwing hackers in jail and requiring security scans of legitimate users.

                  You forgot (or deliberately omitted) the most crucial aspect: using various pretexts to redefine legitimate users as hackers – i.e., the original trick from the schoolmarm book. Which redefinition of legitimate users as hackers has been going on since the 19th century, with ever newer pretexts being manufactured, and with only a brief deviation from the trend between 1933 and 1963.

                  The supposedly positive version means, “We shall adhere to the last redefinitions, and we’re allowed to glorify the recently established status quo – but no need for more redefinitions.”

                  The negative version means, “We need more redefinitions – much more, in fact.”

                  And, of course, the reactionary position is: We shall discard all the redefinitions accrued since 1820, and make it extremely low status to advocate for redefinitions.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I love old Simpsons but Homer was definitely when the war on men in the media escalated… popular male characters either had to be buffoons, evil or capeshit after that.

                  I’m not sure when the media started making it so if you had a nice trad selfless girl nothing good could ever work out for her (unless her selflessness manifested itself as stupid shitlib activism) but that happened a few years after that…

                • Alrenous says:

                  Iudalicker and Jim’s model are both incomplete.

                  For instance while it seems like the media is controlled by some shitlib infested CIA office. It seems like nobody has any idea which office it is or who to fire or exactly how they do it

                  Yes, exactly. The Official Press is owned by some flack in a CIA office. Probably. Maybe FBI or State. I would guess he’s the governor and there’s a king ensconced in the bowels of Harvard somewhere, or maybe a retired fart in specifically Georgetown.

                  The first thing is, this king’s jurisdiction is only the Press. He has no authority over wetlands or traffic violations or “fiscal policy” or anything else. Those have their own separate secret kings.

                  The second thing is, coup is in fact the constant state of American governance. They get lots of practice. The reason nobody knows the governor, except his king and his flunkeys in the Press, is because he’s desperately hiding.

                  Come to think, that’s probably how the king asserts authority over the governor. If the governor disobeys, then the king will tell his rivals who they need to overthrow.

                  If Trump can figure out what’s going on in basement of the CIA looking from the White House, you better believe that the CIA chuds can figure it out, and quickly too. If Trump manages it, he will find it’s functionally a moving target, as he will have zeroed in on someone who was already ousted. Similarly if he manages to track down a king…well, you saw what happened to Kennedy. That’s a big no-no. Nobody would believe some random CIA flack if he were to say that Carlos Slim is owned by some moderately rich asshole in Georgetown or some frumpy professor. It’s different if POTUS claims it though, so they get the lead rhetoric.

                  They were willing to break many laws to try to keep Trump out because they’re worried about him going Kennedy. However, he hasn’t found anything truly dangerous yet. He seems to be willing to take a lot of things at face value. Thus it’s not yet worth the risk. POTUS isn’t supposed to have access to anything of real relevance, and so far the system is working as intended.

                  Hillary appears to be one of these governors, e.g. she’s been caught telling Obama what the king wants. Meaning she knows who a king is. Meaning if she’s hauled into court, the king’s name will show in court documents. Meaning anyone who might manage to haul her into court gets capped.

                  The Press, having a governor and a king, will have a unified strategy coordinated by marching orders. Indeed there was that guy on twitter that graphed it recently. However, it will not be unified with any other tentacles of the Cathedral, except for temporary ad-hoc arrangements.

                  The polyarchy structure means you get a lovely mix of two worst worlds. The Cathedral as a whole is essentially prospiracy, uncoordinated, or rather constantly infighting and pursuing self-defeating avenues.

                  Not to mention the chain of control over a tumblr SJW or student group is something like king hillary obama WH staff university clerk university dean university toadies SJW, and every link is designed to obfuscate responsibility. None of them can directly punish their subordinates, and certainly can’t be caught doing anything so gauche as instructing them to take a specific action. (The kings would dearly like to tell the SJWs to sit down and shut up, but even the most direct command would take years to filter through the hierarchy. Meanwhile SJWism will mutate, and the command will have become meaningless. Further, since they arose bottom-up instead of top-down, the kings aren’t sure whose jurisdiction they fall under. Telling them to shut up could well be seen as trespassing and ignite a turf war. As per Sun Tzu, igniting a turf war means you both lose and your jurisdiction will be seized by actor C.)

                  However, if you significantly threaten one of these hundreds or thousands of power structures, you will gain the personal attention of someone who neither stupid nor crazy, and has the means and will to kill you. They will tell Hillary that you have evidence that might lead to her arrest, and away you go.

                  Of course just like Trump can’t tell what’s going on in the CIA, generally it’s impossible for members of the public to determine what’s going on up these chains of power, so typically they’ll only managed to threaten a low-level bureaucrat, and they’ll merely get fired instead of fired at. Maybe the local cops will receive a tip that you have CP on your computer. Even if they don’t see any CP, they know how to find some anyway, don’t they?

                • “Sex positive feminism” was doomed from the start. For one, religions impose costs on their followers. Everyone likes to fuck, it doesn’t need a label. When you make someone change their behavior in a way they normally wouldn’t do otherwise, that’s loyalty.

                  For the other, free love was always bullshit, one alpha hippie who could score LSD or play the guitar better than the other hippies was fucking all of the hippie chicks and most dudes weren’t getting any. So the movement evaporated like the morning dew, to be replaced by? Extreme male sexuality signalling in the 70’s, followed by bad-boy heavy metal and punk signalling in the 80’s.

                  Thus we ended up with bizarre Puritanical legalism like “enthusiastic consent” that merges both the Victorian England feminist strain that women are morally pure creatures that can do no wrong with the contractual “Whig feminist” notion that women possess the same rational agency and mental powers as men.

                  Ironically, the only sexual practice that resembles “free love” is when a dom ties his sub up, puts a mask on her, and makes her fuck a large number of strangers. “Free love” is so far away from female nature that it takes extreme male power to enforce. At which point, why not just bring the patriarchy back and make everyone happier?

            • pdimov says:

              >Since tolerance for gays was holy, tolerance for gays forming political action groups to beat up people and destroy their property was even holier, so bingo, we had political violence to impose the gay agenda by violence and intimidation, but this was organized from the bottom up.

              I’m not sure about that. This hypothesis would predict gay holiness flowing from the imperial capital into backward European provinces, the latter then bottom-up organizing gay parades in response.

              Instead, the local American embassy had to organize the gay parade, quite officially and with the ambassador attending as an honored guest, and had to apply significant pressure onto local law enforcement to make the gays officially protected species, on and off the parade.

              And it’s not just gay rights. There’s never an occurrence of a leftist idea spontaneously appearing, bottom up, somewhere in the empire, then catching on because holy. Leftist ideas always, without fail, emanate from the imperial capital. Whereas historically, in real leftist holiness spirals, ideas did appear spontaneously in the provinces (f.ex. China’s golden mangoes.)

              (Incidentally, Tel Aviv has a gay parade, which is evidence that it’s not the Jews.)

              • jim says:

                That is certainly true in the provinces, but in the heart of empire, one does get bottom up (or mid level up) holiness.

                In the provinces, no private violence to force people to show respect, because of the overwhelming might of the empire. In the heart of empire, gay rights and gay parades were imposed by private, but state tolerated, violence.

                If it had been top down in the heart of empire, it would have been imposed the heart of empire in the same way as in the provinces, without beatings, murder, arson, and rape.

            • Not Tom says:

              The whole thing screams unintended consequences. Taking the mortgage meltdown for instance, the fact that they were even able to implement the minority loans that led to the meltdown was a consequence of their ability to disguise toxic assets, itself a function of unregulated derivatives trading, which was a reaction to the extreme regulation of conventional banking, which was implemented to stabilize fractional reserve, which is supported by the Federal Reserve, which exists because Anglosphere banking is uniquely predicated on the insane principle of maturity transformation.

              Did the original Bank of England implement MT in order to spread minority voters across the then-nonexistent USA? Could they even have imagined the possibilities of credit default swaps, high-frequency trading and toxic mortgage loans? Exactly where in this chain of events can you draw the line and say “a-HA! That’s where this system became self-aware.” I assert that at no point did it become self-aware, and for the most part it still isn’t self-aware.

              Were there guys in the Democratic party who in 1965 and 2004-2008 went “Hey, have you noticed that Mexicans and Blacks tend to vote for us a lot? What we can we do to capitalize on that?” Almost certainly. Were they directing the entire party, carefully planning every step of the process? I really doubt it. Even in the private sector, at much smaller scale, that level of coordination rarely happens. Helpful information and suggestions come from random employees and consultants and sporadically and arbitrarily get incorporated into an overall strategy that functions more by consensus and tribal knowledge than explicit command and control.

              • The Cominator says:

                Well LBJ (the 2nd worse president besides Wilson and a truly evil pure psychopath motherfucker) did say his family destroying “Great Society” would get the Dems the nagger vote for the next 200 years.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Even that didn’t go as planned. Oh, it got them the nagger vote alright – but I don’t think he intended for it to turn them into the nagger party and push out all of the white men. What are the odds that they ever run another white male candidate after Biden? Not LBJ’s dream.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Is everything under moderation now my last comment didn’t go through…

                  I was saying that Alreneous has his faults as do we all but hes not a lunatic or a shill and should not be treated as Communist Revolutionary and glosoli have been treated, as the shills and lunatics they are… and the way kookniac SHOULD BE treated.

                • jim says:

                  Any comment that mentions certain commenters by name gets moderated.

              • Neurotoxin says:

                Exactly where in this chain of events can you draw the line and say “a-HA! That’s where this system became self-aware.”

                The system became self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29, 1997.

              • Alrenous says:

                The Bank of England initiated maturity transformation because it is locally profitable. The fact it benefits those near in time and space is part of the charm, because it necessarily harms your distant rivals.

                Elites everywhere play a game where they deliberately hole the ship they themselves are riding, and compete to jump off as late as possible without jumping too late. In the case of mortgages, musical chairs played for billion dollar stakes. Partly it’s about trying to blind your rivals to the fact it’s sinking – if you jump yourself, it’s a tell. For this game, the fact the system is inevitably doomed is a feature.

                Minority loans were initiated because it is locally profitable. Some get to buy votes. Others get all this worthless scrip they can try to pawn off on their rivals.

                Because when you have a billion six and you lose a billion, you’re not exactly like crippled, right?

                The article makes some good points, but they still miss a critical factor: market trades are zero sum. They can’t go negative. It’s not that Cayne lost a billion. It’s that someone gained a billion at his expense. That’s the point of things like mortgage buggery.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Elites everywhere play a game where they deliberately hole the ship they themselves are riding, and compete to jump off as late as possible without jumping too late.

                  You’ve just described the holiness spiral, which is the same as the elite defection spiral. In your vision it’s done for profit, but it also can be and often is done for status. Defect, but do it in a way that can’t be penalized and offers plausible deniability.

                  The entire system is the accidental result of constant defection in an environment where a certain type of defector always wins. No individual actor even has a clue what the long-term consequences might be, let alone having them carefully planned. Its only invariant is that, evolutionarily speaking, it will become even better-adapted for chronic defection and ever more resistant to large-scale cooperation because the incentives select the winners and the winners get to reinforce the incentives.

                • Alrenous says:

                  In your vision it’s done for profit

                  Because I’m obviously outgroup, what I said has to be reinterpreted as dumber than what I actually said.

                  No individual actor even has a clue what the long-term consequences might be

                  Doing it again. “My enemies are dumber than me.” Which of course is why they’re in charge (and making billions of dollars) and you are not.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Alrenous, I’m not going to guess at the meaning of your “obviously outgroup” comment, but as for the second paragraph:

                  Doing it again. “My enemies are dumber than me.” Which of course is why they’re in charge (and making billions of dollars) and you are not.

                  You don’t really know anything about me, but you should think harder about what kind of environment tends to hatch reactionaries. Hint: it’s not farm towns in red states.

                  It’s ironic that you claim I’ve straw-manned you (I don’t really see how the statements “because it is locally profitable” and “musical chairs played for billion-dollar stakes” are in any way misrepresented by my summary phrase “for profit”) and then immediately proceed to straw-man me.

                  There is nothing in my preceding post claiming that all individual Cathedral actors are dumber than me. What I did assert is that individuals within the system have a very dim understanding of the system’s design, or even its purpose. They know how to use the system, like you and I know how to ride a bicycle, but they generally don’t know anything about the system, just as most people can’t actually explain how a bicycle operates beyond the utilitarian “push pedal, turn wheels”. Of course there are millions of specialized mechanics who could properly describe a bicycle, but the Cathedral is several orders of magnitude more complex. Finding someone who completely understands it would be like finding a programmer who completely understands the Linux kernel. Impossible.

                  I’ve seen firsthand how more than one Cathedral institution really works. There are dumb people, there are smart people, and there are (sometimes) very smart people, and none of them align with your theory. Major strategic decisions (like pouring billions into Diversity) are outsourced to management consultants like McKinsey & Co; major operational decisions are made by low-level employees, or even contractors; decisions that are too big for them are diffused through committees, often several each with conflicting local interests. The lack of accountability or ownership is a feature, not a bug, because it increases the size of the bureaucracy and makes it harder to pinpoint blame. Elites don’t actually want to burn their houses down, they want to keep extracting rent, but the system keeps starting random fires and the elites who survive are necessarily, due to evolutionary pressures, the ones who are really good at jumping out of windows and landing softly.

                  The system demonstrates hyper-intelligent behavior, which is why it keeps outwitting all of its enemies, but that doesn’t mean it’s staffed by hyper-intelligent individuals; that’s Division Fallacy. In reality, most of the complexity is organic, and most of the outcomes are either entirely accidental or the result of opportunistic capitalization on a different accidental outcome.

                • jim says:

                  > you should think harder about what kind of environment tends to hatch reactionaries. Hint: it’s not farm towns in red states.

                  If you use the word “reactionary” to mean intellectual performing the priestly role in the reaction, yeah, we are all highly educated affluent urbanites, but I have spent a lot of time in small country towns, and just about everyone in those towns is a reactionary about those things that he knows from close at hand.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Aside from this, your comment wasn’t even on topic. Within Jim’s scope, but not addressed to anything I said.

                  Elites don’t actually want to burn their houses down, they want to keep extracting rent, but the system keeps starting random fires and the elites who survive are necessarily, due to evolutionary pressures, the ones who are really good at jumping out of windows and landing softly.

                  This clearly demonstrates your lack of insight.

                  Hmm, they don’t want to burn their own house down. (You don’t say.) They like rent more.

                  So something they like more supersedes something they like less. Certainly.

                  But…what if…there’s something they like even more than collecting rent…?

                • Not Tom says:


                  If you use the word “reactionary” to mean intellectual performing the priestly role in the reaction

                  Sort of. I was using it to mean people who are immune to leftist memes, not merely un-infected. Hardy organisms evolve in dangerous, inhospitable environments.


                  Aside from this, your comment wasn’t even on topic. Within Jim’s scope, but not addressed to anything I said.

                  >replies to blog entry about Trump with long meandering tinfoil post about Cthulhu not actually being Cthulhu but rather a highly specialized apparatus for concealing literal Secret Kings and Queens, then writes another how elites are all deliberately trying to stab each other in the back for local profit
                  >criticizes replies demanding evidence and explaining how things actually work as “off topic”

                  This clearly demonstrates your lack of insight.

                  But…what if…there’s something they like even more than collecting rent…?

                  Communicating poorly and then acting smug when misunderstood is not cleverness. Why don’t you enlighten us?

                  – You deny that it’s a holiness spiral, or assert that such phrase doesn’t do justice to the profundity of your model.
                  – You deny that it’s done for immediate profit, even though you made that exact claim a few hours before.
                  – You deny that it’s rent-seeking behavior, even though we can clearly observe rent-seeking behavior.
                  – You insist that it’s “something else”, but won’t say what it is.

                  So go on, drop your bombshell already. Revolutionize the Dark Englightenment. If the conventional theory of rent-seeking + holiness spiral that (AFAICT) nearly every NRxer considers to be true in some proportion is actually totally false, then I’m sure we’d all like to know.

                  If you have evidence, that is.

                • Yasser Arafat says:

                  Take it easy, Not Tom. Your interlocutor is a literal autist who specializes in non sequitur walls of text, plus whining about his troubled childhood. Juts do like Bill Clinton did and tell him, “I feel your pain.”

                • Alrenous says:

                  non sequitur walls of text

                  Merchant-caste socializer can’t hack scholar-caste argument, pretends there’s nothing to argue.

                  Whatever your ego needs, I guess. Take care of yourself first.

                  Not Tom:
                  You sound butthurt. Might want to get a grip. You’re going to have difficulty grasping the issues as long as you’re so easily excited. I understand the urge to prod me back after I prodded you, but you’re looking awfully delicate from this angle.

                  Are you doing Scott Adam’s word-thinking? Roughly how old are you?

                • Not Tom says:

                  You sound butthurt. Might want to get a grip.

                  And you talk like a fag and your shit’s all retarded. I’m glad we were able to have this “scholar-caste” debate. Hit me up when you want to go BTTW and demo a full Loremaster-caste argument.

                • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

                  Alrenous is basically a bot designed to derail every discussion with autistic screeching that is half irrelevant and half unreadable at all.

                • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

                  I just realized something:

                  When lots of people take issue with the someone’s content, that does not necessarily mean that the content is bad – most people are ill-suited to properly evaluate ideas.

                  But when lots of people find the form of someone’s expression to be objectionable, that someone should probably their tongue and fingers cut – like Alrenous, for instance.

                • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

                  You see, astute abstract reasoning is the prerogative of the cognitive elite, but a rudimentary aesthetic sense is possessed by even the most basic-bitch among the uncouth normies. To casually transgress against form, to offend against or otherwise disregard the sensibilities of beautification — a hallmark of cerebral miswiring or dysfunction — should merit a Hannibal Lecter-type treatment. To be wrong is fine; to be ugly is not.

                • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

                  By no means do I advocate standardization or uniformity of the modes of expression! From Trump’s Twitter feed on the one hand, to the ouvres of such literary giants as Mencken and Chesterton, there are varying ways of pleasing, surely satisfying, the aesthetic taste – no one formula is binding.

                  Being a persistent Style Molester ought to be punishable by whole or partial removal of those appendages that allow for speech – Alrenous should be restricted solely to grunts, for example “ughghgh.”

                  Style Molesters shall not enter the Kingdom.

                • Koanic says:

                  Not Tom did misread Alrenous’ high-abstraction OP. Then Alrenous misattributed that misreading to bullying and started playing wizard. Which went poorly since Not Tom has a wealth of relevant concrete experience. Both continued to compound their errors, but only Not Tom came out looking like a decent guy.

                  A better way to handle abstract reading comprehension failure is to simply point out the part that invalidates the reader’s interpretation. The rest speaks for itself. Whether the audience suspects malice or not, stupidity has been demonstrated. Adding an unproveable charge of malice on top just looks effeminate.

                  The more intelligent one is, the more one must adjust for the fact that perceived deliberate malignancy is mostly inadvertent, because the more scarce intelligence is externally relative to internally. And vice versa, the dumber one is. Meanwhile, the midwit conflates intelligence and status.

                  Not that this small sample is enough to determine Alrenous’ and Not Tom’s relative IQs. And that concludes my keyboard nap.

                • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

                  It matters not whose IQ is higher (both are probably 145+); the critique is not of their respective cognitions per se.

                  Not Tom, who has been commenting here for the past 5 threads (at least under that handle), always communicates in a clear and straightforward manner, without however betraying mental incapacity – his mind is not only sharp, but also “well rounded.”

                  Alrenous, who has been commenting on NRx blogs since the dinosaur epoch, is constitutionally incapable of expressing himself in ways that aren’t visuo-linguistically displeasing. His texts are ugly; while accusations of autism may be trite, in this case, that charge fits like a sensory glove on a flapping hand.

                  Who wants to read blobs of verbiage that are neither pertinent to the subject matter (for the most part, due to misplaced and excessive self-referentiality), nor even structured in a way that many would find agreeable?

                • alf says:

                  Alrenous is a bit like Koanic, in that both use iq as the main signifier of their identity, meaning they are both invariably less smart than they think. But Alrenous, at least, is not selling us the Bigfoot pill.

                • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

                  Alrenous’ badly articulated point seems to be that elites behave in ostensibly self-destructive ways because it actually cements the collective power of their class versus their out-group competitors; i.e., high vs. middle. There’s nothing particularly novel about that, and Alrenous shouldn’t overestimate his own ingenuity.

                  (See, I say “seems to be” because, as noted by his interlocutor and by myself, he communicates poorly)

                • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

                  Alrenous said:

                  The Cathedral is most certainly behaving rationally. However, a rift has grown between what secures power internally and what secures power externally.

                  His point being, the holiness spiral secures the power of one Brahmin versus fellow Brahmins, while inflicting evil and madness on society secures the power of the Cathedral itself versus potential or actual rivals.

                  Thus Alrenous is like Moldbug, minus 20 IQ points, and plus debilitating autism. (Also, plus wizardchan virginity consequent to the debilitating autism)

                • outline says:

                  Not quite, alf. The main signifier of Kookanic’s identity is that he is special.

                  During his time on earth, Kookanic has suffered prolonged periods of acute physical pain, and complete life failure. These trials, along with the inability to handle dysphoria of any kind, has led Kookanic to fall prey to, and amplify, the most basic self-deception known to mankind – the messiah complex.

                  A man with a healthy soul who went through the same trials would recognize his failures and flaws, and find some quiet corner in the world to live the rest of his life the best he can.

                • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

                  Okay, I admit to having failed to grasp what the fuck Alrenous actually means to say – my wild guess at the previous comment seems imprecise, on further reflection.

                  And it’s not because my IQ is low, but because Alrenous does indeed deserve to have his tongue and fingers cut off – he should communicate through “errrggghhhh,” which is by far better than spamming the blog with, at best, obscurantist trivia.

                • alf says:

                  YEa I agree with the assessment that Alrenous writes ugly texts and Koanic believes he is very special.

                • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

                  No, I think that I do get what Alrenous means: the Cathedral conducts both an internal holiness spiral and, simultaneously, and using the same memeplex, it conducts a cynical us-vs-them psyops campaign against everyone else – but now the Brahmins have gotten so high off their own supply that the Cathedral veritably self-desructs, possibly even self-destructs faster than it is able to destroy others. Thus the adaptability “rift.”

                  Since Alrenous has such a disgusting mind, and probably a disgusting body too, he could not convey this idea in a way that people could actually understand. Too bad the bullies at school did not stuff him in the locker permanently.

                • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

                  And by the way, His Highness Alspergus the Flabby I (his current blog subtitle is: “Galactic Confederacy’s Satan of Cyberspace”) is totally wrong: the Cathedral is not nearly competent and rational enough to maintain such a sophisticated multifaceted strategy. Has not been rational for 150 years, even if it had been rational initially, which is also very doubtful. It is, as Not Tom says, full of dumb true believers, and even the intelligent nihilists can hardly conceptualize how the machine truly works. To say that the Cathedral is “behaving rationally” betrays a very poor general theory-of-mind, as can be expected from spergs.

                  Come the restoration, we will use AI to automatically detect and discard of Style Molesters, who are the worst kind of molesters by a wide margin.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Ah, there it is. So predictable.

                  Actually, the ‘bullies’ at school defended me. I was shocked too. Frankly, the only thing I’m insulted about is that you think I’m so weak as to be affected by your lame taunts. Please, post enough to give me an excuse to roll out real-life examples.

                  Oh no, the wurds in the computerz dun’t like muh. Abloo bloo bloo.
                  Text!!!!!!!!!!!! My ancient enemy! You will not defeat me this time, letters!

                  I can safely presume you’re weak enough to be affected by similar taunts. Though of course, you’re a demotist and care greatly about popularity. Indeed you said so out loud:

                  When lots of people

                  Right. You’re not allowed to believe things unless “lots of people” give you permission. Pitiful.

                  Shaman, your pseudonyms are extremely obvious. Take an acting class. Especially as you’re the only person with comment incontinence. Your obsession with verbal and physical violence is creepy. Are you creepy in real life too?

                  If not, then suppressing it must be hard on you.

                  Do you think your glorious leader, Not Tom, is any more impressed with your bizarre Arabic revenge fantasies than with my aspergoid abrasiveness?

                  If I have the approval of someone like you, aren’t I obviously doing something wrong?

                  (his current blog subtitle is: “Galactic Confederacy’s Satan of Cyberspace”)

                  Come to think, I might have done something foolish.

                  I have a habit of looking in detail at everything. There might be something useful buried in there, after all.

                  This, however, was predictable. I already know everything it was going to say. I gave it far more attention that it deserved.

                  The worst thing is they’re entirely off the mark. As is always the case: the abusive are liars. I could prove it but again it would be to credit the accusations more than they deserve.

                  Shesh, if you’re going to comment on my character, at least say something useful.

                  The point is not to improve style. Excellent joke. Truly ludicrous. The point is to hurt someone, purely for the sake of hurting someone. The point of abuse is to be abusive. It’s boring. Nobody else is doing it for a reason. Do try to rise above the proverbial homeless drunkard.

                  I’ve genuinely gained confidence due to your aimless accusations. “They really don’t know! HA!” Is what I’m thinking.

                  I do often get accused of being dumber than I think I am. And it’s certainly something to worry about – many self-assess like that. Extremely common around 130, for example. Why would I be different?
                  But then you just don’t get what I’m doing, which makes me feel better. Meanwhile you’re happily behaving exactly as I predict, falling into my traps. I am, at least, smarter than you.

                  (And incidentally the ‘smarter than I think I am’ line admits that if I am indeed kind of smart, it matters. Tactical error there, on your part.)

                  Well, maybe you’re not as delicate as you look. Dammit, now I have to check for that too…
                  Maybe in addition I need to demonstrate how to not get driven away by such things?

                  Then Alrenous misattributed that misreading to bullying

                  I was actually careful not to. My habits just barely saved me. Although it’s correct that in my first reply I had forgotten to patronize properly, nothing in the second was affected by it, and then I noticed my mistake.

                  to handle abstract reading comprehension failure is to simply point out the part that invalidates the reader’s interpretation. The rest speaks for itself

                  Err…I did. Impolitely, admittedly. It clearly didn’t speak for itself.

                  The actual error I made was continuing to attempt to communicate at all. If it doesn’t work the first time, the problem is the ideas themselves, not the presentation. I’ve tested this extensively.

                  BTW, you may note I’m not applying for a job here. Who ‘looks decent’ is irrelevant.

                  What you should actually accuse me of is accidentally, through incompetence, acting like a entryist/infiltrator by associating good ideas with low-status behaviour, thus poisoning the far right against truth.

                  But as long as you can’t come up with that accusation on your own, can I be doing any serious damage?

                  Though I have to admit you’ve convinced me to be less unstylish. And shaman gets the credit for stimulating you to post as such. Since I ‘look bad’ and nobody notices the actual points I bring up anyway, I may as well stop putting any effort into it at all.

                  Speaking of things you really ought to think of yourself, ProTip: if you ignore me I’ll go away. If you keep throwing nonsense at me then I have to keep correcting it for the benefit of the silent majority.

                  To be fair, the majority of the lurkers agree with you. Of course. But due to my congenital optimism I continue to believe there’s a minority of lurkers who remain disinterested enough to see the whole picture.

                  One day this minority may realize they can’t leave all the work to the narcissists who need attention so badly they post hundreds of times in the comments of obscure niche blogs.

                  By the way reading for implication makes you manipulable and sacrifices precision. Be aware of the implications so you can deal with them when you must, but it’s crippling to have to deal only with them.

                • jim says:

                  The formidable wall of boring no fun-to-read text complaint is valid, and reading for implications is a very good idea, since our enemies are trained to slide in assumptions by indirection, to pretend to be arguing for another thing, while implying and presupposing shared acceptance of the thing they are really arguing.

                  If you don’t read for implication, you are fighting a battle of words with one hand tied behind your back. Our enemies have formal training, I had formal training, to use that technique back when I was a teenage commie. I ceased to be a teenage commie when I discovered that the commies have a short way of dealing with heresy and defection. Commies that noticed the Cambodian autogenocide tended to disappear, so I decided to disappear before I was disappeared.

                  Future excessive forbidding no fun-to-read walls of text are likely to be deleted. Try to be punchy and entertaining. Entertaining insults are always allowed.

                • Koanic says:

                  Obviously one should read for implication, when something is being implied. I never said otherwise. And no one can dispute that women are masters of finding nonexistent implications.

                • Alrenous says:

                  likely to be deleted

                  As expected.
                  You’ve wanted to do this for a while but for some insane reason waited for permission from a random asshole. I’m disappointed it took this long.

                  You can tell it’s about me in particular because being unreadable is hardly confined to just me.

                  Entertaining insults are always allowed.

                  “Entertaining” is defined as ‘I agree with it.’ Shaman will make your comment section into an echo chamber, with maybe a few irrational crazies for spice.

                  That’s fine, of course. It’s your comment section. If that’s how you want it, far be it from me to stop you.

                  Shaman will now declare victory. Unfortunately, I no longer have the opportunity to bait him into showing his true character.

                • pdimov says:

                  Jim should give those of us on moderation some identifying badge, like for instance hammer and sickle.

                • jim says:

                  You, pdimov, are on moderation for troofing, and for using debating methods characteristic of paid and trained entryist.

                  The bulliciding of Alrenous is temporarily on moderation for piling on.

                • shaman says:

                  Lol, wow.

                  Confirms that “people” like Alspergus should only communicate through zombie-reminiscent guttural murmurs, or perhaps through focused eye movement like full-body paralytics. Here’s an interesting bit, though:

                  Q Lazzarus Anons:

                  When lots of people take issue with the someone’s content, that does not necessarily mean that the content is bad – most people are ill-suited to properly evaluate ideas.

                  But when lots of people find the form of someone’s expression to be objectionable, that someone should probably have their tongue and fingers cut – like Alrenous, for instance.


                  you’re a demotist and care greatly about popularity. You’re not allowed to believe things unless “lots of people” give you permission. Pitiful.

                  Do you think that this is a honest response to what you were told? You were very explicitly told that it doesn’t matter if lots of people think you’re wrong; it matters that lots of people think you’re ugly.

                  You decided to play smartass, but apparently a bit of hazing n’ pranking is enough to melt you down into a tearful outburst, even though it’s the goddamn internet. Anyway, next time that you’re told, “Stop writing ugly unreadable texts,” and “Stop writing non sequitur walls of text,” you should accept that there is validity in these specific requests.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Since the subject came up: I don’t have alts on this blog. Just lurked for a long time before dispensing opinions.

                  I tend to adapt conversational mode (from laconic trolling to autistic-screeching dialectic) to other participants, but I’ll refrain from WOTs in the future if they’re unwanted or if the crowd finds them boring. I suspect that warning wasn’t explicitly directed at me, but since I did respond with a WOT, it could be. As QLA pointed out, haven’t been commenting here that long so might still need to learn the boundaries.

                  Anyway, the fact that 3 or 4 people aside from myself were able to argue for several posts about what Al actually meant, without coming to any agreement, underscores my original point. Communicating in riddles is most commonly a characteristic of poseurs and flim-flammers, not deep thinkers arguing in good faith. The latter will invariably make several attempts at clarification before throwing their dinner rolls and mooning the other guests.

                • shaman says:

                  The WOT complaint was not directed at you at all; just the opposite, it was directed at your arm-flapping interlocutor, Alspergus. You’re definitely one of the better posters here, in the same league as Aidan MacLear and “eternal anglo.” This blog and the internet in general need more people like you guys.

              • The Cominator says:

                Alrenous has his faults as do we all but lets not make him out to be another Communist Revolutionary, glosoli (however the fuck that lunatics’ name was spelled) or Kookniac now.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I never thought he was, for what that’s worth. In fact I think he’s made some decent contributions to the movement in monologue (blog) format. But apparently he’s not so good at dialogue, and confuses his own poor communication with other people’s stupidity.

                  Unlike entryism, that’s a solvable problem, if he wants to solve it. Not all of us can be Roissy-tier smooth talkers but nearly everyone can learn to communicate clearly.

              • Alrenous says:

                but apparently a bit of hazing n’ pranking is enough to melt you down into a tearful outburst

                Curse you sheboon.

                I’ll get you next time, gadget. Next tiiiiime.

                Do another one so I can use ‘meddling kids’.

            • Calov says:

              I don’t get this. Gay marriage & widespread acceptance of faggotry was pushed by the media & cultural elites. If there was some kind of antifa-like mob of violent homos that was incidental compared to the power of the media and universities. It appears that the media and cultural hegemons pushed globohomo because Marxist theorists like Marcuse et al. saw sexual liberation as the prerequisite for the revolution. So “coming out” as a gag was a revolutionary act meant to undermine patriarchy, Christianity, and the western family. At any rate it appears that this did come from the top even if there wasn’t a secret meeting where the Rockefellers and Rothschilds decided it before adjourning to torture children.

              • jim says:

                Elites were pushing for a long time, but violence and intimidation made the big change. People don’t like to remember it that way, because it makes them look like pussies, and because when the politically correct use violence and intimidation, it goes down the memory hole.

                Similarly, whites moved out of Detroit because their houses were being burned down around their ears, and it seems to have vanished from memory. Supposedly they left Detroit because racism.

                • Calo says:

                  Are you talking about the homo riots in the 60s, and saying the queer violence motivated the elites to take up this cause? Or that gay thugs scared us into gay marriage more recently? I can remember various examples of fags using social media and regular media and the courts to humiliate opponents of gay marriage in the last century or so, but I don’t remember examples of gay thugs beating people or committing arson. Even if they did I can’t see how this would bring them to victory. It seems to me that they won because people were convinced that gays didn’t choose their orientation and that it is archaic to deny them the same social recognition & legal rights that have always belonged to husband and wife. Btw notice how fags are using the word “husband” for their mates while holy men & women who are married refer to each other as their “partner”, in order to completely void the word “husband” of meaning.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I don’t know if the activists did those particular things you mention, but homos will happily brag about how homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a mental disorder because activists stormed the APA conference in the early 70s until the psychs got intimidated into taking it out.

                • pdimov says:

                  >because activists stormed the APA conference

                  You can do these things if you’re protected species, but not before that. If they tried that in a country without a gay parade, they would have been soundly beaten and thrown out.

                • jim says:

                  To my recollection the violence came first, and the gay parades came after the successful and officially unofficially tolerated violence.

                • Koanic says:

                  Calling them gays instead of sodomites is a whitewash of their fundamental violence.

                • alf says:

                  On the other hand, gay is one syllable, sodomite is three syllables.

                • jim says:

                  Gay works. People use it as insult and condemnation, and the left is confused and does not know how to handle such usage.

                  Their normal rulebook contains a very large pile of rules of the form: “If you use word X, your life will be destroyed”. They are incapable of implementing rules that require complex thought. They cannot formulate or enforce a rule “If you use word X in a certain way your life will be destroyed.”

                  Gay as an epithet hits them on one of their weak spots.

                • alf says:

                  Faggot is a nice middle road.

                • Koanic says:

                  I never said it didn’t work. I said it whitewashes their violence by emphasizing their contemptible weakness. The people who use “gay” the most seem to have the dimmest understanding of the homosexual proclivity for ultraviolence. “Sodomite” emphasizes that extermination is the only sane solution.

                • alf says:

                  Ultraviolence, I presume that is a step above superviolence, but below godzillaviolence? :thinking:

                • shaman says:

                  Well Alf, if you were a 180 IQ Neanderthal like Kookanic, you’d know that Bigfoot and Godzilla are yesterday’s news – the latest redpill is Chupacabra.

                • pdimov says:

                  “The Stonewall Riots, as they became known, made one thing clear—the LGBT movement needed to be louder and more visible. Nothing was going to change if they continued their passive, non-threatening tactics. They needed to get organized. Five months after the riots, activists Craig Rodwell, his partner Fred Sargeant, Ellen Brody and Linda Rhodes proposed a resolution at the Eastern Regional Conference of Homophile Organizations (ERCHO) in Philadelphia that a march be held in New York City to commemorate the one-year anniversary of the raid. Their proposal was for an annual march on the last Saturday in June with “no dress or age regulations.” This was a drastic change from the current methods used by LGBT activists who would host walks and vigils in silence with a required dress code: men in jackets and ties and women in dresses.”

                  “All their efforts came to fruition on June 28, 1970, the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall Riots. The march was 51 blocks long from west of Sixth Avenue at Waverly Place, in Greenwich Village, all the way to Sheep’s Meadow in Central Park, where activists held a “Gay-in.” Borrowing a technique that had been popularized by the Civil Rights Movement, the “Gay-in” was both a protest and a celebration. The front page of The New York Times ran with the headline, “Thousands of Homosexuals Hold A Protest Rally in Central Park.””

                  “Chicago actually took to the streets in 1970 the day before New York. The city marked the one-year anniversary of the Stonewall Riots with a week-long celebration that included a Gay Dance, workshops and speeches.”

                  The parade is the official signal that gays are protected. That’s its function.

                • shaman says:

                  The Loch Ness monster is fake, though. We all know that there were no planes on 9/11 – these were cruise missiles wrapped inside holograms and remote controlled by Larry Silverstein, who also personally planted Satam al-Suqami’s passport in the debris. Well, Nessie likewise is a cruise missile wrapped inside a hologram, and Silverstein, who is really Count Drakula, remotely controls her to this very day.

                • shaman says:

                  You may object, “That is not how Dracula should be spelled.” Wrong, Alf, totally wrong! Tex Arcane’s hybridization theory tells us that vampires are in fact Dragon-Murine-Pantomime-Plasticine hybrids, also genetically engineered by ET, and most importantly, Dragons are colloquially and unofficially called Drakons – Dracons would be a total misnomer.

                  So there.

                • alf says:

                  Koanic how does drakonviolence rank in your list? Pretty sure its below Godzillaviolence, but is it above or below ultraviolence?

                • shaman says:

                  I’d wager that it’s two levels above turboviolence, one level above megaviolence, and one level below hyperviolence.

                  The complete hierarchy, with its own Greek Alphabet and physiognomic references, has yet to be published. This gradation is one of those all-explanatory and unfalsifiable “abstract causations,” and Kookanic will only release the full list around 2020 – it is, undoubtedly, co-written with Qanon, and his schedule — like his sphincter — is packed as it is.

                • alf says:

                  Hyperviolence! How ultrahorrible!

                • Cuddlepie says:

                  This constant bullying of Kookanic is unfair and unjustified. Indeed, his brilliant usage of personas immediately brings to mind the Danish genius Kierkegaard, whom I feel Kookanic would feel vindicated in being compared to.

                  On deeper reflection, however, the similarity vanishes.

                  Kierkegaard used different personas to reveal one of the greatest trove of insights into the human condition in recorded history, whereas Kookanic’s herculean intellectual efforts ultimately appear to be the singular application of mental retardation on generic kookbait.

                  Perhaps that’s the koan.

                • Cuddlepie says:

                  What discussion of Kookanic would be complete without the inclusion of this hidden gem, this stunning piece of scholarship:


                  Do you dare step into Kookanic’s octagon? The veritable GOAT, hero of the intellectual strawweights, and the all time P4P king, – Kookanic.

                • Koanic says:

                  There are two pride parades in the Bible. Both terminated at a private residence with the demand to rape newly-arrived adult men. So far we’ve gone from jackets and ties to dildos and jock-straps.

                • anon says:

                  >Kookanic looks at gore porn every day

                  No one could ever have predicted it. /s

                • Kookanic is Sodomic says:


                  Due to your medical condition, you can’t gain muscle. This makes your hands looks very lanky, like you’re a cum-guzzling twink who periodically robs sperm banks. Indeed, one would assume that when you go the bathhouse, you take always the role of “bottom” (maybe, however, a “power bottom,” as befit your proclivities), rather than being the “top.”

                  If I understand correctly, your job is to bring the laxatives and the ipecac to the scat orgies, am I right? Certainly, they wouldn’t ask you to deliver the Truvada, since you already have super-HIV, which is sandwiched — if you pardon the pun — between mega-HIV and hyper-HIV.

                  Moreover, there are indications that you’re a spit-roast enthusiast, and at that, that you prefer Mandingos to “white boys,” because, so goes the conventional wisdom, they would stretch you out so wide that, not only have you become permanently incontinent (thus in need of diapers), but that additionally, your rosebud now protracts so far as to take the shape of a sock. A sock! You relish the glory of your magnificent hole, or “boipussy,” as you so often refer to it.

                  Alas, there are grounds to surmise that your ability to perform fellatio is greatly impaired, because — although your teeth have been broken by the aforementioned Mandingos, which under normal circumstances would count as a plus — your cephalic muscles are horribly infirm and wasting, for not indecipherable reasons.

                  In your videos, it sounds like your allergies were extreme indeed, rendering your lisping speech — a phenomenon that in itself is common enough among practitioners of your life-style (or rather, death-style) — so high-pitched as to sometimes only be audible to your Greyhound dog, with whom you are gay married, though it’s an open marriage.

                  If I may indulge in a bit of the good old Yid-bashing, I must remark that your voice is exceptionally nasal – or, more precisely, Ashkenasal. Indeed, you’ve ingested so much nigger semen than you can now fart immense, virtually endless amounts of pozzed gas – to the point that you may practically fumigate some Jews using that specific extermination method. It gives a whole new meaning to “gassing the kikes.”


                • shaman says:

                  Aesop said:

                  A fisherman was fishing in a river. He stretched out his nets and covered the river’s stream from one side to the other. He then tied a stone to a piece of rope and struck the water with it so that the fish would flee and fall unwittingly into the net. Someone who lived in that neighbourhood saw what the man was doing and began to complain, because by agitating the water in this way he deprived them of clear water to drink. The fisherman answered, ‘But if I do not disturb the river, I will have no choice but to die of hunger!’

                  The translator commented:

                  The story shows that the same is true in cities too: demagogues are most effective when they stir up sedition in their homelands.

                  Keep that in mind when reading Kookanic’s con-artistry and fedposts.

                • outline says:

                  Jim’s blog commenter’s merely VHIQ, unlike Koanic’s Krazy Kollective, who are transcendently UHIQ:


                  Meanwhile shaman the jew continues his unfounded and unacceptable campaign against our hero. Shame!

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  This is the song playing in my head whenever I read a koanic post:


                • shaman says:

                  When I read his posts, I hear the classic Kill Bill whistle:


                • alf says:

                  This is the one I hear –

                  I kid I kid

                • The Cominator says:


                  This is clearly Kookniac’s song.

              • shaman says:

                Fag-acceptance has been promulgated by Jewish entertainers relatively recently; its precepts were articulated by academics from the same background in mid 20th century. Recall that Obongo in 2008 was still against anal marriage. The interesting question is why the WASP elite allows it, to which the answer is twofold:

                1. Puritans seek to muddy the waters by camouflaging their war against male sexuality as “liberation.” Thus the ever rising AoC, the criminalization of hookers and sinister pixels, media manufactured hysteria about sexual abuse, and the perpetually growing prevalence of involuntary celibacy, all go hand-in-hand with pervert politics. “We are not against sex, we just want moment to moment enthusiastic consent between sober mentally fit adults.” Thus, people are now convinced that they’re living under sexual liberation — a veritable paradise! — when in reality you’ve never had less sexual liberty than in the current year (and anyone who tells you otherwise is a shill of the system). Neat trick; useless Trad-Cons have no idea what’s happening, which is precisely why they are useless Trad-Cons.

                2. Leftism usually devolves into self-hatred, thus WASPs embrace memes detrimental to themselves because they feel like they need to atone for their sins, and since society is now post-Christian (i.e., Progressive), they can only atone for their sins by doubling down on their clamoring for SJW causes, which SJW causes are determined by the aforementioned academics, and possibly by their glownigger collaborators. The Neo-Puritan leftist abhors his own and his fellows’ male sexuality because he considers it to be inherently evil and sinful, which is why he supports the criminalization of normal heterosexuality, and — at the same time — champions freedom for deviants to do as they please. It’s not dissimilar to having a cuck fetish: the leftist takes pleasure in knowing that his desires cannot be fulfilled, while those of strangers with whom he has nothing in common (e.g., gay scatlords) are always satisfied.

                Hopefully that explains to you why TPTB decided that you deserve to get #MeToo’d while the faggots shall rule over thee.

                • Simpler explanation: easier to rule over emasculated men.

                  “Herodotus recounted that, when the Persian king Cyrus the Great asked Croesus, a defeated king who was now his counsellor, what he should do in view of a revolt of the Lydians, Croesus advised him to punish the leader, “but let the Lydians be pardoned; and lay on them this command, that they may not revolt or be dangerous to you; then, I say, and forbid them to possess weapons of war, and command them to wear tunics under their cloaks and buskins on their feet, and to teach their sons lyre-playing and song and dance and huckstering. Then, O King, you will soon see them turned to women instead of men; and thus you need not fear lest they revolt.”


                • shaman says:

                  Simpler explanation: easier to rule over emasculated men.

                  Simpler, and false.

                  If the Brahmin triracial Anglo-Ashkenazi-Han leftist academic CIA-connected cognitive elite were masculine and fecund, whereas the vaisyas (white hoi polloi) and dalits and helots (niggers, spics, other riffraff) were effeminate, that explanation would hold up.

                  Since the Brahmins are soyboy bugmen cucks, and everyone else has higher testosterone and fertility, does not hold up.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Not real self-hate, though; performative self-hate. By their apparent acts of self-hate, they are actually outgrouping themselves and declaring superior holiness.

                  Whenever a proggy wails about the evils of white men, you can rest assured there’s an implied “except the ones like me”.

                • shaman says:

                  Leftists with IQ>130 and non-hypersensitive amygdalae obviously perform self-hatred without internalizing one bit; hence the disproportionate tendency of famous leftists to get accused of grabbing snatches and suchlike. They are high-functioning and cynical enough to either succeed in double-think, or just put up a convincing mask in public while freely behaving like real jerks behind closed doors. People who make a show of excessive piety often have skeletons (or whole graveyards) in their closets.

                  However, the run-of-the-mill leftists has probably internalized and emotionally processed at least some of the brainwashing, which is evidenced by both their frequent mental breakdowns and their catastrophic masculinity crisis. These people are legitimately disturbed, they are full of temperamental negativity whose eruptions they inflict both on others and on themselves. They are cat ladies in male form. Effete leftists who go on Tumble and “check their own privilege” exhibit what can only be described as auto-phobia. It doesn’t get their dicks wet, and POCs hate them anyway. A miserable bunch.

                • Ron says:

                  Some thoughts Regarding point #2. I think they seek to find new sins to punish themselves for because they wish to demonstrate obedience to the group narrative.

                  Self sufficient, more independent minded people are concerned primarily with efficiency of the group. Bc concerned w group efficiency, always have emotional imperative to verify group efficiency, which practically means group of primary concern must necessarily be small enough so that verification is practical. Think wolf pack as opposed to herd.

                  Less self sufficient, more dependent individuals will have a greater focus on having resources provided by the herd. As such, the mentality is more geared towards receiving a portion of resources provided by group efforts, rather than on creating said resources. Such an individuals’ primary means of acquiring sufficient or greater resources depends on her ability to manipulate the system by which resources are divided out.

                  A classic example would be the survivor episode where shortly after the women screwed over the men in some agreement, they found themselves cold wet and miserable bc standard female incompetence. At which point the women batted their eyes and found a third rate beta male faggot to feel sorry for them and give them access to the group fire.

                  Why did the beta male faggot screw over his friends, his alpha, etc, so he could give these treacherous women access to the group fire? The women at that point were misersble enough that the alpha could have easily negotiated a fantastic deal with them that would have benefited the group of men. His actions effectively killed that option. What is more he shattered group cohesion, the men would never be able to trust each other again. In the post interview the alpha looked like he got hit with a sledgehammer.

                  Because beta male faggots dont give a rats ass about the condition of the greater group anywhere past the groups ability to provide him with resources. In this case, women who would theoretically find him useful enough as an ally against the other males to provide him with sex.

                  This is why the cucks are trying to find new ways to punish themselves. It isnt bc of group loyalty, that would be the guy who quietly does his actual job and protests when the group demands insane loyalty tests. It is instead to demonstrate group loyalty, what everyone here recognizes as “virtue signaling”. And the virtue signaling gets worse the more individuals in a group are dependent on the group as a whole.

                  The trick is to structure society such that the upper class find themselves in the upper class by virtue of not needing anyone else.

                  Which of course means “finding God”. What we have now is an environment where humanity is testing all the various models of what God is. He must be large enough to humble, and small enough to trust. Immediate enough that you can literally talk with Him about every detail of your life, and large enough that your interests and desires are nullified in regard to His will.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Neat trick; useless Trad-Cons have no idea what’s happening, which is precisely why they are useless Trad-Cons.”

                  Beta trad-cons are indeed a problem because they tend to enthusiastically cooperate with anti-sex feminist in everything they want and of course the anti-sex feminist will never cooperate with them in restoring marriage 1.0 (which most of them can’t imagine anyway because its crimethink).

                  If we don’t get marriage 1.0 back (and honestly I don’t think we’ll see it in our lifetime even if Trump wins) then as an alternative I want the 1970s back (the era of the dominance of the so called sex-positive feminism) before all this worrying about sexual harassment and consent when the country was (at the time) shocked and somewhat perplexed that Roman Polanski was in any legal trouble for assfucking a somewhat reluctant 13 year old girl in his bathtub (and she never thought it was that big a deal either).

                • shaman says:

                  Yep, if male-female relations were still like Sweden, Netherlands, or even America in the 1970s, we would probably not have resorted to weaponizing our autism against Big Sister.

                • shaman says:

                  honestly I don’t think we’ll see it in our lifetime even if Trump wins

                  >born too late to enjoy pussy paradise 1.0
                  >born too early to enjoy pussy paradise 2.0
                  >born just in time to spend ages 13-43 as incel

                  They eliminated our cummies, and therefore it must transpire that we will eliminate their worldview.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The girl in question (Samantha Geimer) is actually a rarely based and honest woman… normally modern women lie constantly especially about this kind of shit.

                  She said she didn’t exactly consent and was reluctant but at the same time she didn’t really resist and she never thought it was a big deal (she thought the hysteria surrounding the “rape” was a big deal) and she never wanted to press charges, that #Metoo is bullshit and sex crimes are mostly hysteria.

                • shaman says:


                  Today, for much less than the Polanski affair — e.g., for possessing “CP” (sinister pixels) of a 15-year-old hormonal nymphomaniac showing off her assets — men, including men who are teenagers themselves, get imprisoned for years, get anally raped by feral coon gangsters in the prison showers, and are vocally denounced by everyone as “pedophiles.” This is what white knight victimology does to society.

                  Recently in Britain, a man was sent to 12 years in jail for having removed his condom during sex with an escort, “despite her objections.”

                  Heck, you can be 15, have a girlfriend aged 16, possess her sinister pixels, and have the pigs hunt you down for “child abuse images” of a woman older than you.

                  The thing about victimology is that it really is harmful for women, too.

                  While I’m not particularly concerned with the plight of women, since men have infinitely more troubles and infinitely graver troubles, the fact of the matter is that from kindergarten all the way to college, females are constantly told that they are victims, and that men are victimizers – this endless brainwashing, coming from the television, the radio, the computer, the cellphone, the newspapers, the parents, the teachers, the classmates, the entertainment industry, and basically from all directions all the time, has convinced countless women to become self-victimizing misandrists with no nary a bit of self-reflection (solipsism and gynocentrism intensify), always on the lookout for evil male predators.

                  Small wonder that they’re all addicted to anti-anxiety and anti-depression medication, which has basically collapsed their sex drives. Then there’s the LGBT coalition of the degenerates and the misfits who have created a needless hysteria among non-deviants regarding “muh AIDS.” Male sexuality has been pathologized and psychiatrized, while perversity is celebrated.

                  And these things are inextricable: AoC legislation, anti-prostitution legislation, sinister pixels legislation, anti-sexual-assault legislation, anti-sexual-harassment legislation, ever expanding definitions of “rape,” ever expanding definitions of sexual impropriety, and the constant shilling for these things in Big Sister’s Mockingbird Media, go hand-in-hand with celebration of sodomy, transsexuality, and cuckoldry. That Trad-Con retards only see the latter set of phenomena, while completely disregarding (or even supporting!) the former set of phenomena, speaks to the abysmal level of their grip on reality.

                  Under these conditions of rampant misandro-victimology, with the status of men being so much lower than that of women, it is no surprise whatsoever that sexuality is rapidly vanishing from the scene, just as the Puritan-Feminists intend. Involuntary celibacy is on the rise, and even those who do have wives or girlfriends or friends-with-benefits or one-night-stands, often go sexless, often fail to reproduce, and often end up frivorce-raped. To deny that the WQ is the most urgent question is utterly insane, and the people denying it are either the Cathedral’s willful shills, or its unwitting useful idiots.

                  None of what I just wrote is particularly new, yet it’s always surprising (or upsetting) to witness how many people on the dissident right still have not come to terms with what we’re dealing with here. I am sickened by the uselessness of Trad-Cons. My position is always, “If you have nothing to contribute – shut up.” Well, these people have absolutely nothing to contribute to a keener understanding of the WQ, yet they insist on talking about it, filling the minds of their readers with blue-pill after blue-pill. The Cathedral couldn’t be happier about this state of affairs.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think its fair to say Cathedral system uses naked force and coercion more on men (we’re less programmable in our inner minds but we respond in a more predictable way to direct deterrence) and psychological warfare more on women (who are far more programmable in their inner mind but respond far less predictably to direct deterrence,,, also women are powerfully driven to conform with their peers more so then men… so the programming only has to succeed with some of them).

                  The Cathedral aims to make women both selfish cunt princesses with delusions of grandeur and paranoid misandrist “victims” of male oppression in their own mind.

                • shaman says:

                  Generally that’s true, particularly vis-a-vis the public at large.

                  However, within the Brahmin class, I’d say that men are just as vulnerable to psyops as women, if not much more so. You see, women from all walks of life regularly think and spout all kinds of nonsense, but their behavior itself is mostly on autopilot — “it just happened” — and indeed not very malleable in response to such non-informational, rationalistic stimuli as financial penalties. That’s why Jim calls them feral, and asserts that their nature has not undergone any significant evolutionary differentiation from the nature of apes in the jungle.

                  Whereas, men belonging to the warrior class respond to concrete incentives, and men belonging to the priestly class respond to ethereal expectations. Thus, people like Scott Alexander are not afraid of the policeman outside – they are afraid of the policeman inside. They suffer from crimestop. Men of the Brahmin class (at least those who are true believers) think and act in accordance with Cathedral ideology, and they go overboard while at it – they are not physically compelled to poz themselves to death, yet evidently they do so.

                  You see, this is why CR is a faggot who deserves to be locked inside his locker until he soils himself: CR tells us that proletarians respond to evil mind control rays, when it is exactly his class — academic leftists — and not the proles, who respond to evil mind control rays. Scott Alexander’s soul has been raped by demons, and the demons who raped his soul can only be “real in his mind” – if he wanted to, he could go kilometers to the right, and he should go kilometers to the right, but crimestop arrests such movements. The policeman inside has spoken!

                  So, my point is, priestly men do very much respond to psyops, and indeed, are even more behaviorally responsive to psyops than women, who — while clearly degraded nowadays, having been successfully cognitively disturbed — are still the feral non-introspective entities that they’ve always been. Scott Aaronson is a sexless cuck who respects women, and he is a sexless cuck who respects women primarily due to Puritan mind control rays and not because of the Puritan concrete incentive structure.

                  Cathedral priests are much more influenced by metaphorical estrogen in the metaphorical water supply, than by literal estrogen (though no doubt physical endocrinal feminization has taken it toll – just look at the neotenous facial features and mannerisms of soy-addled shitlib NPC bugmen: they are essentially grown babies!). Memes determine their thoughts and deeds, which is why Jim has summoned the meme warriors. Scott Alexander’s and Scott Aaronson’s inability to get rid of the policeman inside is why they will die childless.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Ultimately male priests are bad people… They are afraid ultimately that not fearing the thought police inside will lead to the police outside coming to get them.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Whereas, men belonging to the warrior class respond to concrete incentives, and men belonging to the priestly class respond to ethereal expectations.

                  Rings generally true to me, but the one outlier that has me perplexed is the disproportionate number of both engineers and military officers inclined toward trannyism. Successful ones, not pretenders.

                  Maybe it’s just the intense amount of thought-policing and feminization pressure that these professions are under, but that seems like too convenient an explanation.

                • shaman says:

                  the disproportionate number of both engineers and military officers inclined toward trannyism.

                  I’d say that engineers often tend to be on the autistic spectrum, if only slightly so, and autism is very strongly correlated with trannyism. At some point something in their brains clicks the wrong way, and they decide to “follow their feminine side” all the way to castration.

                  As for military officers, I think the issue is similar to that of professional sportsmen: as they hit their 40s and 50s, their T levels sharply decline, and they are so unaccustomed and unprepared to that strange feeling, that they get the impression that they must have been “women trapped in male bodies” all along, and go tranny.

                  That’s my hunch.

                • shaman says:

                  An odd horseshoe theory:

                  Extreme nerds and extreme jocks both tend to suffer masculinity crises, which makes them go upside down and inside out.

                • jim says:

                  It is not a horseshoe. Extreme jocks when their testosterone drops to normal levels are apt to become autogynophilic, sexually attracted to the idea of themselves as women. Effeminates are apt to be sexually attracted to manly men.

                • Not Tom says:

                  That’s a good point from Jim – technically, “tranny” is one of those anti-concepts that shouldn’t exist, as it fails to differentiate between autogynephilia, gender dysphoria (which may or may not be the same thing as AG, research is heavily suppressed), and a subcategory of homosexuality.

                  The highly-visible M2Fs in the tech sector tend to live extremely degenerate lifestyles, promote the sexualization of young boys, are constantly frustrated and angry at the lack of sexual interest from straight men, and usually hook up with other M2F trannies with similar issues. Textbook closeted/confused homo, with the normalization of trannyism giving them a third option. Fake trannies AKA transvestites also appear often, and that’s also generally been considered a homo thing.

                  Whereas the defining factor with the Bruce Jenner types of trannies, now that you mention it, is generally age. I’m not sure if I’ve ever seen high-T men decide to play at being women while they still have SMV.

                  Connecting it back to the original point, I guess the takeaway is that no incentives, whether concrete or ethereal, can reliably overcome biological reality.

              • The Cominator says:

                The sudden acceptance of gays was the most NPC thing I remember in my life.

                They went from widely look down upon to a sacred protected class I think sometime in either 2009 or 2010… all I remember about it was that it happened almost overnight like someone flipped a switch on the NPCs. I don’t remember any outright violence (I was in Massachussetts but the gay marriage ruling even there was not immediately accepted by the populace) but suddenly being against gays became like parading around with a swastika yelling that Hitler did nothing wrong.

                • Calov says:

                  I still think a majority or a large minority of the population is opposed to publicly sanctioned faggery, but are afraid of the consequences of saying so in public. Whether this will be true when the boomers and older die off and the new generations take over I don’t know. It still is remarkable how completely and utterly the so-called conservatives abandoned the field here. They still fight about abortion, but not even one election cycle went by and the GOP candidates for president were essentially saying, “We’ve moved on.”

                • shaman says:

                  The rapidity with which faggotry and trannyism were inflicted on the public in large part explains the emergence of the alt-right counter-culture. If the Cathedral were rational, it would boil the frog much slower. Going from “We should tolerate deviants, but they are icky, and should keep it to themselves” in 2008 to “Check your cis-het privilege, bigot” in 2014 was just too much.

                  Only a soulless NPC would show no signs of cognitive dissonance when switching overnight from “don’t ask, don’t tell” to waving the Fag-Flag shamelessly. The Cathedral is not behaving rationally, yet its herd-like minions have been so radically over-socialized as to seamlessly adapt to every new installment of the Official Party Line. Fortunately, they’re in the minority. Social well-adjustment may be negatively correlated with the inclination to transgress against religious and moral taboos imposed from on high, but even milquetoast normies can’t help but notice the glaring hand of the Cathedral when that hand is moving so damn fast.

                  That said, a creeping suspicion is that the most bizarre manifestations of Clown World are indeed an inner-circus distraction intended to keep the audience in a state of befuddlement, even as the true agenda of the Cathedral — democracy, egalitarianism, and Feminism — goes unchallenged. When normies discuss “incestuous necrophilia: yay or nay?” they don’t bother to critique the deeper scourge which is the systematic destruction of the family beginning in the 19th century. So, I guess turning the Overton Window into an Asylum Window provides a certain strategic benefit to the Cathedral, albeit not a reliable one.

                  The relevant question is whether or not the backlash against the latest excesses of Clown World will be intense enough to eventually avalanche into a comprehensive ideological insurrection against everything the Cathedral believes in. Red pilling normal people about issue A often leads to them getting red pilled of their own volition about issues B and C, but we want them to be red pilled all the way down to issue Z, which is why trannysim and cuckoldry should not be contrasted with an idealized version of 1950, but should be categorized as the latest items in a noxious chain going all the way back to 1820.

                  To grasp that is to grasp the Dark Enlightenment.

                • Alrenous says:

                  The Cathedral is most certainly behaving rationally. However, a rift has grown between what secures power internally and what secures power externally.
                  The fact such a rift reliably appears is exactly why you shouldn’t build a Cathedral-like structure, but you may note that the people who did so died about ten generations ago, so their incentives to avoid it were a little weak.

                • ten says:

                  It is interesting to hear of faggotry flip switching in america as late as 2010. I remember in childhood and adolescence how america was considered extremely homophobic, full of fossilized christianity of the sort that seemed to have little to no resemblance to our christianity, traditional, modern or evangelical.

                  We, however, had fully embraced faggotry for the longest time, it wasn’t even on the map to “be against it”.

                  The most enthusiastic stalinists and maoists were found the farthest from moscow and beijing. And experimental policy is best run in testbeds far from imperial HQ.

                  After testing out, easy to implement in a flip switching manner.

                  Tranny shit and more generally SJW definitively is a US first phenomenon, looks like an actual imperial runaway awokening, not implemented policy

          • 2019 is boring says:

            Your comment here, in addition to your incessant Jew-baiting about Moldbug, suggests that you are deliberately obscuring the plain meaning of your actual argument in an attempt to maintain plausible deniability, as you have admitted to doing right over here. It’s not that hard to read between the lines, though. Hiding behind sarcasm while all your first comments were Judeo-centric, all your recent comments are Judeo-centric, and your handle too is Judeo-centric, is just too “on the nose,” if you pardon the anti-Semitic pun.

          • pdimov says:

            >I blamed the entity which I elected to call “the American IC”, a deliberate double meaning incl. {Intelligence Community, International Community}.

            My, how clever. We’re truly not worthy.

            • Iudicalicker says:

              I wouldn’t have thought it needing explanation, but I’m capable of emulating rigid literalism if absolutely necessary.

  23. vxxc says:

    I think Trump still wants Tariffs.

    I think he knows Mexico will try and fuck us.
    So he’s signaling same.
    This is like what Trump does in business:
    He doesn’t lose. If he doesn’t win creditors or say Atlantic City loses.

    “Trump raises specter of imposing ‘very profitable’ new tariffs on Mexico despite deal breakthrough..” – FOX

    He wants normal trade relations = Tariffs.
    Across the board.
    He wants normal borders= actually stop people.

    It’s good bizness when you know the other party is congenitally dishonest and you hold the cards.

    What our trade and immigration policies have been is like paying welfare losers to come rob your casino and hotel.
    Suddenly that’s over.

    And they got nothing.

  24. Paavo says:

    Jim, is there a way for readers to access this blog if it is shut down on WordPress?

    I ask because there have been instances (roughly one of every 10 attempts) where I have been able to access other WordPress blogs but not yours.

    This started in late 2017, and has become markedly worse the past eight months (roughly one of every 6 attempts). To be clear, other websites reload without issue when this occurs.

    I believe this is the result of a rogue employee batch targeting content to make its consumption slower and more prone to bugs. I believe this because the kind of error I am experiencing is designed to cause an issue, but not an issue that is severe enough that it would lead to complaints.

    It may not even be a rogue employee. It may be a corporate decision to decrease readership of content viewed as less desirable. But the error is there. And it increased in frequency by a set amount at a set date.

    • jim says:

      WordPress cannot shut down this blog. It runs on my server at my domain name, and does not use any wordpress services. It uses wordpress software, but the wordpress software is physically running on my computer, so wordpress cannot take it back.

      If it is failing sporadically, this means that my hosting service sucks. I will attempt to evaluate the performance of the hosting service and if it is failing, move to somewhere else.

      The US government could shut down this blog, since it owns the .com top level domain names. I plan to move to in due course. The .la domain name is owned by Laos, which is in the Chinese hegemony. But at the moment, the domain name points nowhere.

      • Alrenous says:

        In general if you want to stably talk Chinese politics you need a .com domain and if you want to talk American politics you need .la &c. This is as it should be.

  25. Friendly Fred says:

    If Trump is like Augustus, and the West (including most of the EU countries) is like the Hellenistic/Roman realm, then shouldn’t Trump-supporters hope that in the long run a rectified (non-Progressive, non-Feminist) EU prevails over anti-EU nationalist movements such as those led by Tommy Robinson, Marine Le Pen and Matteo Salvini?

    (Hoping NOT that the current Progressive/Feminist EU prevails over these nationalist movements, which for the time being are a very good thing, but hoping rather that a rectified EU ultimately prevails over them?)

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      No. Europe as a strong competitor is bad for the United States. If the US reforges an empire, better the vassals be divided.

    • jim says:

      Whites are wolf to whites. American rule of white people everywhere, universal empire, is bad for white people. It is our nature to be many peoples, and to fight from time to time.

      Universal empire works for East Asians, not so much for whites.

      • Anonymous says:

        >Universal empire works for East Asians, not so much for whites.

        That sounds like pretty good news for them and pretty bad news for us.

        • No. All that competition and war between white nations led to a fast progress of technology and military skill. While Zheng He had larger and better ships than Columbus, by the 19th century Western warships could shoot anything to pieces China had and force humiliating treaties on her. All this because Chinese elites were overly complacent, due to lack of external threats.

          This is a funny thing. Lack of cooperation and lack of competition are both deadly. While Niezsche was maybe not entirely right saying what does not kill you makes you stronger, because what does not kill you can still leave you crippled, poor as fuck, or in worse state in general, there seems to be an optimal balance between too little competition and too much competition that indeed makes you stronger.

          Having said that, white people have multiple subgroups and what Jim is saying I think is only true for Nordics, while universal empire working better for “Meds” and Slavs.

          • jim says:

            Actually it is not true that Zheng He had better ships. If you look at the course he took, he hugged the coast and island hopped between islands that were in sight of each other, taking a very indirect route, indicating his ships lacked open ocean capability, while Europeans have had open ocean capability for a very long time.

            His big ships failed to do anything that could not have been done in a kayak.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        I really like the Roman Empire, though. They had Cicero, Virgil, Ovid, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Plotinus … how come we can’t be like that?

        • Anonymous Fake says:

          You don’t really like Rome, just a dozen or so great writers it produced over centuries. African tribes enjoyed a better quality of life than ancient slave societies. Life fit for civilized humans didn’t emerge until the 12th century.

          • Friendly Fred says:

            My impression is that what distinguished the slaves of the Empire from the great majority of ordinary people today is that those slaves (1) couldn’t quit their jobs and (2) had job-security.

            I redd a historical novel by Robert Harris called IMPERIUM, in which Cicero’s slave-secretary tells the story of Cicero’s political ascent. If Harris is transmitting a fairly accurate picture, then almost all of today’s office/administrative job-functions would have been performed then by slaves.

          • African tribes had central heating, 3-story apartment houses, aqueducts and roads used for ~ 1500 years, a messenger systems whose speed Europeans could only beat around 1800, a daily “newspaper” ( Acta Diurna) etc..?

            • Friendly Fred says:

              Supposedly hunter/gatherers have a lot of free time — but I wonder whether that was true of the woolly mammoth hunters or just true of those in hot places. And I guess even the men of the African gardening societies had a lot of free time, and come to think of it Africans generally seem to have a lot of free time. Then again I believe that the Roman plebs also had a lot of free time, which was a problem. And I have a lot of free time too, because I don’t “teach” again until the Fall, unfortunately. Just filled out a Trader Joe’s online application.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                In anthropology, the term is “affluence,” which has been much maligned by Social Scienceists. Free time is abundant when all of your potential work is completely contingent upon optimum climate, natural seasonal growth and migration, and sunlight.

  26. Frederick Algernon says:

    The thread on female behavior was very long so I am breaking out the discussion here.

    Many good points have been made about just how hard it is to incentivize women. Money is a bad idea. Privileges are a bad idea. Naked aggression is a bad idea. The badness I speak of might be better stated as “suboptimal” and/or “inefficient.”

    IMO the best way to incentivize women is via women. Top down strategies work with men because of a genetic predisposition to explicit hierarchy. Top down has a harder time with women because of a genetic predisposition to communal methodology.

    To get women to collectively behave better, women have to be informed as to what behavior is good. They will take care of the rest. This means that good wives must be developed by good fathers, protected by good husbands, and buttressed by good sons.

    The Bible verses Jim quoted ITT demonstrate the fundamental principle of marriage: a woman must do her absolute best to submit to her husband; a man must be the absolute best man in his wife’s total reality. The woman is likened to the church; a crowd of believers of varying levels of capability and strengths. The man is compared to the son of god.

    • jim says:

      > To get women to collectively behave better, women have to be informed as to what behavior is good.

      Depict wives and children interacting with husbands and fathers the way they were depicted on television and movies after 1933 and before 1963. That will inform them.

      Also, need to restore the marriage ceremony to what it was before 1928: Wife promises to honor and obey, husband promises to love and cherish.

      And let us go back a bit further, nine hundred years further. Husband administers the sacrament of marriage. Technically he still does: Takes wife hand. “With this ring I thee wed.” Places ring on finger. But that has been heavily played down for many centuries. It was a big power struggle in the Church of England after Henry the Eighth. They keep trying to make the marriage contractual (“I do”), when it should be sacramental (“with this ring I thee wed”). Women really hate contractual marriage. Contractual marriage is failing a shit test right at the starter’s gun.

      We also need to restore the tradition that is implied in the story of the wise and foolish virgins, where the husband mock abducts the wife to a big party which he emcees, and everyone at the party treats him as top alpha male. Abduction, or else someone with family authority over the bride gives this woman to this man, leading her to the man. “Who giveth this woman to this man?”

    • The Cominator says:

      Yes the media has generally been pushing the meme women good men bad. Also men evil or buffoons and that women need to be selfish cunts to get what they want, also muh strong women and action girls because women good.

      Now there are a very few exceptions… Game of Thrones had up until its last two episodes the most popular muh strong wahmin character ever in Daenerys Targaryen but it was one who while certainly flawed and mary sueish in some aspects also was selfless never really wanted power and who desperately (especially if you cross reference the books) dreamed of being a 50s style model tradwife with lots of children and had no real desire for power of any kind She absolutely obeyed her guardian brother (despite being badly mistreated) and then her husband and never tried to be powerful (except to a limited extent her husband encouraged) until she had no choice… she was the one strong wahmin character I actually have ever really liked.

      Her abolitionist crusade could be interpreted as leftism but it was prompted in a snap epipany when she saw a child mutilation and torture city (I say she did nothing wrong in sacking Astapor) far worse then 99% of historical slavery (the Barbary states were almost as bad) up close. She was merciful to the sex slavers of Yunkai considering it not nearly as bad (though this turned out to be a mistake) and this was after starting out as a glorified barbarian sex slave herself. And no she did not implement a welfare state or command economy and compromised on the slavery abolition by introducing enforcable indenture contracts.

      So I think her being ruined in a way that outraged the shows fans while the useless selfish lying backstabbing cunt Sansa got a happy ending as a monarch was a social engineering decision (the chans generally feel the same way if you check /tv which ideologically aligns with /pol and they are normally with us on the woman question).

      A reactionary show ending of game of Thrones would have ended with her happily married to a living and not ruined Stannis (after they destroyed Hillary Clinton Lannister the bad lords and the undead bugmen) and ending the series happily being the model tradwife she always dreamed of being telling her inner circle that she hopes to never deal directly with the soul crushing evil business of politics again and that it was a job for men that she never wanted but was forced to take up 1st for self preservation and then out of a sense of duty.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        Since you’re thinking about Game of Thrones, Cominator —

        My brother tells me about the Warhammer 30,000 world in which 10 ft tall Primarchs who are in some way genetically derived from The Emperor (12 ft tall?) lead 8 ft tall mech-suited Space-Marines in an endless war to reestablish universal empire, mainly fighting the Demons of the Warp (which is the “hyperspace” you have to send your ships through in order to get places) who subvert planets by inducing planet-wide sexual frenzies. Meanwhile there’s a normal imperial military with normal-sized soldiers; the Space-Marines are the elite. “Remembrancers” accompany the Space-Marines — these are poets/artists who celebrate their deeds. (I’ve only read the first book in the series.)

        This sounds like a possible founding mythology for a future regime — only, women seem conspicuously absent from the picture. How would you be inclined to situate them? An idea I had is that the Space-Marines would be monogamous, with genetically-perfected ’50s-type wives who’d accompany them everywhere (helping them suit up and so forth) — but of course not going into battle with them; they’d stay on the ship — while the normal imperial soldiers would be promiscuous, with lots of concubines and whores milling about their quarters, and the Space-Marines would regard the behavior of the normal soldiers with benign contempt.

        Wait — what about the children? Maybe the Space-Marine ships are like kibbutzes, with children’s quarters that the parents regularly visit? But I think that the kibbutz kids would only start living in the kid-areas after reaching a certain age, so there would be babies in the Space-Marine suites. Maybe the wives carry their babies in back-pouches while helping their husbands don mech-suits?

        • The Cominator says:

          Warhammer 40k (not 30) is where the God-Emperor Trump memes came from…

          Although its best not to think about it too much as the God-Emperor of Mankind ended up as a sort of psionic vegetable in a life support device called the “Golden Throne”… his mind in his vegetable state still sustains the “Astronomicon” and does a few other things but even being kept alive requires the sacrifice of 1000 psykers a day.

          The space marines are subject to a biological transformation that leaves them as a kind of giant supermen but the transformation also renders them asexual (space marines are like .0001% of the armed forces of the Imperium though). So space marines do not have children because they cannot.

          Warhammer 40k provided some good memes but too obscure and too dark (even in clown world) for serious comparisons.

          Game of Thrones on the other hand was hugely popular with normies, so when it was ruined horribly you have to suspect as with Stars Wars being ruined that it was done for social engineering reasons because there weren’t any good capitalist reasons and even if the writers were checked out and lazy any random fanfiction writer could have done better.

          My long post is an explanation of why they might ruin the most popular strong wahmin character ever given that the Cathedral is normally all for strong wahmin characters…

          • John Sullivan says:

            Harry Potter is a great wizard, he held off the noseless faggot Lord Voldemort and has great disdain for a (((journalist))) who literally transforms into a huge-nosed bug. In HP world magic is held in the Aryan bloodline and the primary conflict is about racemixing which is destroying magic. Harry Potter’s best friend, Ron, is from a trad family with lots of red haired kids, Hermione is smart and capable and becomes Ron’s tradwife.

            • The Cominator says:

              JK Rowling while a genuinely talented writer (writing is one of the few things women can be genuinely talented in) is a mega shitlib and book authors have way more freedom then mass media productions so even to the extent those things were true she didn’t intend it.

              Its the villains in Harry Potter are also mainly motivated to keep the wizard bloodlines free of contamination so they are supposed to be basically magic nazis… the good guys are those who want to give women the freedom to adulterate and destroy the magical bloodlines.

              Game of Thrones and Star Wars because they were so popular got singled out for especially bad Cathedral treatment.

              The most reactionary thing I’ve seen in pop culture (I don’t know how it got through) in the past 10 years was Thor Ragnorok I don’t watch much “capeshit” but a friend dragged me to that one.

              1. “Asgard isn’t a place its a people” rejecting magic dirt and embracing the idea that the people’s genetics and culture is more important.

              2. A woman destroying their civilization because it had become soft and failed the shit test. In the glory days of the civilization she was locked away so she couldn’t cause trouble.

              3. The liberalism and peaceful formation of Asgard revealed to be a lie… it was built with fire blood and war. Odin is revealed to have white male conquerors guilt about building it “Odin proud to have it, ashamed of how he got it”.

              • Neurotoxin says:

                JK Rowling while a genuinely talented writer


                • The Cominator says:

                  I didn’t say great shes certainly no Tolkien but talented yes.

                • alf says:

                  I could never get through Tolkien. Too many ‘beautiful longwinded rivers curling around olden oak trees and oh look at this blade of grass isn’t it a nice blade of grass there sure were many beautiful blade of grass.’

                  I did get through Rowling, although I sort of lost interest by book 5.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I think the issue is that you think she is genuinely talented when she clearly is not. Read Aidan’s piece for details. Look at Magical Beasts and How to Fellate Them. Her writing style is a dumpster fire. She tapped into the millenial “I was intended for so much more wah” ennui, so if she has a skill it is luck. This is not coming from a position of ignorance; ive read all of her work meticulously.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  @Alf Check out The Silmarillion. Very different from both the Hobbit and the War of the Ring.

                • @alf

                  Tolkien’s longwinded scene-setting is a classic sticking point for most readers. I think whether it does anything for you or not depends on how much time you spend in nature yourself.

              • Neurotoxin says:

                “Definitive Harry Potter assessment”

                That Maclear link has a good take on Harry basically being female in his sexual psychology. Rowling can’t get around her own female perspective on that topic and projects it onto men.

                Ayn Rand did something similar in Atlas Shrugged, when she hilariously had a male character (Francisco D’Anconia) say that only men with low self-esteem have sex with lots of chicks. Fucking LOL. Pure female projection. Even as a teenager, when I read that I was like, “Whoa, she went off the rails there.”
                – – – – – – – –

                writing is one of the few things women can be genuinely talented in

                There are women among the very best writers, absolutely.

        • The Cominator says:

          Does not need Stannis to be defeated before Dany invades a marriage alliance between Stannis and Dany to unite Targ and Baratheon loyalist against both the Lannisters and the undead bugmen is the most logical thing in the world and would be suggested enthusiastically by the priests of Rh’llor who they are both on good terms with. Melisandre would just tell Stannis’ fanatical queen to kill herself if they couldn’t find a way to annul their marriage and she would do it.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Great link Frederick – I’ve been devouring the back catalog – all high quality stuff.

          • The Cominator says:

            There are numerous errors in this assessment, its mostly bunk. Yes GRRM is naturally an omega male but no not all his characters are that at all. Robert certainly was alpha as fuck.

            Defect-defect equilibrium is perfectly what you would expect. The legitimate dynasty ended with Robert’s rebellion and as Robert says honor is not a factor keeping anything in line anymore… that died with the mad king.

            Westeros is not really one natural country its more like an empire (its the size of South America) with different countries whos leader were united under the central government out of fear of dragons and it has de-facto but no de-jure come apart into warring states in the absence of both the dragons and the legitimate dynasty.

            The various lords soldiers aren’t murdering raping and killing their own tax base they are killing other people’s tax base the way the English did in France during the hundred years war.

            For instance Gregor Clegane isn’t torturing and killing Westerlands peasants en masse hes doing it to Riverlands peasants if he did it to a noticeable way to Tywin Lannister’s own peasants he would be executed. The only example I know of in the books of people devastating their own land were the Mereen slavers who went scorched earth against Dany.

            I’ve already said my peace about the errors it makes in saying Stannis needs to be defeated before Dany invades.

            • All of Martin’s -perspective- characters are low-status males except for Ned Stark in Book 1, and his high status male characters tend to be caricatures based on his awe and resentment of high status men.

              Yes, Westeros is an empire composed of seven kingdoms… but the various factions warring after Robert’s death aren’t looking to go back to seven kingdoms, they’re seeking to command the whole Empire, in which context liquidating Riverlands peasants as a Westerman doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. If you’re waging a punitive war, sure, but if your aim is to control the Riverlands, you’re destroying your own future tax base without any military gain.

              I was a bit unclear in the article on what is done out of narrative necessity versus political necessity. Getting the claimants out of the way before Dany invades is a plot necessity of resolving character arcs and storylines. Obviously, the ideal time for Dany to invade in a military sense would be right in the middle of the civil war.

              • The Cominator says:

                The North is legitimately looking to seperate outright but nobody else is, the point is without the dragons or legitimate dynasty even if they all want to keep it together its not going to happen because it cannot be held without them, Robert was better at keeping it together for a while but basically admitted that even he couldn’t do it forever “our purpose died with the mad king”. The only way the civil war is ever going to stop is true balkanization or Dany coming in (and Dany though flawed is a pretty selfless character so she wouldn’t invade a peaceful happy realm anyway).

                You don’t need Stannis defeated for her to come in in any sense, Dany and Stannis are the most natural allies in the whole series.

  27. vxxc says:

    Learn from history: some American Federations succeed.
    Others such as The Confederacy below, or the Iroquois Confederacy fail.
    We should learn our history – not attempt a do-over of England’s.

    FYI: any Empire is of course a Federation.

    • The Cominator says:

      Our history is as a Republic but we cannot continue as a Republic its time has passed, so we have to look elsewhere.

      • jim says:

        The best solution would be an empire that cut its provinces a lot of slack, as the East India Company did at first, and the Roman Empire did at first.

        The Indian Mutiny was a result of Britain instituting land reform and rolling back the Indian equivalent of serfdom – do gooder white man’s burden stuff.

        Funny how the the subjects of empire reluctantly put up with the East India Company piratically squeezing them, but revolted when strangers from far away started doing good to them at gunpoint.

        If you provide order and good government, people will put up with quite a lot of unjust taxation, but when you start doing good to them, it causes a lot more pain.

        • The Cominator says:

          There were multiple Indian wars and I get what you are saying about do gooder stuff but wasn’t the Sepoy Mutiny about how all the religions of India found pork to be unclean and a rumor of pigfat in the bullets (I’m not sure whether it was true) got the Hindu Sepoys, Muslim Sepoys and even the normally ultra fanatically loyal Sikh Sepoys to revolt all at once.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            The genesis is unclear. Riots over cartridges being dowsed in pig fat/beef fat did occur, but they were small scale and there are conflicting narratives about where the info originated and how it was spread. The wide scale violence was a product of endemic sectarian strife that was deliberately played up by rajs who were fed up with reform decrees. Consider how long the sepoys had been a fundamental piece of the colonial power structure. The lard used for waterproofing the cartridges had been segregated by unit for a long time. Some underling could have fucked up a delivery. Some agitator could have deliberately misalocated the supplies. Some ne’er-do-well could have spread lies. It is largely irrelevant; it was an angry populace + scheming rajs that blew localised violence into a massive conflagration.

            It makes for fascinating reading regardless.

        • vxxc says:

          Come by peace or war I predict the provinces will be cut a lot more slack.

        • lalit says:

          “The Indian Mutiny was a result of Britain instituting land reform and rolling back the Indian equivalent of serfdom – do gooder white man’s burden stuff”

          References? I think the Mutiny happened for the same reason as the American Revolutionary war. The Indians “thought they could win” but didn’t just as the colonists “thought they could win” and did.

          References would still be helpful

          • The Cominator says:

            India was full of a bunch of different tribes that all hated each other far more generally then they hated the British so I’m inclined to accept the pork thing as a if not the total story a big factor.

            • lalit says:

              You mean how the USA is full of groups (ethnic/religious/sexual/racial etc) who all hate each other way more than they hate the Russians or the Chinese or that one great Spawn of Satan, Islam?

              You tend to hate what is next door, not what is seven seas away. The failure of the Indians is not that they had traitors. All groups have traitors. The failure of the Indians is that they were unable to use traitors from the enemy’s side, the British and the Muslims.

              • The Cominator says:

                They had Muslim sepoys they rebelled too and Sikh sepoys (normally FANATICALLY loyal to the Brits) which makes me think pork as a religious reason probably was the big thing.

                • jim says:

                  If so, the old east India company would have just arranged to label some boxes as greased with pork fat, and some boxes as greased with cow fat, and had their sepoys draw whichever one they preferred.

                  But the new east India company wanted to enlighten the backwards natives.

                • lalit says:

                  Jim, still waiting for references on the Land reforms that the EIC was engaged in and their causal impact on the 1857 war.

                • jim says:

                  I cannot easily find trustworthy references, but the Wikipedia summary agrees with my recollection:

                  “The Indian rebellion was fed by resentments born of diverse perceptions, including invasive British-style social reforms, harsh land taxes, summary treatment of some rich landowners and princes”

                  “The second group, the taluqdars, had lost half their landed estates to peasant farmers as a result of the land reforms that came in the wake of annexation of Oudh. As the rebellion gained ground, the taluqdars quickly reoccupied the lands they had lost, and paradoxically, in part because of ties of kinship and feudal loyalty, did not experience significant opposition from the peasant farmers, many of whom joined the rebellion, to the great dismay of the British.”

                  Not that I regard Wikipedia as a reliable source, but in this case it is an admission against interest – that leftism and disregard for profit provoked the rebellion.

                  Now likely the main thing that provoked the rebellion was disregard for the native religion, but recollect that back in those days leftism still claimed to be Christian. Already holier than Jesus, and had already demoted him to a community organizer, but had not yet become holier than God. So, back in those days, pissing on the native’s religion was leftist, rather than rightist. The old pirates of the old East India company would rob the altars, but they would not piss on the altars. Land reform was do gooding, and pissing on the native religion was do gooding.

                • lalit says:

                  Woah! Bloody Hell. Woah! Incredible. But believable. Okay, so that was that. This information will be radioactive in India. But there is a lot of other stuff as well.

                  I always felt that the whole Pork and Cow fat stuff was just a red herring and a distraction and not the actual cause, but this land reform bit, Damn! This is radioactive.

                  While the Land reform might have been a factor, I still maintain that the rebellion took place for the same reason that all others do, the Rebels thought that they could win.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You’re surprised that the official histories of your country lied to you about lots of things?

                  Every country does that.

                  Even the Cathedral which loves to undermine our country has never quite gotten around to admitting that Jamestown was a draconian penal colony but if you read the Lawes Divine Morall and Martial (then further lookup the adult death rate and that most people there were “indentured” ie petty criminals sentenced there) it immediately becomes apparent.

                • lalit says:

                  India’s ruling class until 2014 has been anglophilic. I’m surprised that they would let go an opportunity to mention something that makes the Brits look good.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Does the history/legacy of the Sepoy Rebellion live on in any way in the subcontinent? Holidays, statues, etc.?

            • lalit says:

              Yes it does. It’s called the first war of Independence. A movie about the instigator, Mangal Pandey, was a block buster. The other rebels are national Heroes, Rani of Jhansi being the Indian Joan of Arc.

              Patriotism aside, Thinking Indians all know that the rebellion started for one reason and one reason only. The Rebels thought they could win. They almost did. And the British reacted Savagely in a way they never did in NorthAm. We think the Brits took it quite easy on you Americans in both your wars.

              In the words of the War Nerd, If you weren’t White and Protestant, you neither gave not expected any quarter from the British.

              But this Land reform stuff is new to me. Never heard of it. Thats why I asked for references.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Interesting. I studied it from the colonists perspective. India is an interesting super country, but if not for British intervention it would be at least 5 separate countries, probably more, IMO. Memes of foundational independence are necessary for democratic republics to exist and thrive. No one in America wants to hear that 2/3 of the country were either opposed to or ambivalent about independence, just as no one in India wants to hear that they didn’t gain a country, Britain gave one away.

                In addition, there is the perspective that the Whig parliamentarians and their pet generals let the colonists win. This comports with the Burkian betas that thought defending the Empire was de classe and cucking out to the anorexic racist lawyer was the ultimate virtue signal.

                IMO both Hindustan and North America would be better off as parts of the British Empire.

                • lalit says:

                  I don’t think either is true. I’ll let you speak for North America. But if not for the Brits, the Marathas and the Sikhs would have purged Islam from India. The Brits are what Kept Islam alive in India.

                  That being said, Britain would be better off submitting to the Indians and let Indians rule England. That way the fathers of British girls will be protected from the indignities like Rotherham and Telford. There is no way Muslim gangs can do that in Hindu majority areas in India. There will be mass lynchings. Something for the Brits to think about.

                • BC says:

                  >That being said, Britain would be better off submitting to the Indians and let Indians rule England. That way the fathers of British girls will be protected from the indignities like Rotherham and Telford. There is no way Muslim gangs can do that in Hindu majority areas in India. There will be mass lynchings. Something for the Brits to think about.

                  Based on my recent reddit debates with Indian nationalists about the Aryan invasion, I think it more likely Indians would rape the girls, murder the men, and burn the country down. Putting your people in the hands of foreigners who view you as weak is just asking for it.

                • lalit says:

                  No, dear BC. The Indians, provided they were Hindu, Sikh or Buddhist, would bring Rule of Law to Britain. Putting yourself into the hands of the Muslims, as the Brits are doing now, is what is suicidal and just asking for it, as you put it so delightfully.

            • lalit says:

              Wikipedia, inspite of it’s leftist bent is a good place to start

              Another point of view about the 1857 rebellion that is gaining currency in Modi’s India

      • vxxc says:

        Whatever continental America becomes it will be a Federation.
        Like all the other American governments going back to the Iroquois.

        And all Empires are Federations.

  28. Frederick Algernon says:

    Central Americans bum rush Mexican border.

    • vxxc says:

      Guatemalans rushing the southern Mexican border is progress.
      The problem moving south is an improvement in our favor.
      Let them swallow their own vomit instead of vomiting on us.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Agree. That is why I posted it. If you want to know the state of the ship, watch the rats.

        • vxxc says:

          Thumbs up Frederick.

          Go Trump.
          Its time we outsourced other peoples fucking problems instead of importing them.

          • Wartime News says:

            African migrants pass through San Antonio and quickly fan out across country

            SAN ANTONIO, Texas — Roughly 300 Congolese and Angolan citizens who arrived in San Antonio the first week of June after crossing the U.S.-Mexico border days earlier have all briskly departed the city for destinations across the country…

            The migrants surrendered to Border Patrol agents and claimed asylum after crossing the Rio Grande.

            The agency did not, as it is supposed to, turn families over to Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Instead, it released families onto the streets of Eagle Pass and Del Rio…


  29. 2019 is boring says:

    Kookanic’s harebrained ally:

    Jim’s blog commentariat seem to be a good example of a group of VHIQ (as opposed to UHIQ) people

    Noticeably, the people defending Kookanic never manage to produce any evidence that he is particularly intelligent or insightful. Nor can they point to any other type of contribution he has provided. Now one can say, “Okay, but does that justify trolling him?” The answer is emphatically affirmative, because not only does he not contribute anything – he is constantly trying to sink everyone down to his level of clinical, criminal insanity.

    Off the top of my head, here are 20 things that he has explicitly promoted, evidently did, or confessed to:

    1. John McCain was covertly assassinated by the Trump Administration. Democrats are already wearing ankle monitors.

    2. There need to be more people like Robert Bowers who massacre Jews inside synagogues – top tier accelerationism.

    3. That he personally committed a premeditated homicide against an individual with whom he had no prior interactions (thus no apparent motive), and fled the scene “like Moses.”

    4. Right-wingers should be massively mailing non-anonymous death threats to Mohammedans all over America. This is perfectly safe – you won’t get caught.

    5. That the apocalypse would definitely happen in 2016; if a random nutcase on YouTube believes his own lies, and his body language looks candid, then he must surely be speaking the truth.

    6. Extraterrestrials had contacted NASA about the apocalypse that would happen in 2016, and the American Government is covering that up. There was no moon landing, by the way.

    7. Larry Silverstein and Donald Rumsfeld orchestrated 9/11, and probably organized a controlled demolition of World Trade Center building 7 with help from the Mossad.

    8. Anatomically modern humans are the descendants of boars and bonobos; Tex Arcane’s hybridization theory is sound and truthful. Also, the famous video purportedly documenting bigfoot is authentic.

    9. That he is a “Non-Sapiens Neanderthal,” that people with dolichocephalic or spherical skull shapes trace their origins to Planet Nibiru, and that most humans have been genetically engineered by ancient alien terraformers.

    10. Kookanic, identifying as “Kantbane,” had an entire blog specifically devoted to convincing people that ghosts are real. That may sound like a fun troll, except that the blog had just 3 posts full of florid, uninteresting, scarcely-readable gibberish, and it was deleted soon after launching – Kookanic figured that pulling off such pranks is damaging to his already dubious credibility and reputation.

    11. Q Anon, and similar chan-originated internet pranks, are definitely and demonstrably real. This will be proved in 2020, for sure.

    12. That demons have been haunting his family for a long while, that he himself has had numerous personal interactions with demons, and that only “hard-nosed skeptics” would dare to doubt such accounts.

    13. Kookanic calls for a violent armed revolution against USG, this while himself residing in China. He does so both on this blog and on Gab.

    14. You should totally watch gore pornography after every meal, in order to suppress your sense of hunger till the next meal. Provided links to his favorite gore pornography websites.

    15. He has been marketing a self-help book, “Koanic Soul,” in which he delineated a “koan system” (quizzical mnemonic mantras) designed to allow you to achieve all your goals – basically a scam like Rhonda Byrne’s “The Secret.”

    16. He would like to see 90% of American men slaughtered. No, it’s not primarily about brown people – he claims that the vast majority of whites are absolutely unworthy of life, because “as a Neanderthal, I…”

    17. He scribbled his koan symbols on both his hands, and reportedly paraded around the streets of Shenzhen looking like a madhouse escapee.

    18. Heavily associated with glosoli, and presumably introduced him to this blog. In his similarly heretical version of Christianity, Adam and Eve were created by extraterrestrials through genetic engineering, and the mission of the Neanderthal Movement is to return the Earth to its primordial Edenic condition, which will almost surely involve the annihilation of modern “Melonhead” civilization, originally established by the Snake.

    19. Kookanic is investing great effort in desensitizing his followers to be willing to commit the massive apocalyptic bloodshed which he has been meticulously planning, and is generally preoccupied with serial killers and mass casualty events.

    20. Since people naturally accuse him of being a low-trust schizophrenic misanthrope, he decided to call himself an “ingenopath,” and argues that this condition is merely a characteristic of 3SD+ IQ.

    This is by no means a comprehensive list of all his madness and Satanism. That’s actually just the tip of the iceberg, as anyone looking at archives of his blog, or his various other internet activities, can plainly see. The tl;dr on him is that he really wants to see everything falling apart, and is carte blanche shopping for ideological or metaphysical excuses to justify his unmitigated bloodthirst and chaotic drive, all while fostering a cult of personality around himself, fooling random nutters that he is their messiah.

    Again, if anyone wants to defend all this, please do so right now. I’d love to have a conversation about whether or not this individual is doing something great and noble. But if you’re not willing to defend him, you should really quit whining about the bullycide he’s going through – it’s perfectly justified.

    • outline says:

      Here is our hero dashing off a video prior to visiting his favorite public restroom:

      • 2019 is boring says:

        Wow. Holy shit. The cringe…

        Pro-top: if anyone wants to play a hardcore hyper-macho death-machine on the internet to impress one’s audience, coming out (of the closet) as a spastic noodle-limbed anorexic-bodied goofball goonlord Supreme Gentleman with “SPERG ALERT! SPERG ALERT! SPERG ALERT!” written in bold letters all over one’s emaciated pencil-face is not the way to do it.

        Seriously, it’s been a long while since I’ve seen someone this pathetically un-self-aware; it looks like a parody of a parody of a parody; a singularity of “ultra-high” hilarity! If this were 8chan, people would already be making a ton-load of malicious memes out of this le ebin lolcow. But here, in this bastion of no-nonsense intellectualism, it’s just… sad.

      • Not Tom says:

        Is that really him? Whoever it is, I believe the incessant swaying is indicative of a neurological or autism-spectrum disorder. I work with high-functioning spergs and I’m used to seeing body tics, but that’s an extreme case.

        UHIQ doesn’t exist, no matter what a certain blogger likes to tell his readers. The range exists, obviously, but it’s not strongly associated with the asserted personality traits. It’s “get on my level” trash-talking for nerds.

      • The Cominator says:

        Kookniac is NOT merely a sperg.

        Being a sperg might be part of it but not its not enough. Hes a schizo or on a lot of drugs.

    • pdimov says:

      >Tex Arcane’s hybridization theory is sound and truthful

      That theory is not Tex Arcane’s.

  30. BC says:

    I’m still not seeing any signs of this counter coup being underway. All I’m seeing is an ever tightening ring of propaganda and net censorship. The FBI and CIA are straight up stonewalling the DOJ and nothing is happening despite full power to declassify.

    • The Cominator says:

      Glownaggers trying to start WWIII again is a big indication.

      You see the NYT story about how we hacked Russia’s power grid + the Iran thing.

      They are not happy about Barr investigating them.

      • jim says:

        Trump needs a priesthood to demand that (using the term priesthood to refer to organized groups attempting to control people by the promotion of ideas, the mass media, the professoriat, the NGOs, judges, and such). And he cannot get such a priesthood until he is able to appoint true believers to positions of power, while at present he cannot touch us with a ten foot pole.

        Trump says:

        “The good news is that at the end of 6 years, after America has been made GREAT again and I leave the beautiful White House (do you think the people would demand that I stay longer? KEEP AMERICA GREAT), both of these horrible papers will quickly go out of business & be forever gone!”

        If conditions are favorable, we start demanding that in 2026. Long ago I predicted civil war “around 2020 or so”. Sometime before Trump was elected, I adjusted that prediction to around 2026 or so. I now think civil war unlikely during his first term of office, but increasingly likely during his second term.

        And of course, I have put this comment on the Dissenter page for that news story, so if any commie entryists want to reply to that comment, they are free to reply to me there.

        But somehow, I think they will not, for by participating on unmoderated forums, they encourage broader debate.

        • The Cominator says:

          2021 probably April or May it starts.

          Left goes even crazier when he wins reelection starts open street violence + a 70s style leftist terrorist campaign when the warm weather comes in the spring. It is crushed though.

          Trump becomes king in all but name.

        • alf says:

          OH wow he’s actually already floating the idea. What a madman.

          • jim says:

            Trump sees far. He sees what I see.

            The time of democracy is ending. The only question remaining is which Imperator we get, and to what extent the pretext of a Republic remains. If it is him, we will get a pretty good pretense of a Republic, as Augustus gave Rome.

        • Vxxc says:

          Trump doesn’t need a priesthood.
          No Army needs Priests.
          Priests need Armies.

          So it’s rather: Would be Priesthood needs Commander and army to need (reactionary) priesthood.

          But if we do we already have them: anyone reading a copy of the Constitution. We also have a lots of churches and a religion (the Constitution) with lots of believers.

          It works quite well enough. Certainly for belief. It can be fought for and even has clearly forsworn traitors to the faith already present.

          Sorry Gentlemen.
          You’re missing the train that’s in motion waiting for a fantasy ship to take you on an all expenses paid (in blood by others) luxury cruise to power.
          That’s not what’s happening.
          That will not happen.

          • alf says:

            And that’s where you’re wrong.

            An army needs a priesthood. Our current armies have a priesthood that screws them over, that rules over them, but the army cannot stop it.

            Priests are good at grand scale cooperation, not as good as an army is at medium scale cooperation, but good enough for them to be able to rout around warriors, as progressives have done.

            But I guess your refusal to believe that is good; forces us to prove our point. Don’t worry, we’ll know our place.

          • jim says:

            Ideas are more powerful than guns. Warriors need priests.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Imagine a media that glorified the military for conquering Afghanistan in revenge for harboring Bin Laden and enthusiastically supported converting them to Christianity and mining the mineral wealth of the country as reparations for their attack against us. Imagine a media where when reporting on a squad which committed an atrocity after taking fire from a village, they reported on the degeneracy of using women and children as shields, or never even mentioned it at all.

              That is why I need priests. Depending on how chaotic the decay of the American Empire is, I may have a shot at some territory of my own. That will not last without a priesthood.

              • Friendly Fred says:

                Yeah, I love the idea of Anglostates conquering places — it bugs me how Dissident Right guys tend to talk exactly like little old liberal ladies about the topic — “Global policeman, endless war, war after war, bad bad bad … not nice … too bossy.” You don’t find talk like that in the Aeneid, goddammit. I like the Warhammer myth-type.

                • goyim are cattle says:

                  It’s often the case that (((those))) who are gung-ho about starting wars are not the ones who’ll be doing the bleeding. Perhaps you should volunteer for the US Army to dispel this canard.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Mr “goyim are cattle”

                  Discuss the woman question.

                  When did the law start going wrong in regards to women?

                  Why should women have their mating choices made for them by men?

                • Koanic says:

                  Plenty of men would prefer to join actual wars of conquest beneficial to the white genetic interest. Compared to their current lives, the booty and brotherhood would be an improvement.

                  Joining the US Army would accomplish the opposite of that.

                • goyim are cattle says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for presupposing that we love the neocons. Ask us what we think about neocons.

                  Also deleted for being evasive on the women problem. You imply that you agree with us, but fail to flesh out the ideas in ways that would get a good progressive in trouble with other progressives.

                  I, however, if asked about neocons, will give you an earfull.

                  Give us a similar earfull on the woman problem. Don’t just tell us you agree, explain why in an entirely red pilled fashion, that is likely to get you purged from left wing circles as a nazi and a pedophile.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think I’ve spotted another shill… Even though I don’t think anything of the American military should ever cross the afghan border except bombs.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  The NRx position on neocons was made very clear in the comment section debate between Moldbug and Greg Cochran.

                  Cochran was making the point that the neo-cons were insane liars (to be generous – to not be generous they were motivated by showing loyalty to a foreign power (which isn’t exactly the same as acting on the orders of that power or acting in the actual interest of that power)) and Moldbug was arguing a level up that a different USG could do what the neocons were advocating but do it in a sane way – namely, appointing hereditary military governors of Iraq and Afghanistan.

                  Given that we have the USG that we have, neocon policies are insane.

                • Koanic says:

                  Why the US Army is not for white men:


                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Shut up you skeletor faggot. You smoke like a trap, you dress like a weeaboo, you write like a woman, you talk like a fag, and your shit’s all retarded.

                • Q Proof says:

                  “We’re down about 17% from last year, which is pretty amazing. We’re down about 17% with the opioid problem. It’s a big problem. It’s a big addiction and we’re handling it.”

                  What’s the 17th letter of the English alphabet?

                • pdimov says:

                  >a different USG could do what the neocons were advocating but do it in a sane way – namely, appointing hereditary military governors of Iraq and Afghanistan

                  I’m with Cochran. Sure, you could do something in a sane way, then pretend that’s what the neocons wanted.

              • Vxxc says:

                Then pray thee DO IT.

                I am on duty in my livery this very moment GET INTO YOURS.

                I’ll accept the point when I see it.
                As the man said: forces you to prove your point.
                THEN DO SO.

                Meanwhile in meatspace: Trump says ICE about to deport millions. No details. Guatemala (!) as possible safe 3d country.

                OK. I think he’s going to do something.,.

                It won’t be straightforward- he misdirects.

                But notice he (and ICE) are doing something?

                Notice he’s not waiting on a priesthood?
                You wait on priests you go extinct.

                Win. Fight.
                Them make up religion and priests (the usual order of things).

                • leftist entryist says:

                  “Meanwhile in meatspace: Trump says ICE about to deport millions.”

                  You Racist Cheeto fans are so, so delusional.

                • leftist entryist says:

                  Potato in Chief is all bluster, a flash in the pan!

              • pdimov says:

                >for their attack against us

                Didn’t know people who would say that with a straight face still existed. Blackpill intensifies.

          • Neurotoxin says:

            Agreeing with vxxc here.

            Jim says, “Ideas are more powerful than guns.”

            Sure. But civil war will happen before we can create widespread acceptance of the truths we talk about.

            Think about the *time scale* here. We don’t have *time* to create a new political philosophy de novo and get it accepted by a broad enough chunk of the population.

            • jim says:

              For the guys fighting on our side to have cohesion, the officer class is going to have to adhere to a synthetic tribe. The enemy has ideological cohesion.

              We are going to need ideological cohesion, in order to win.

              • Neurotoxin says:

                “We are going to need ideological cohesion, in order to win.”

                In the relevant time frame (assuming civil war breaks out in the 2020s) the Constitution is going to be the ideological cohesion the officer class has.

                Yes, the civic nationalism that goes along with that is unfortunate, but it’s what will be in place when the shooting starts in earnest. Also, ideological clarity will be provided by the enemy’s increasingly explicit shrieking of “Kill whitey!” If you’re a white officer or soldier, fighting such people presumably doesn’t require ideological motivation.

                Of course we should continue spreading key ideas. But we shouldn’t plan to have totally red-pilled everyone by 2025 or whenever.

                • jim says:

                  > In the relevant time frame (assuming civil war breaks out in the 2020s) the Constitution is going to be the ideological cohesion the officer class has

                  Which constitution would that be?

                  The one that existed before the war between the states, the one that existed after the war between the states, the one that existed before the New Deal, the one that existed after the New Deal, or the one that guarantees the right of sodomy, abortion up to birth without the consent of the father, of men to be women, and of everyone in the world to come to America to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat?

                • Vxxc says:

                  All that is needed for soldiers or a body of men to fight is to march. Priests CAN be very helpful.
                  They can even lead and fight.

                  But the priesthood requires that someone from their side fights. Now I’m not trying to talk you into uniform.
                  I’m saying you want the priesthood of rule and the stability it brings without the fighting and the soldiers, or you want to be summoned by Trump, or VPN it in as bloggers.

                  Simply put this requires work: so if you want to be a political priesthood then get cracking.

                  @alf; my point isn’t to spurn you.
                  I’m pointing out that the world will not wait on you.
                  We can’t rule without power.
                  We can’t get power without soldiers.
                  Or you can’t.
                  You don’t want to cowboy up?
                  Then priest up.
                  Get to work.
                  World’s not waiting…

                  Other points; @jim the Constitution has quite sufficient indeed enormous ideological cohesion.
                  That you think it’s in error or long gone is utterly irrelevant: unless a sufficient number of actors agree with you. You have 0.

                  No one has struck a blow or protested for RXN.
                  Why would they?

                  You go to war with the cohesion you’ve got.
                  The Constitution has YUGE GINORMOROUS COHESION and THE SECOND AMENDMENT in human armed form among the people.

                  Not to mention the oath. Oh that… yes

                  And not to mention there isn’t a replacement.

                  On taking orders from women.
                  Yes we do.

                  Ain’t in the presence of the enemy howevee.
                  Of course not.

                  You take orders from HR and so do we…
                  We all have our Progressive crosses to bear…

                  A lot of points answered I hope.

                  If you say we need a priesthood then kindly get into the fucking robes Father… or prithee bless what is being done.

                  We do need a new priesthood after we win.
                  We must first however win.
                  In the meantime Constitution works fine.
                  That it no longer exists means it can’t presently be proven false… 🤣🤔😉

                  Like God. Or King Arthur.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  >boomerposting without even being a boomer

                • alf says:

                  Ain’t in the presence of the enemy howevee.
                  Of course not.

                  Of course you do. You’re in denial.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  Which constitution would that be? …the one that guarantees the right of sodomy, abortion up to birth without the consent of the father, of men to be women, and of everyone in the world to come to America to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat?

                  The actual text. The Constitution as it actually is written is a hilariously radical – in our favor – document.

                  The Constitution as written is not a hard sell; it’s what tens of millions of Americans, maybe 100 million, already want, right now. And to the extent that it is a hard sell, it’s still an easier sell than NRX/stationary-bandit monarchy, etc., in the relevant time frame.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Which constitution would that be?

                  One would hope that “The Constitution” simply means that the rights of free white men shall not be infringed, and the government doing the infringing is thereby dissolved. Where the Constitution agrees with the Bible, it is superfluous, and where it exceeds it, it is wrong.

                  Certainly the evil Yankee empire cannot survive the revival of the Right to Bear Arms.

              • Neurotoxin says:

                By the way, Jim, I think you overestimate the coherence of the enemy’s ideology. The left hasn’t got much other than their central “White people should be attacked” thing. Beyond that it’s just various races that dislike each other, various religions that HATE each other (Muslims and Jews), and trannies hate-mobbing feminists who exclude them from comic books about menstruating were-cats, etc.

                Ideologically, all they’ve got is “Kill whitey” and the ever-weirder holiness spiral.

                • alf says:

                  Our enemies are working themselves into a feverish holy pitch. Need to extract the stinger. Need a religion to do that.

                  You will notice that for all vxxc’s tough military talk, his army friends are parading around in red high heels, taking orders from women.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Low fucking blow, Alf. The military wasn’t ready for the end of the cold war. They are still reeling from the Vietnam kerfuffle. Always remember that ~80% of a modern military is indistinguishable from Walmart. Logistics turns the frogs gay. They need a war they might not win. I am 100% civvy, but I take umbrage at your portrayal just because PR has decided to highlight fat black women and fags in uniform.

                • alf says:

                  Hey I’m willing to cooperate but vxxc tells me he don’t need me. So, I take a stab. Are they not taking orders from women?

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  True enough. There is a vag problem. But there are also women who are suited to command, particularly given that logistics is the biggest game as of late (suited being hireable, not optimal). It was your red heels comment that rubbed me raw. The shit that is being asked of service members is appalling. I’ll not support the denigration of kshatriya just because smoke is being confused for flame.

                • alf says:

                  I’ll admit my sadistic side can appreciate the balance in things, that even tough-talking military buffs can be forced into this.

                  But I don’t like it, otherwise I wouldn’t be here. All I’m pointing out is that while vxxc is correct in behaving like Spike, Spike is currently chained by the priesthood.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “There are women suited to command”

                  Women as military commanders are VERY VERY rare in history. The only female in history who did generalling (successfully or not) is Joan of Arc and hell maybe she really did have divine guidance because nothing about her story makes sense otherwise.

                  Female queens even successful ones (and yes history does have some of those, though they are nearly all terrible as Democratic leaders though) didn’t do their own generalling.

                  So I would not count on this.

                • lalit says:

                  Dear Cominator. You will find that there is no evidence that the celebrated Joan of Arc killed even a single man. The same goes for India’s Joan of Arc, The Queen of Jhansi, Rani Lakshmibai. But these mythologies are useful to build assabiya among the faithtful.

                  Women taking up arms is more signaling than anything else. What it does is that it Shames the men into fighting when otherwise they would think about saving their own miserable hides via a negotiated surrender.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Read what I wrote. Women are terrible on the battlefield. Women are capable (barely) in the Office. The vast majority of modern militaries are office workers in uniform.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Joan of Arc may or may not have been on the frontlines (that is not unheard of even in ancient and medieval history) but what is to my knowledge unique is that she generalled.

              • Vxxc says:

                We need to fight to conceive of winning.

                We have sufficient ideological cohesion around our sworn sacred object the Constitution.
                It’s practically animism: behold our sacred parchment.!
                Its our sacred fucking Black Cube at Mekka.

                Sputter buts away.. that’s the hard truth.

                Not only does the Constitution have enormous ideological and indeed sacred cohesion its INSURMOUNTABLE ODDS once the threat is open to it…

                And the threat openly presents itself in Deep State Form.

                Nor are there alternatives besides globalist looter administrative state OR The Constitutional Republic in America, and Nationalism elsewhere.

                European political contracts are open, like their marriages.
                Americas sacred parchment is not.
                We just didn’t know we were betrayed until they openly presented themselves with their farcical abortive coup that they were traitors. Now we can face it.

                We can face their blasphemy against our sacred, unfalsifiable sacred scroll. And have sufficient cohesion to destroy the blasphemers.

                *unfalsifiable: until the original pre-1933 Republic is restored it cannot be falsified. Stop making the most attractive feature a bug.
                While yer at it figure out if you want to be sysadmin or priest. No you can’t do both.

                **it hasn’t existed since Lincoln 😭 !!!
                Good. Even more un-obtainable. Keep going…call me when you get to the Fall in the Garden of Eden…

                • Vxxc says:

                  The Constitution.

                  From ideo/religious cohesion and forces sworn to it: its our sacred animist rock. Cube of Mecca has shit on it.

                  From political sysadmin: worked well enough and its existing legacy features in use work great, maybe too well. We are armed, we can speak.
                  The President held onto the military. Etc…

                  Biggest sysadmin (practical politics) pro: there’s no actual replacement that works.
                  Anarcho-Tyranny is played out.

                  No replacement?
                  No replacement legitimacy?

                  Rollback to last working config it is…

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  We hold these truths to be self-evident:

                  That all men are CREATED equal.

                  The Constitution insists on a Creator, and presupposes creationism. Hell is eternal…

                • jim says:

                  It is absolutely obvious that all men are not created equal, resulting in ever more drastic measures to enforce fake equality.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The American colonies had some legitimate gripes with the strict enforcement of the navigation acts and British currency act. John Hancock saw the resemblance in the currency policy and new mercantile policies (or at least enforcement of old mercantile policies that previously had not been enforced) to mercantile laws which so impoverished Ireland so on narrow economic grounds I understand the rebellion.

                  But the crap about equality should never have been put in the Declaration of Independence.

                • Koanic says:

                  We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created unequal. That the USA is an evil empire founded on lies and dedicated to ruin.

                  When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

                  The USG is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

                  The USG has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

                  That these United States are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the Federal Government, and that all political connection between them and the United States Government, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  We hold these truths to be self-evident:
                  That all men are CREATED equal.
                  The Constitution insists on a Creator

                  That’s from the Declaration of Independence.

    • shaman says:

      This one is my favorite:

      Curiously, he spends a whole lot of time calling for the elimination of Jews; on his blog, on the other hand, he sounded quite different at time, e.g.:

      Take it from a 15% non-white Ashkenazi. We didn’t get our superdominant IQ by 600 years of high IQ men voluntarily dead-ending.

      We got there by taking a hostile, us-vs-them, no-holds-barred attitude towards the brawl of life, being legally restricted to only business or finance, and ruthlessly going for cash while fucking our wives sans contraceptives.


      You’re playing the victim card on the wrong Jew. My grandfather was in the Holocaust. The Nazis justified it by falsely portraying themselves as victims of the Jews. Today fake tears and false blame, tomorrow Dachau. Today your job, tomorrow your life. Cringe a little deeper; give a little more; you don’t want trouble!

      He zigzags between being a strongly identified Jew and a genocidal anti-Semite.

      Just like he zigzags about everything.

    • Calov says:

      Is that what he actually looks like? Maybe I’m too old to read this blog.

    • alf says:

      I like his dressing style. I’d lose the gloves, but the jacket and the scarf are cool. The red glasses are a bit over the top, but he can get away with it.

      • vxxc says:

        @alf- if you didn’t catch it I don’t have a problem with you priesting.
        I have a problem with the waiting.

        For what?

        • alf says:

          You demand a miracle.

          We’ve had that discussion, and we have concluded we are not pulling off a miracle.

          Insofar you are not demanding a miracle; plenty of stuff is happening. Our memes are spreading. We are setting ourselves and our allies up as righteous and just, and our enemies as evil and stupid (which is all true).

          But we are waiting in the sense that we cannot topple the current religion without a Trump or someone like him. In the meanwhile we’re doing stuff, holding the line, determining who is friend and who is foe, meme’ing, and so on, but we don’t really do marching.

        • jim says:

          Waiting for Trump to prepare for re-election in 2024, following the 2022 mid terms.

          Failing that, he will probably be imprisoned, and eventually executed. Then a series of increasingly dreadful leftist presidents will execute each other, until we eventually get emperor Napoleon. Emperor Napoleon will need us, because ever lefter leftism will have run its course, and hit the leftist singularity.

  31. Vxxc says:

    “Hmm, they don’t want to burn their own house down. (You don’t say.) They like rent more.

    So something they like more supersedes something they like less. Certainly.

    But…what if…there’s something they like even more than collecting rent…?”
    All of recent Finance can be defined as arson for the insurance money.
    As can Free Trade.
    As can Cloward Piven.

  32. Vxxc says:

    “Cat Ladies trapped in male bodies.”

    Thank you. I’ve been saying cunts trapped in a man’s body.
    Now I have something more acceptable.

  33. vxxc says:

    Immigrant sponsors on the hook for immigrants that get on the dole.
    I’d prefer heads on sticks lining the Rio Grande..but this is a good start.

    • The Cominator says:

      Its good but I suspect that there is a scam being worked out where a company assumes the liabillity/sponsorship and later just declares bankruptcy and a new company is started…

      • Not Tom says:

        Totally. Every time tradcons want the left to stop doing something, they come up with what they think is a very clever economic incentive. “We’ll make it cost you!”

        No, idiots; money is the one thing the institutional left never runs out of. Finding sneaky ways to make other people pay is their specialty; they’ve refined it into an art form and literally take pleasure in the act.

        • The Cominator says:

          With enough attention to the details the payment system could be made airtight but I suspect this one will not be airtight.

          It may prevent small timers from sponsoring under the table semi-slave labor who make it up on the dole… it will not prevent Monsanto from doing so.

        • John Sullivan says:

          Take a step back and consider what the system should be, sponsors is the path to a real solution. In general making it cost money is the only thing trandcons can do, since they are permanently out of power. If you went back in time 50 or 100 years with the knowledge you have now, what would you do, tell the king of Spain that EU membership will lead to heroin zombies and African migrants?

          • John Sullivan says:

            turn Jim’s archives into a short and spread it around the early Internet, right? Could it have been published in Playboy?

  34. vxxc says:

    Trump trolls media while dangling God Emperor…

    “He has also previously endorsed suggestions that he should stay in the White House after eight years as president, despite this running against the American constitution which states that presidents are limited to being elected to just two four-year terms.”

    -The Independent, UK

    IT never, ever fails. No doubt Schiff will add this to Impeachment Fantasy Football.

  35. Koanic says:

    8:23 PM – 15 Jun 2019

    > Going through the 8chan affidavit. Not only did they print out and then re-scan screenshots of the /pol/ thread, but there are several (You)s in the thread. God, our intelligence community has never been more incompetent.

    > I wish 8chan had some archives available to see what the glows said. From the responses though it looks like just bogstandard posts. I get a feeling most of these people’s job description is just paying attention to what anons are talking about and commenting at their leisure.

    The fedposting from the latest synagogue shooter suggests that the typical Fedposter is neither the shooter nor the demagogue, but the nondescript commoner inserting the occasional question into his boring postings.

    Someone more motivated than I am can verify the summary above.

    • The Cominator says:

      Kook if you want to stop helping glownaggers.

      Stop being an unironic white knightionalist.

      Stop preaching that people should randomly kill jews.

      Stop preaching that people should commit useless crimes.

    • shaman says:

      there are several (You)s in the thread.

      >claims to be IQ SD3+
      >not familiar with classic Haversack Ruse

      Fake, gay, GTFO.

    • shaman says:

      I wish 8chan had some archives available to see what the glows said. From the responses though it looks like just bogstandard posts.

      Pages 50-51/63 of CIA’s “Deception Maxims: Fact and Folklore.”

      Page 24/50 of JTRIG’s “The Art of Deception: Training For a New Generation of Online Covert Operations.”

      Etc., etc., etc.

      Are the glowniggers, including internet operatives, familiar with Richard Meinertzhagen’s Haversack, or aren’t they?

      Do you think it may apply to this situation, huh, Fashion Boy?

      • The Cominator says:

        Shaman I think you overestimate the glownaggers they don’t keep fucking up trying to frame Trump (and that would be their top people they put on that) because they are all that competent.

        Most likely they screenshotted their own (yous) and didn’t bother to do much to hide how they egged on and aided and abetted the synagogue shooter.

        There is a difference between being redpilled on race and jews and being a hardcore WNist or anti-semite. Extreme WNist and anti-semites are ALWAYS feds either wittingly or unwittingly.

  36. vxxc says:

    BTW- the US MIL is not overrun with trannies.
    In fact it was never authorized.
    It never occurred.
    It was studied under Obama and never went anywhere- the military just dragged their feet waiting for a sane President.

    The truth is it was an absurdity test (point man make woman) and the leadership bowed to the official religion.
    But only developed a policy that made it crystal clear to everyone how crazy this all was- and how crazy the trannies are.
    Trump nixed this.
    Now I’ve never seen a tranny in uniform.
    Then again I’ve only seen 2-3 in my entire life.

    Here’s the policy and the down to unit/soldier level briefing.
    It makes clear to the attentive that they must be drugged and not stressed out. These are of course show stoppers.

    This never happened. This is what was supposed to happen.
    Perhaps like female rangers (1 total) it may happen.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Did women on SSNs also not happen?

      • vxxc says:

        Women on SSNs; yeah?
        What’s your point?

        Women aren’t trannies.
        Like trannies aren’t women.

        You actually have worked and not had a female boss?

        Its a compliance trap.
        Its an absurdity test.

        So we follow bad orders and march on.
        Nothing new.

  37. Friendly Fred says:

    Zman writing about costume-choices today might interest some people.
    Maybe something like what Henry VIII’s wearing in the Holbein portrait?

  38. vxxc says:

    The counter/counter reformation latest counter…


    “What is needed, it said, is to essentially recover aspects of the primitive Christian church.”

    Many Catholics (like me) would like married priests.
    Francis wants Viri Probati cannibal priests.
    Hopes were up.

  39. Friendly Fred says:

    Baron Bodissey at GatesofVienna posts that his wife and blog-helper Dymphna (who was a big presence in the comments there) died last night.

  40. Vxxc says:

    I will concede that stable rule and civilization require religion and a priesthood.

    I will not agree that armies or warriors need priests to march.

    No – no armies don’t need priests.
    To Rule yes. Permanent rule at least.
    March no.

    And its marching we need.

    (And as noted above we quite have the sacred civic religion and anyone waving a copy of our Holy Book is a Priest).

    • jim says:

      Well, yes, they don’t need preisthood to march.

      But you have to bring a gun to a gunfight, and a religion to a holy war.

      • vxxc says:

        I will concede you need to bring religion to a holy war.

        Now unfortunately for you and others in RXN you don’t agree with it, certainly from a sysadmin view.

        The problem then is: it’s what the side that’s voting and fighting against the Cathedral has got. It also has a standing army of a million (all services) sworn by Oath to defend it (and only it) against all enemies foreign and domestic.
        It has 22 million veterans above that, 14 million who are still young enough to fight. It has 40 million gunowners.
        It has the half of the country that voted Trump.
        It has The Flag. It has legitimacy.
        It has even in the enemy corridors all sworn to serve it-and so the traitors are forsworn. – not a small point in war.

        It even has a Champion of the People- Trump.

        > it is an imperfect system that failed.
        Well men failed as they so often do.

        It even has a suicidal, insane and repulsive, inept foe.

        I beseech you Sir and all here to be practical.

        Nor do I advise waiting for Trump to become Emperor.
        Trump is a creature of the demos – in business before even politics.
        Moreover he could have already done this- but so far he just wants to be President. Which may well be his tragedy – along with his aversion to bloodshed.

        I counsel all – do not tarry waiting for more.
        This is our chance.
        Take it.

        • Constitution says:

          “All persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave; and the Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry this declaration into effect everywhere in the United States.”

    • W > P says:


      There is no way to disestablish religion. It’s just an unsolvable engineering problem. If the state disavows its religious authority, all it’s doing is disavowing control over that authority. Which leaves said authority in a perfect position to control the state. So the nominal objective of separating church and state leads naturally to the theocratic state. This is not a new phenomenon in Anglo-American history.

      Even if you don’t care about quality of government, but just about quality of thought, putting the church in charge of the state — ie, the nerds in charge of the jocks — has a nasty effect on quality of thought. Thought is distorted not by the repulsive force of a fascist jock state that discriminates against nerds, but rather by the attractive force that offers free power to power-craving nerds.

      The state which disavows religion is basically a flawed engineering structure that’s leaking power. The power leak has a horrific evolutionary effect on the nerd population, basically favoring sniveling, student-government weasels over good sensible open-minded people. Noticed anything like this around you? Anyone? Bueller?

      This is only one of many reasons why humanity flourishes under leaders who unite both nerd and jock qualities, ie, true aristocracies, and has serious difficulties when these qualities are opposed or even just divided.

      • vxxc says:

        I completely agree with Moldbug.

        Thanks be to God the enemy has cast off their false cloak of Constitutionality and even democracy’s votes and now attempts to rule openly as Bureaucratic Pashas. Revealing their sniveling nature and weakness in the divine bargain.

        So we are left with at least our civic religion as ours again.
        Literally standing in arms: arms blessed by God.
        In God we may it seems still Trust.
        We don’t deserve it- but we never did.

        • Constitution says:

          White boy amidst an ocean of homicidal niggers:

          “At least I still have muh cuckstitution.”

          • Koanic says:

            A Schelling point of white genetic interest would be preferable, but that might be overestimating the intelligence of Americans. The Constitution signed by a slave society can be retrofitted for white nationalism without causing undue cogdis in the unintellectual.

          • vxxc says:

            I’m not in a sea of homicidal niggers.

            Neither are you unless you decided to make shiposting your last words.

            How big is the sea of niggers? They’re only 13.5% of USA.

            Now assuming you’ve escaped Tarzan may I offer solutions?
            I’m all about being practical.

            1. Arm yourself.
            2. Be violent or homicidal as called for.
            3. Avoid Nigger seas, or even ponds.

            And all I was saying was we go to holy war with the religion we’ve got- our civic one being muh constitution – as opposed to one that doesn’t exist.

            BTW I come from muh constitution country and yes it helps to be 91% white (rust belt) but we’re also very second amendment.
            My God that alone justifies it.
            Any country that puts 120 guns per 100 people (2007 figures mind you) in its core sacral political covenant will only suffer so far.

            In India some sects (like Modi’s) worship weapons.

            What’s not to like?

  41. vxxc says:

    Does anyone disagree with this proposition?

    The Constitution signed by a slave society can be retrofitted for white nationalism without causing undue cogdis in the unintellectual.

    Never mind being childish. Consider it at face value.

    Of course this would involve risk, danger, work.

    Now that we mention it history is proof the Constitution can be retrofitted to just about anything save disarmament.
    That’s not gonna happen.

    That would require 1) power/soldiers.
    2) Priests to retrofit the Constitution.


    • Bob says:

      I doubt it can be retrofitted for the unintellectual.

      1) It hasn’t been retrofitted previously. Lincoln turned it into a sham. Theodore Roosevelt’s executive orders made it more of a sham. The Supreme Court made it more of a sham. Etc.

      2) The slave society of the south didn’t believe in the equality of man. Even the leftist Puritans had people on sidewalks bowing to “their betters” in their carriages up to the early 1800s. The Constitution can’t handle equality. If white nationalism doesn’t believe in inequality (not just between races, but among them) as much as slaveowners did, it won’t work under the Constitution.

      3) The unintellectual believe what they’re told, or what’s fashionable, which is influenced by the intellectual. If the intellectual don’t believe it, then the unintellectual won’t. Or the intellectual will lie to them, which I think won’t work.

      • Koanic says:

        It was meant to be a hindrance to the Federal government, not a universal creed. Thus it can serve as a battle flag for the annihilation of the Federal government. And the Declaration of Independence the bugle.

        If the civic religion is suicide, follow through.

      • John Sullivan says:

        Let’s fix the Constitution. Repeal all amendments, maybe other than 11, 12, 20, 25.

        • The Cominator says:

          The Federalist constitution as opposed to the Articles of Confederation was a brainchild primarily of Hamilton but Hamilton thought it would fail without a monarch or at least a president for life as the executive. So the Federalist constitution was in fact adopted with a modification that its chief backer thought was a fatal flaw and eventually because of this failed in all the ways its anti-federalist critics said it would.

        • Not Tom says:

          The written Constitution originally didn’t have all those amendments, and still eventually morphed into “constitutional law” after about 100 years, and that was with 19th-century demographics.

          Even if you could fix the Constitution – which I doubt is possible anymore, and sometimes you’re better off scrapping a junker than trying to repair it – what would prevent the same transformation from happening again, but even faster because of our 21st-century demographics?

          Everyone’s got a capital-C Constitution now, including North Korea and the Congo. Their contents aren’t too different from the U.S. Constitution. What makes the capital-C Constitution a lowercase-c constitution? And if you have the latter, do you even need the former?

  42. Friendly Fred says:

    Vdare says “war with Iran intended to distract from the border-crisis” (more or less; see today) — little old liberal lady in the supermarket says “war with Iran intended to distract from ‘all of these problems in Washington'” (I actually heard a litteoldliberallady say this in Key Food a couple of days ago!), meaning “… from the evilTrumpness.” So Vdare and the little old liberal lady agree on the “war with Iran intended to distract” part.

    So suppose BOTH the border-crisis and Iran were gloriously dealt with — would Vdare object to the Iran part? I think so.

    I guess I just want Glorious Action. Glorious Action on the border alone might satisfy me, at least for now. All my life we’ve been losing, losing, losing. The first big political things I remember are the Vietnam War (“we’re bad and we’re losing!”) and Watergate, and everything’s just sucked in ever-new ways ever since. Even the pop-music got almost continually worse.

    • Calov says:

      We won the first gulf war…but in the long run it was a stupid war. More war in the Middle East at the behest of Israel or neocons or both is a dumb idea.

      • The Cominator says:

        All wars under a Bush were far more for Saudi Arabia then Israel.

        The 1st Gulf War was indeed stupid because the 1st thing Saddam Hussein would have done if he took over Saudi Arabia is rounded up all the known Islamists and had them shot which would have been a very good thing.

        I don’t agree with all that much that Hitler did but one thing I do agree with is the “Commissar Order”. Islamists and especially clerics should be viewed as commissars.

        • vxxc says:

          YES. People miss this.

          “All wars under a Bush were far more for Saudi Arabia then Israel.”

          • The Cominator says:

            The meme that everything is (((them))) comes from government shills and originated with Robert Mueller (same name as Eichmann’s immediate superior) like the mythical dancing Israelis when the report in fact showed no dancing Israelis.

            • pdimov says:

              There’s nothing mythical about the “dancing Israelis”. They are specific people with known names, and the “dancing Israelis” moniker came from news reports at the time. There were eyewitnesses. The Israelis probably weren’t actually dancing though.


              All these news articles are now deleted.

              • jim says:

                No there were not eyewitnesses to the Dancing Israelis “dancing and hugging”. The FBI report implied that they had photos of them dancing and hugging, but the FBI lied, apparently at the instigation of Mueller.

                • pdimov says:


                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. You write as if I had never accused the FBI and Mueller of troofer misconduct. You defend them against the accusation, without acknowledging that I made the accusation and that you are defending them.

                  If you are going to defend the FBI, you have to acknowledge that they are accused, and that you are defending them.

                • pdimov says:


                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling me what I say. I don’t say that.

                  Deleted for presupposing that I agree with troofer “facts” that are lies that have already been rebutted. The Dancing Israelis was a Mueller fraud, the matador tossing his cape to distract the bull from the fact that 9/11 was made possible because Mueller told the FBI to look for white Christian terrorism regardless of whether it existed or not, and ignore Muslim terrorism even if it got in their faces.

                  If you want to debate this, debate it, don’t tell me I already accept the FBI story

              • The Cominator says:

                As Jim said FBI lies.

                I mentioned the thing with Mueller’s name because if anything could be used to convert reform Jews to our side (look at Stephen Miller and Horowitz when Jews are turned to the right from a left wing background powerful shitlords they often become) revealing that a guy with that name is behind all the 9/11 conspiracy theories that blame them because he lied and paid shills lied.

                AND he is the guy they put in charge of framing Trump (but he wasn’t smart enough to)… good thing.

              • jim says:

                It is mythical that the Dancing Israelis were dancing, it is mythical that their behavior on 911 was suspicious and worthy of investigation.

      • Not Tom says:

        Is it a dumb idea because it’s a dumb idea, or is it a dumb idea because it’s (according to you) “at the behest of Israel or Neocons”?

        Put differently, do you oppose these wars on some kind of consistent principle, or would you be perfectly OK with them if you had positive proof that it was primarily white Christians doing the agitation and not some group vaguely analogous to Jews?

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Personally, I oppose it because it’s a dumb idea (making it not a dumb idea is a coup-complete problem – would require a different USG) – that said the neocon Jews advocate for it specifically because it’s a dumb idea and would harm the people they see as their enemies – the white Christians who serve in the military and the nation as a whole. They also see it as maybe benefiting Israel (but of course since they’re signaling and don’t have skin in the game they may not be right).

          I don’t mind if someone shorthands that to “no neocon wars for Israel”.

          • Friendly Fred says:

            “… specifically because …” — Steve, that’s just silly in a mean-spirited as opposed to entertaining way. It would be kind of dopey even as backstory for a computer game. I guess you were just in a grumpy mood when you wrote that.

            Anyway, I think that the Emperor should just install friendly military dictatorships in conquered places. There should be Triumphs, definitely.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Silly? No, not really – it’s deadly serious.

              Read what Bill Kristol or Max Boot writes – it’s pretty plain that the primary goal for them is to harm their hated ethnic enemies and even if Iran is on that list white Americans are on that list as well.

              • The Cominator says:

                I would not go to Iran and the current USG is not capable of doing it right…

                But the easiest way to do Iran right is probably to just install the Shah’s son (the Shah was overthrown because Jimmy Carter forced him to allow his enemies out of prison or exile not anything bad he did personally) as the new Shah.

        • Calov says:

          I think it’s a dumb idea regardless of whether or not it’s at the behest of Jews. But because it is at the behest of Jews and the Bush family and their ilk it is even dumber. Glorious victory and a well-run empire is not going to happen under the current regime. There is no intention of ruling with the requisite firm hand that Jim has written about very lucidly in many posts. Though there are instances of empires that are well run and accomplish worthy aims–the British Empire in Africa comes to mind– over the long haul it’s an open question to me whether the benefits of empire to the colonizing nation outweigh the costs.

          • jim says:

            Unless you have eugenic fertility and a ruling elite that needs jobs for its younger sons, you don’t conquer your empire. Your empire conquers you.

            • The Cominator says:

              I think when areas that are too remote to be administered long term are conquered they should be nominally independent kingdoms with a mercenary warrior elite from the homeland setup as the ruling class.

              Sort of like what the Normans did everywhere they conquered… they conquered lots of places but none of them became part of Normandy.

  43. Mister Grumpus says:


    Would love to get your crystallization of the Oberlin College vs. Gibsons’ Racists-Calling-Cops-on-Black-“Student”-Shoplifters Bakery thing.

    A court case that Oberlin actually lost (saywhat?) because they were so brazen about punishing the Gibson family for Insufficient Leftism and Self-Protective Whiteness.

    I’m still an amateur with this stuff, but the parts about the Oberlin faculty using the students as attack weapons (“unleash the students… fuck ’em!”) – while also being afraid of said students – sure reminds me of what little I’ve learned about commie revolutions elsewhere. Everybody desperately running leftward to keep from getting run over.

    So they fear each other the most. (Right?)

    • jim says:

      Exactly so.

    • Friendly Fred says:

      Some student complained about me to HR at one of the schools I “teach” at, probably regarding some un-PC thing I said during the course of some class rambling or other — I don’t know what the issue was because I didn’t go into the HR office for the interrogation — so I’m not getting rehired there this Fall.

      • Eli says:

        If it’s in NYC, I’m not surprised. Either way, you’re a principled man — my respect to you. I hope you’ll find a good gig soon.

  44. vxxc says:

    Parscale is right about polling being dead.

    Who would in the era of bake the cake and sell the pizza tell a stranger their actual politics? When speaking to strangers we mouth the official religion.
    Those polls will conform to Party narrative.
    The Party will hence be blindsided again.

  45. vxxc says:

    Precusor to fighting season.

    Imported graffiti trouble. Meaning from south.
    Communist graffiti in KC references Peru uprising 1986.
    Not a native reference.

    • Calov says:

      Kansas City police chief muses about “what kind of oppressive government we would be living under” if doughboy hadn’t sacrificed their lives to aid the Allies.

      One can only imagine. Maybe a non-interventionist constitutional government not endlessly entangled in foreign wars instead of a holy Wilsonian government engaged in a century-long crusade to make the world “safe” for democracy & its hypostases–globohomo chief among them.

      Why would we not think the graffiti is the work of some committed Marxists–probably college students–aware of obscure communist causes? Isn’t Peru where the Shining Path Maoist revolutionaries were? Anyway no shortage of communist martyrs in South America for leaping kids in Missouri to obsess over.

      • vxxc says:

        Ah: but what if it’s AOC’s well heeled cousins?

        That is my point. We’re importing their politics, which follows as naturally as their cuisine.

        As did their society- and its endemic gangsterism.

        • vxxc says:

          I should add that their gangsterism already successfully overwhelmed the state of New York with MS13 on Long Island.

          Because their gangsters are after not just profit but power.
          Which makes them politicians.

  46. Koanic says:

    Revisiting the capitalist land allocation question:

    No reactionary believes that territory should be allocated between countries on a capitalist basis. That is loony ancap. Reaction recognizes that inter-country land allocation is determined primarily by military strength, which is affected by factors economic, cultural, genetic, religious, etc. Capitalism alone is not an adequate feedback system for the inter-country land allocation problem.

    Biblical Law makes intra-city land allocation almost entirely capitalist. IIRC there is a one-year redemption period for a sold house. This is a small concession, designed to reduce churn. It recognizes that the benefit of neighborhood population stability is not fully reflected by market economics. Lower churn improves cohesion improves transparency improves trust.

    Rural land allocation falls between inter-country land allocation and intra-city land allocation. The societal benefits of reduced rural churn are many, and not fully captured by the market. It is an essential component of state decentralization. Subsidiarized patriarchal private violence enforces a rural rule of honor similar to the original human method of land allocation, tribal warfare. This is eugenic.

    If one recognizes the exception to capitalism for land allocation at the inter-country level, one should recognize the gradient from rural to urban.

    In modernity, the Biblical solution could be improved by creating a smoother gradient recognizing distinctions such as suburban intermediate zones.

    • Koanic says:

      One of the main reasons the modern megastate is so destructive is its tendency to consume whatever subsumed entity can threaten it or its controlling elites. The state arises by annihilating the tribes, nations, ethnicities and races it conquers, first dividing them and then homogenizing them into atomized slaves.

      A hybrid capitalist-tribal system of land allocation provides a formal counter to this tendency of the central state. It is one of the fundamental checks and balances missing from that overrated failure, the US Constitution.

      • Koanic says:

        The largest unit of society to which humans are evolutionarily adapted is the tribe. Beyond that, society suffers from malefits of scale. This cannot change within an historical timescale.

        Communism and Fascism are two sides of the same coin. Both appeal to elements of tribal life destroyed by scaled capitalism.

        Viewed as psychological primitives rather than historical labels, Communism appeals to feminine charity-nurture-equality, and Fascism to masculine honor-purity-justice. Both misdirect dissatisfaction with scaled capitalism towards a solution that greatly increases the power of the central state, compounding the problem.

        As long as capitalism oversteps its bounds by wholly supplanting tribalism, it will inevitably be overturned by one or the other socialist revolution. Revolution being exactly the correct term for the pitiless grind of the wheel of history.

        • Friendly Fred says:

          On Communism appealing to feminine etc., Fascisims to maculine etc. — funny, a friend emailed me a link to something about a Amer-Indian woman denouncing Woodie Guthrie and I replied that Woodie Guthrie’s tone and style are very White-Male and added that maybe the masculine tone and style of old-school Commie stuff was what attracted a lot of people to it … and then I also thought about how homos often find Fascist style attractive. But Camille Paglia thinks that homos are just ultra-masculine so I don’t know … maybe it’s all a big circle.

          • The Cominator says:

            Bolshevik communism was far more masculine then modern shitlibbism and Stalin’s stable form of it especially so.

          • kawaii_kike says:

            Modern homos definitely aren’t very masculine, They’re known for being feminine; and being sexually dominated by another man isn’t very masculine either. Maybe Greek era homos were more masculine but the Greeks came along long before fascism, so it’s kind of a moot point. The only masculine homo I can think of is BAP.

          • Koanic says:

            That’s why I qualified that my description of Communism and Fascism referred to the psychological primitives, not the historical labels. In practice a successful movement is always some blend of the two.

            Self-selection in a scaled atomized consumer society such as the USA permits these primitives to appear in a remarkably pure form. Look at how feminine Antifa’s white component is.

      • Koanic says:

        Pharoah’s persecution of Israel, Saul’s persecution of David, Haman and Nebuchadnezzar’s persecution of the Jews, Herod’s infanticide, and the Sanhedrin’s persecution of Jesus demonstrate the state’s instinctive corrosiveness towards internal threats, regardless of merit or even sanity. Given primogeniture, the story of Cain and Abel is arguably the primordial example.

    • 2019 is boring says:

      1 Kings 9:10-14

      10 At the end of twenty years, during which Solomon built these two buildings—the temple of the Lord and the royal palace— 11 King Solomon gave twenty towns in Galilee to Hiram king of Tyre, because Hiram had supplied him with all the cedar and juniper and gold he wanted. 12 But when Hiram went from Tyre to see the towns that Solomon had given him, he was not pleased with them. 13 “What kind of towns are these you have given me, my brother?” he asked. And he called them the Land of Kabul, a name they have to this day. 14 Now Hiram had sent to the king 120 talents of gold.

      What does verse 11 say?


    • Alrenous says:

      Reaction recognizes that inter-country land allocation is determined primarily by military strength

      Capitalism includes military strength. Admittedly even is unaware of this.

      Correctly, anarcho-capitalism starts with this: property is defined by security. If you can’t defend it, it isn’t yours. I call this meta-Rothbardianism, since rather than defining ‘property’ in theory, theory defines the correct definition of property. Proof by inspection: that which ought not to be taken from you is that which is too expensive to take from you. Ought defined as is. (Almost.)

      Three facts.

      You can have an accountant tot up military strength just as well as any other asset, and exactly define a price for it, especially if you include time as a currency.

      Security is worthless without value to secure. Wealth is the primary object, security the secondary. Property is then secured wealth.

      Security is never absolute, meaning the value of the thing secured has to be modified by the strength of the security.

      It is therefore right and necessary to treat security as an accounting object. If capitalism is anything, it’s what goes into calculating the bottom line.

      • Koanic says:

        > Capitalism includes military strength.

        No it doesn’t. Military strength is affected by economic strength, as I already said. Markets and war are different feedback systems. One runs on gold and the other blood. Genetics is a third feedback mechanism distinct from both that runs on sex. The fact that all three interact does not make them equivalent.

        The purpose of feedback systems is to improve the thermodynamic efficiency of life, as it climbs the Kardashev scale.

        You are talking about your pet theories, and I am not talking about your pet theories. I find no cogent objection to implementing my proposed societal design.

        • Koanic says:

          Sometimes war is started or settled for gold. Sometimes by exchange of brides. Sometimes market transactions are paid in sex. Sometimes sex is bought with gold. Nevertheless the three feedback systems are distinct. The exception is not the rule. The market cannot replace the battlefield, nor the battlefield the bedroom. A malfunction in any of the three feedback systems is enough to doom a state. A stable societal design must therefore balance all three.

        • John Sullivan says:

          Alrenous has never said a single insightful thing in his life and now you’re making him look useful with bizarre Kardashian pink-sff. For shame. He obviously typoed capitalism induces military strength.

          • Koanic says:

            I keep an open mind about what sort of explanatory elaboration will prove helpful to an audience. It is easy to refactor text, but hard to generate it ex nihilo.

          • pdimov says:

            >He obviously typoed capitalism induces military strength.

            No, he didn’t. He clearly explained that in his view, military strength is a necessary component of economic strength, because unsecured wealth has no value.

          • Alrenous says:

            Your envy is delicious. Such a good voter!

            • shaman says:

              Being a thin-skinned faggot is not an excuse to start fights with your intellectual superiors. It is as obvious as the snotty nose on your face that you were relentlessly bullied in real life, so now you misinterpret every little disagreement or reservation as horrendous malice. You are deeply offended about being low-status in this community, because it vividly recalls to your mind your low-status in other social settings.

              Also, you desperately need to latch on to your self-conception as a paragon of intelligence, because otherwise the cognitive dissonance resulting from your absolutely unjustified narcissism would become too heavy for you to contend with. The realization that, in addition to being a social misfit, ugly as fuck, and physically frail, you are also intellectually worthless, is totally devastating to your ego.

              Yes, faggot, by your reactions, it is obvious that you are both a physically weak man and an ugly man – I bet people avoid interacting with you in real life, literally standing up and leaving when you arrive, because you are repulsive on all levels.

  47. Vxxc says:

    BTW here’s the actual US military in the eyes of the French.

    The French on US soldiers in Afghanistan.

    And they are impressive warriors! We have not come across bad ones, as strange as it may seem to you when you know how critical French people can be. Even if some of them are a bit on the heavy side, all of them provide us everyday with lessons in infantry know-how. Beyond the wearing of a combat kit that never seems to discomfort them (helmet strap, helmet, combat goggles, rifles etc.) the long hours of watch at the outpost never seem to annoy them in the slightest. On the one square meter wooden tower above the perimeter wall, they stand the five consecutive hours in full battle rattle and night vision goggles on top, their sight unmoving in the directions of likely danger. No distractions, no pauses, they are like statues nights and days. At night, all movements are performed in the dark – only a handful of subdued red lights indicate the occasional presence of a soldier on the move. Same with the vehicles whose lights are covered – everything happens in pitch dark even filling the fuel tanks with the Japy pump. Here we discover America as it is often depicted: their values are taken to their paroxysm, often amplified by promiscuity and the loneliness of this outpost in the middle of that Afghan valley.

    And combat? If you have seen Rambo you have seen it all – always coming to the rescue when one of our teams gets in trouble, and always in the shortest delay. That is one of their tricks: they switch from T-shirt and sandals to combat ready in three minutes. Arriving in contact with the enemy, the way they fight is simple and disconcerting: they just charge! They disembark and assault in stride, they bomb first and ask questions later – which cuts any pussyfooting short. Honor, motherland – everything here reminds of that: the American flag floating in the wind above the outpost, just like the one on the post parcels. Even if recruits often originate from the hearth of American cities and gang territory, no one here has any goal other than to hold high and proud of the star spangled banner. Each man knows he can count on the support of a whole people who provides them through the mail all that an American could miss in such a remote front-line location: books, chewing gums, razorblades, Gatorade, toothpaste etc. In such a way that every man is aware of how much the American people backs him in his difficult mission.

    And that is the first shock to our preconceptions: the American soldier is no individualist. The team, the group, the combat team are the focus of all his attention.

  48. vxxc says:

    Notice attack is the default.

    Notice more: the radical individualist does not exist.
    Just the group.

    The group is all.

    • Friendly Fred says:

      Isn’t everyone knowing everyone else by name and various identifying quirks an essential part of successful group-ness? Or is that just in movies and war-comics?

      Victor Davis Hanson in CULTURE AND CARNAGE emphasized individuality on the one hand and group-discipline on the other hand as the keys to Western lethality but didn’t really put them together.

      Greg Cochran kind of mocks the Hanson view (if I remember correctly) because it doesn’t seem to take account of Mongols and Comanches and early Indo-Europeans … Maybe Cochran’s idea is that technology, not Values, is what matters … I’m glad Cochran’s probably not reading this … very intimidating guy … you’re supposed to guess what he’s thinking and if you can’t then you’re stupid.

      • vxxc says:

        At Fred: yes but the group and the nation reflexively and before all else isn’t normal groupness. Moreover it shows that at least one group isn’t (and can’t) embrace radical autonomy. It is done so it can be done.

        Also I was administering a corrective to the view were a progressive freak circus that had gained too much currency.
        Yes the inane regs (laws) are on the books.
        Yes we must attend comrade political commissar’s inane mandatory briefings. (Comrades are DOD civilians or political hacks BTW).
        Yes we must silently endure indoctrination.
        > then again so did the Soviets and still won.

        Yes any General we get that’s a warrior gets the boot.

        But we’re the men the French see.
        Not the ones the Progs can’t make us.

        They failed to make Black people white.
        They failed with us too.

  49. Chad Bullington says:

    Blathering geek, lunch-money leak – a serial thread derailer.
    Flabby autist, slash marks on wrists – so where is your inhaler?
    In lockers stuffed, everyone’s laughed – spilled your own spaghetti.
    Spits on your plate, now’s too late – your armpits growing sweaty.
    Adrenaline rushed, window-face blushed – vengeful are your fancies.
    Jeers titanic, suffering panic – soiled your wedgied panties.
    Crowd’s amused, since you’re abused – it’s clear that you’re unnerved.
    With texts so lame, who can you blame? – the swirlie’s well-deserved!
    To nuance blind, just can’t unwind – I’m triggering your asthma.
    Can’t stand such fight, lacking sunlight? – testosteronic plasma?
    Twisted third nipples, bloodline of cripples – allergies’ now provoked.
    You cannot breathe, I’ve made you seethe – your trachea is choked.
    Picked on asthmatic, life’s traumatic – the memories are haunting.
    An ugly writer, and pillow biter – your day must be so daunting.
    We made you mad, oh no too bad – no girl showed you her snatch.
    At least you learned: respect is earned – let’s see what plots you hatch.

    • Friendly Fred says:

      “He aimed and hurled and his spear’s long shadow flew/ and hit Aretus square in the balanced round shield –/ no blocking the shaft, the bronze rammed through,/ piercing his belt and gouging down his belly./ As a burly farmhand wielding a whetted ax,/ chopping a field-ranging bull behind the horns,/ hacks through its whole hump and the beast heaves up/ then topples forward — so Aretus reared, heaving up/ then toppled down on his back. The slashing spear/ shuddered tense in his guts and the man was gone. (ILIAD XVII 589-598, trans. Fagles)

      • Vxxc says:

        Thank you Fred.

        • The Cominator says:

          Alrenous should not be treated like communist revolutionary, kook or glos.

          Not an enemy leftist and not according to anything I’ve seen a complete kook, what brought all this on?

          • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

            When a poster whose contributions are minimal at best attacks other posters whose contributions are greater than his, he gets smacked.

            In this case, His Flabbiness, Alspergus the Sniffer of Farts, a person who usually posts long-winded walls of unreadable and/or non sequitur text, and can never stay on topic for more than 2 consecutive posts, decided to get in Not Tom’s face for absolutely no reason. So he was reminded by the community that he’s worthless, and told by Jim that further demonstrations of his worthlessness will be deleted.

            • Koanic says:

              Jim just applied a tourniquet to the… overreaction.

            • Alrenous says:

              Not Tom is incapable of defending himself, and needs your help.

              If you say so, I guess.

              • shaman says:

                He obviously does not need my help.

                I have an extremely high regard for superb intelligence. When I see people who are truly smart, I am awed and humbled. Hyper-competent brains are direly in demand; these are the precious shining diamonds that make this earth inhabitable to civilized man.

                Truth be told, my approach is the diametrical opposite of VD’s “typical gamma.” In the presence of my intellectual superiors, I keep my f**king mouth shut, lest I say something totally retarded and invoke their perfectly-justified wrath. It is people whom I perceive as my intellectual inferiors that I mercilessly bully. (If I misjudge someone’s intelligence, assuming that he is dumber than he actually is, the bullycide gradually subsides) As far as I’m concerned, I never punch up; I exclusively punch down. I’m never driven by envy, and in fact, I’m not sure I’ve ever experienced the feeling of envy. I do, however, derive immense sadistic delight in seeing snobbish people — those cretins who believe themselves to be better than they actually are, i.e., narcissists — curb stomped.

                “Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.”

                • Alrenous says:

                  Awfully defensive there, John Sullivan. Feeling insecure?

                • shaman says:

                  Deliberate self-revelation is often misperceived as defensiveness by natural geldings. No doubt, if you were to speak of yourself, you’d do so exclusively for PR purposes, so it’s completely unimaginable and unfathomable to you that someone may be absolutely sincere about his true motivations, regardless of how that sincerity may come across.

                  John Sullivan is a peppermint alt. At least get your paranoia in order, faggot.

                • Alrenous says:

                  A peppermint alt!
                  My mistake. I had figured that the guy I accused of envy would be the one who felt the need to defend against the charge of envy.

                  Spontaneous self revelation you say? Of course. Must have been a coincidence.

                • shaman says:

                  Geldings and emotional weaklings like you only self-reveal to shield against criticism. The idea that it’s not lack of confidence, but its opposite (perfect, unassailable confidence), that may drive someone to self-reveal, is neurologically unprocessable to you. As for the intention behind it: it is to clarify the context of this particular roasting and to anchor it in my broader modus operandi, since some people have evidently lost track of it all. I want my actions to be understandable.

                  Crybabies like you always project, so I expect you to continue the “you’re defensive” line, even though it’s as obvious as the bespectacled nose on your face that I have more testosterone in my pinky than you have in your entire body, and corresponding mental fortitude too.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Sorry, which of us is supposed to be mad again? I’m getting confused.

                • shaman says:

                  >if I accuse all my detractors of feeling butthurt, they won’t notice that I myself exhibit PTSD-levels of triggeredness

                • Alrenous says:

                  Your incontinence is getting better. Good work. The defensiveness is finally gone too. It can learn! Unfortunately, your poor character and projection remains.

                  I bet you can’t not reply though. I’m getting pretty bored, myself. Honestly starting to worry about Jim deleting these for repeating myself, and I’d be hard-pressed to argue with the decision. I’m kind of curious about how much logorrhea I can provoke. Ten comments? Twenty? Not curious enough, though.

                • jim says:

                  These insults are poorly done and insufficiently entertaining, and the only reason I am not censoring you is that everyone is piling on you. Improve your repartee or shut up.

                  I am about to censor you for keeping a personal attack thread going with crappy insults.

                • shaman says:

                  The thing about womanish individuals (of both sexes) is that, being so easily offended, they assume that others must also react in the same way. Thus, they don’t notice how ineffectual their insults are, because in their own minds, they fantasize that they must be “sick burns.” A hallmark of effeminacy, or rather, a feminine variant of emotional dysfunction.

                  Anyway, hopefully the point about the ugliness of non sequitur WOTs got through. Who knows.

                • Alrenous says:

                  You’re still here?

                • shaman says:

                  Yes, I’m still here to remind you that your interlocutor’s output is the equivalent of Salvador Dali painting his “Celestial Ride” (1957), while your output is the equivalent of giving oneself a hot-and-heavy phosphate enema, expelling the wonderful brown liquid on canvas, and then running around saying “Look everyone, look what I did! Am I not amazing? Am I not awesome?”

                  Your walls of text are verbal diarrhea. You should have your asshole sewed shut.

              • Koanic says:

                “I could just lie, and it would work”

                “If you believe someone has insulted or attacked you, except in extraordinarily clear situations (e.g. you are already bleeding) it behooves you to confirm that it was on purpose.”

                – Alrenous

                Had he turned the cheek at the first accidental slap, there would’ve been no need to lie now.

                • Alrenous says:

                  I do enjoy being held to asymmetric standards.

                  Not Tom can’t be expected to turn the other cheek, but I can? Okay, if you say so. I won’t argue with you. I am curious about why you would think so, though…?

                • jim says:

                  This presupposes that the standards are asymmetric, without attempting to argue the case.

                  I don’t like, and generally do not allow, this method of debating. You think the standards are asymmetric? Explain.

                  But since you are being bullied, I will cut you some slack.

                • shaman says:

                  You’re not held to asymmetric standards. You are extremely thin-skinned and passive-aggressive about it, responding with needless over-the-top snarkasm to perceived slights and to valid criticism (which, of course, you refuse to acknowledge) alike. Indeed, you always double down on your flaws instead of seeking to correct them.

                  Nobody here has aggressed against you till a few days ago; no, not even peppermint, whose criticism of your WOTs was exactly right, and echoed by many others. I agressed against you because you have a bad attitude, aka you’re playing a very special snowflake when really you’re a loser and a nobody.

                  And you will continue being treated like a loser and a nobody until you grasp that peppermint’s criticism of your WOTs was valid.

                • Koanic says:

                  I’m not holding you to any standard. It’s a casual observation.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Do you really think so, Koanic?

                • shaman says:

                  Case-in-point is your autistic flattery campaign.

                  Would be more productive if you changed your behavior instead, but that’s probably not within the range of your inbuilt functions, beep boop boop.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  When the raping is finally done, please don’t leave. Koanic is a fool, and he will learn more from being silent. Peppermint was not, and I do think we miss out because of his absence. True, you are prone to excessive discursive posts, but so am I. Your walls of text are frustrating, but not inscrutable. I disagree with you most of the time. Hell, I think you are full of shit. But, dass gudd shit my man. Maybe tone down the elitism. Maybe scale back (slightly) the contrariness. But don’t stop, dude.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Thanks to you as well, Frederick. I sincerely appreciate it. Again, surprised, so it’s good you said so.

                  Fair warning, the elitism is probably going to stay. I’m an asshole, after all. Maybe try some specific pointers? Not sure it’s worth the effort, but (if you’re not peppermint) I will always read them at least.

                  I try not to find fault with someone who thinks I’m full of shit. Jim calls me nuts all the time. Only with saying so in ways that are, themselves, full of shit. Not patient, and no plans to start.

                  Koanic, inspired by shaman, already convinced me to rite lezz bahd. And Jim sort of insisted. A little.

                • Koanic says:

                  Alrenous> Do you really think so, Koanic?

                  It is difficult for a liar to take anyone’s words at face value.

                • Alspergous says:

                  Koanic, I shall presume that’s a yes.

                  As you endorsed upthread, let’s talk implications.

                  You start with a personal attack, calling me a liar, thus setting the tone. (And repeated it here, unless anyone thinks it’s a mistake.) This comment is about attacking me personally. This sets up a presumption of Not Tom as Us and me as Them. Especially as this is unnecessary to the comment as a whole. I will demonstrate an edit if you can’t see it.

                  This is reinforced when the next batch of criticism is levelled at only me. If Alspergous had…? Well, possibly, yes. But likewise, had Not Tom accepted that he might have misunderstood something, and asked for clarification, then there would have been no issue.

                  Thus, implying that Not Tom had no fault. The focus of attention is on me, and thus only my actions are implied to be relevant.

                  However, we both did the same thing. When you imply that we should forgive Us, you imply that we can’t reasonably hold Us to the same standards as Them. As if Them is some kind of superior being.

                  In other words, progressivism. He dindu nuthin, he a good boi. “Violence erupted in the square after the CEO’s statement” => “after the CEO said that, violence was inevitable; any square would have erupted in violence after those comments”. You’ve stripped Not Tom of agency; if you don’t, the personal attack doesn’t work.

                  Anyway you’re repeating something you already said.

                  Then Alrenous misattributed that misreading to bullying and started playing wizard. Which went poorly

                  Implying that if I had not misattributed it, then events would have been fine.

                  Yet I’m the one which is being threatened with deletion by Jim. *thinky* (I don’t really need to think very hard about it.)

                  In any case, try to rise such that you don’t have to have your communication explained to you by an autistic jagoff. You’ll make baby Jesus cry.

                  Unless it’s not me that’s the liar, but you. That’s a possibility.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Let’s be real here, Al. I followed a basic tit-for-two-stats strategy with you. I think that if you take a deep breath and review the original thread honestly, you’ll see that to be the case. Whereas you’re still going on about me, in sub-threads where I never even poked my nose. If anyone is demonstrating an asymmetric standard right now, it’s you.

                  Have you heard of de-escalation? Bared fangs mean “back off”. Simple.

                • Alrenous says:

                  I stand by my comments.

                  You attribute less intelligence to your enemies than they in fact have. Yet they are in charge, and you are not. I know what the long term consequences will be. Jim knows what the long term consequences will be. You’d have to be a complete moron to think lending to no hablo anglais is genuinely a good idea.
                  If they’re so dumb, then seize their stuff. No need to wait for Trump to do it. E.g. bet against the housing investments and take literally billions in profits.

                  Your level of insight is low. You don’t know the implications of things you yourself say. Indeed you deny that they have implications. I see this a lot; good observation combined with inability to analyze.

                  If you don’t like these conclusions, that’s on you. Feels don’t change the facts.

                  You are also using a double standard. Bared fangs mean back off? Err, then you should have backed off, since the consensus is I defect first…? The ingroup can do no wrong. I dindu nuffing, I a gud boi.

                  I already admitted my conduct was not ideal. But apparently that’s not good enough for you. You demand I admit sole fault and beg forgiveness. I therefore retract my statement. My conduct obviously had no bearing on the outcome. As it shouldn’t have, being mild.

                  Anyway this will continue to be unproductive and frankly tedious. I’m tired of having to defend myself against constant tendentious and ignorant ‘attacks’ which ought to be prima facie deeply embarrassing to the person who uttered them.

                  Your alliance with an idiot or a liar shouldn’t be a good look, but since apparently the consensus is that it is, and I’m now in fact banned from explaining to the contrary, congratulations on your win, I guess.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Notably the immediately above refers to logical implications, whereas the one to Koanic refers to social implications. I forgot context isn’t a good enough discriminator.

                • Koanic says:

                  > I’m now in fact banned from explaining to the contrary

                  Maybe you should write a blog post about it.

                • Alspergous says:

                  Koanic therefore concedes he was using a double standard, but in bad faith, trying to distract from the concession.

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for being a wall of text containing insults with poor entertainment value that miss the mark.

                • A. NEETler says:

                  I could have annihilated all the spergs in the world, but I left some of them alive so you will know why I was killing them.

                • Koanic says:

                  The extraneous Alrrheanus.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Dude, you’ve got issues.

                  Your level of insight is low.

                  [citation needed]

                  Bared fangs mean back off? Err, then you should have backed off, since the consensus is I defect first…?

                  You didn’t bare fangs, you repeatedly poked and prodded.

                  You demand I admit sole fault and beg forgiveness.


                  I’m tired of having to defend myself against constant tendentious and ignorant ‘attacks


                  Your alliance with an idiot or a liar


                  You attribute less intelligence to your enemies than they in fact have.

                  Misrepresentation. I distinguish between individual rationality and emergent behavior. The Cathedral exhibits a kind of collective intelligence, much like a sufficiently large artificial neural network, but that is primarily a function of the number of nodes and their interconnectedness, not their individual characteristics.

                  At what stage did the “anti-left” start winning serious tactical victories? I would point to the Tea Party (not their boomercon ideology, but the networks they created), the subsequent explosion of social media, the chans, and the GamerGate organization model. That gave the Cathedral’s enemies the ability to pool their intelligence and create highly successful and viral counter-memes. It should be clear why the Cathedral is so hell-bent on destroying it, even if it means destroying its own revenue streams and/or risking antitrust action in the process.

                • Alrenous says:

                  As you may have noticed, this ‘moderation’ things just means I can troll you personally, since you still have to read my comments, but now I don’t actually have to be moderate at all. I can call you anything I want, with no damage to my credibility with anyone else. Unless you let my comment through moderation…

                  Well, until I get banned, which goddamn banning me and not CR would be funny. You should do it, not a joke.

                • jim says:

                  I have not banned CR. Rather, when he says the same thing he has said a dozen times before, I say “deleted for all the same reasons as the same comment was previously deleted. If he continues with slight variations on the same comment, I stop saying it and then go to silent deletion.”

                  You are already on silent deletion.

                  Any time he posts a genuinely new comment, it is allowed, or else if rejected, the rejection is explained.

                  And if you post a genuinely new comment, it will be allowed, or else if rejected, the rejection will be explained.

                  But you are just telling people they have not proven their case. You said that already. And by saying it, you prove their case.

                • shaman says:

                  Alspergus accusing Not Tom of lacking insight is like if a drooling feces-flinging Down Syndrome’d abomination (one of nature’s remarkably misshapen and grotesque excretions) projectile-vomited the following message in Salvador Dali’s direction:

                  “Your paintings don’t have style – you need to paint with your own poop, like I do.”

                  One need not even personally be a great fan of Surrealism to realize that telling Dali “You don’t have style” is a blatantly false accusation, a barefaced complete lie. And so it is in this case.

                  Now it’s understood why Alspergus calls himself the Satan of Cyberspace: he clearly takes after his dad, “the man downstairs,” who has gained quite the notoriety for being the father of lies.

                • pdimov says:

                  “Your level of insight is low. You don’t know the implications of things you yourself say. Indeed you deny that they have implications.”

                  Show, don’t tell. Everyone can learn to say “your level of insight is low” – this is easy to emulate and hence doesn’t demonstrate a superior understanding.

                  Demonstrate the superior understanding in a way that’s impossible to fake.

                • jim says:

                  I called you out on arguing by implication. presupposing consensus on matters violently disputed. You continue to do so, while denying that you are doing so. I will not continue to call you out on arguing by implication, instead I will simply silently delete.

                • Koanic says:

                  Alas, we have all fallen to his devious machinations.

                  What an inexplicable and hitherto-undescribed behavior pattern.

                  He now joins the silent majority.

                • alf says:

                  I am especially entertained by how eagerly Koanic has joined the attack on Alrenous.

                • Koanic says:

                  Alrenous is smart enough to make it interesting.

                • calov says:

                  None of this drama is remotely interesting unless ypu like watching Hallmark movies or Sex in the City.

          • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

            It is correct that the Flappy One should not be treated like outright hostile individuals, but disciplining misbehaving commenters is an unalloyed good. Jim is a busy man and he has no time to deal with all the people who are constantly shitting up his threads with, as he put it, “no fun-to-read walls of text,” so it’s a good and pro-social thing when the community volunteers to help with that.

            Besides, who doesn’t enjoy seeing the internet equivalent of traumatized teenage snot-lords getting stuffed in the toilet once more?

            • Alrenous says:

              constantly shitting up his threads with, as he put it, “no fun-to-read walls of text,”

              And I would have got away with it too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids.

              • shaman says:

                Peppermint was antagonized and made into a bete noire for strictly ideological reasons – as far as his comments history goes, he is sometimes interesting, and the fact that he has his own loyal fandom shows that he isn’t totally worthless. As long as he adheres to Reaction 101 on the WQ in all its implications (assuming he does), he will be fine.

                You, in contrast, are not antagonized for ideological reasons, since you don’t really provide any ideas that people can point to. In your case, it’s the combination of unreadable texts and incessant navel gazing that are irritating. People like you really do deserve to experience prolonged and intense physical and psychological violence.

                Grand Inquisitor Jim wrote:

                I was one of the guys stuffing nerds into toilets

                Archbishop Alf wrote:

                Bullying is nature’s way of telling you to man the fuck up. I am grateful for my bullies, who were a lot more honest with me than any adult telling me there it was unfair that I was being bullied, while truthfully it was completely fair that I was being bullied.

                Aidan MacLear wrote:

                That’s why bullying works. Life itself is low-level stress and conflict. When kids fight, they learn to fight back.

                You see, currently you are totally useless – you waste space on the blog with your irrelevant gibberish spam. By proudly abusing you, I am forcing you to either become a better poster, or ragequit. This is not a new tactic. Instead of crying like the little bitch you obviously are, consider the merits of being told exactly what’s wrong with you.

          • Q Lazzarus Anon says:

            I’d also note that Flap-boy’s destruction has provided me with an excellent opportunity to:

            1. Summarize my thinking about “which comments are valuable?” as I did below. It’s obvious that different people provide different values, and my consensus-entertainment-information-insight model looks like a pretty good categorization of the different types of values. (Possibly, the model is lacking some categories, so it can be elaborated on) These are rather preliminary thoughts, but still it’s a handy model as it is.

            2. Present the following position: the comment section — and really, I mean, every community of writers — can tolerate some degree of ideological variance and even contrarianism; no need to absolutely agree 100% about all subjects. Whereas, what we should emphatically not be subjected to is ugly writing: writing that is offensive not to our opinions, but to our visuo-linguistic aesthetics. In his “Ode on a Grecian Urn,” John Keats told us:

            “Beauty is truth, truth beauty, — that is all
            Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know.”

            To dispute the underlying sentiment behind that is to prove oneself unworthy of civilization.

            • Calov says:

              Beauty, of pity, foulness only is
              A sign of rigour: so I say to thee,
              To wicked spirits are horrid shapes assigned,
              This beauteous form assures a piteous mind.

          • pdimov says:

            None of them should have been treated the way they were.

            The people who came up with the concept of charitable reading weren’t stupid.

            • Alrenous says:

              I personally would have banned CR for rank nonsense almost immediately. I don’t see any point in discussing nonsense, and nothing CR has done since gives me any reason to think I would have been mistaken.

              Similarly, I am in fact finding shaman’s behaviour to be useful. I have some further experiments, and he has volunteered to be my subject.

              But yes, a lot more charitable reading is called for. As Koanic is clumsily noting, this hardly excludes me.

              Thanks for your support. As with Cominator, it is a surprise, but, as they say, a welcome one. Don’t worry though, I won’t read too much into it.

          • jim says:

            Quite so, I don’t know what brought this on, but I am not going to censor this, except for boredom, repetition, and lack of entertainment value.

        • Friendly Fred says:

          I thought that Mr. K was still the target! I’m not bright enough to keep track of who’s for what in any case.

  50. Q Lazzarus Anon says:

    There are 4 variables that determine whether or not someone is a “good poster” within a given internet community.

    1. Consensus value.
    2. Entertainment value.
    3. Information value.
    4. Insight value.

    The first category is perhaps the least important, but still worth mentioning. Consensus value is provided by doing nothing more than agreeing with what the host, and/or the majority of participants, believe. As Jim says, the power of a priesthood lies in speaking with a single determined voice, and so by simply reinforcing the consensus, one helps the priesthood in speaking with a single determined voice. It’s the formation and maintenance of asabiyyah (or egregore), and the constant affirmation of distinct shibboleths, that make an internet sub-culture into a “community.”

    The second category needs no elaborate explanations. Be interesting and funny and impressive, don’t be uninteresting and unfunny and unimpressive. Also, don’t ruin things with a bad attitude.

    The third category applies to the majority of posters: adding knowledge to the collective brainstorm. E.g., links, citations, reports, data, factoids, and facts, and as well, some basic narration of and argumentation about these. On this blog, for instance, The Cominator best exemplifies this type of value generation: he brings up relevant information about the topics discussed, and open-mindedly discusses the various aspects of said information. Our debates should have substance, and richer knowledge makes for heavier substance. As long as the information is actually relevant, not intended to dazzle and gaslight the reader, that’s all good. Let ignorance perish.

    The fourth category, insight value, is akin to in-depth analysis: providing a lucid understanding of a certain topic in a way that’s enlightening and compelling, making a “strong case” for an idea or conception. For instance, I would like to believe that the heuristics which I’ve delineated right here are insightful, in the sense that you can now make a better judgement of who’s contributing to the community and in what way – and who doesn’t contribute. The idea is that you can grok, make deep sense of, the subject under discussion. To be insightful, you need to accumulate enough knowledge, conduct (at least) basic analysis of that knowledge, formulate, think through, and flesh out the conclusions which derive from that analysis, and — just as importantly — convey your conclusions in a manner that would actually allow others to grasp them.

    If you want to do advocacy on your own behalf, or on someone else’s behalf, keep all that in mind – might be useful.