The NPC plague

For a long time I have been urging the left to engage in dialogue with us. I complain that they will neither listen to us nor speak to us, and that this will end in war, and mass murder.

Well, suddenly they have started to talk at us, with leftist NPCs showing up on reactionary blogs and lecturing right wingers on twitter and facebook. Listening, not so much. Their stuff tends to be robotic and spammy. Attempting to interact with them is like talking to an NPC (Non Player Character) in a video game. To some extent they actually are NPCs – we are seeing stuff that looks as if generated by Google’s AI, and that AI programmed by someone who has no understanding of, nor interest in, the ideas of the people he is supposedly addressing. Looks very like a hasty makeover of a similar operation and similar software directed against Muslims, with the major change in the software being a global search for Mohammed, and a global replace with Moldbug or Heartiste.

To some extent it seems to be actual humans who are mechanically following a script written for them by someone else, and who are not allowed to deviate from the script, which sooner or later results in them being endlessly repetitious, somewhat resembling a non player character in a video game, but more resembling one of those highly unhelpful telephone help systems, where one is talking to an actual human, but if your problem is not one of the very limited set of problems covered by the script that that human is required to follow, you are sol, and find yourself trapped in the same script over and over.

It is an improvement, a genuine attempt to get off the path leading to civil war. Not really an adequate attempt, since to the extent that it is actual humans, those humans are not permitted to show comprehension of the ideas that they are attempting to rebut, and crimestop genuinely prevents them from comprehending the ideas that they are attempting to rebut. In place of dialog being totally forbidden, we are getting the superficial appearance of dialog, but so severely supervised and tightly controlled that it is not genuine dialog.

They make their preprogrammed argument, you make the obvious and well known counterargument, which is not covered by the script, even though it was first made one hundred and seventy years ago, and they repeat their original preprogrammed argument, claiming to observe and to have experienced the reality that progressives are trying to wish into existence.

240 Responses to “The NPC plague”

  1. The Cominator says:

    I think to the extent that they are not bots (and we had a bot here with his “boom its over for Blumpf” script) they are here to shill and consensus crack. The NPC plague extends beyond the political… there is something (even for an unironic sperg like me) “off” about most of the younger millenials. They really do seem to lack souls…

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      To the extent that the soul is best understood as an expression of the brain, it’s quite possible that the decades of dysgenics the West has been experiencing have weakened or diluted the European soul.

      You made a convert today to your eugenics agenda, Cominator. It’s a harsh remedy but since we’re suffering from a harsh disease, needs must.

      • peppermint says:

        the problem is kids being abused by the government schools

        • The Cominator says:

          ABSOLUTELY! But I came out badly traumatised but with some semblance of a dark twisted paranoid soul intact. I guess because I never really trusted them.

          They REALLY did a number on the younger millenials though.

        • Alrenous says:

          Ah yes, the industrial child-torture facilities.

          My god I agree with peppermint about something. I feel dirty.

    • BC says:

      >They really do seem to lack souls…

      I once explained to leftists on reddit how my brother couldn’t get health care because he made too money to get Medicaid, but not enough to afford the most basic Obamacare plan, so he paid the penalty every year. After I’d convinced them that my story was true, they told me my brother is a piece of shit and should die for not making enough. They hated him because he was living proof Obamacare was doing harm instead of the good they insisted it does.

      Leftist are not human. They should be treated accordingly.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        It’s true. A leftist will embrace its atavistic form when needed: “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” is absolutely part of their arsenal when cornered.

        • peppermint says:

          what the leftist actually said was much closer to your parody of eugenics than your parody of economics, and, since you’re also a ghoul, it amuses me that you don’t know that

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            My parody of eugenics is that I’m against people preventing white people from reproducing.

            I’m perfectly happy to concede I was wrong. A more nuanced take on what Cominator’s proposing is that eugenics can roll back some of the dysgenics that’s taken place in the past 150-odd years.
            It’s still deeply unpleasant, but it’s unfortunately very likely necessary.

            I would still favour using incentives rather than coercion wherever remotely possible.

            • The Cominator says:

              CR if we are serious about eugenics at least 15-20% of white people will have to be prevented from reproducing.

              Our incompetent elite before they went full biolenist tried to “iincentivize” eugenics by empowering women but of course that has been a horrific dysgenic failure where only the stupid and criminal reproduce (and some religious fanatics).

              A restored state would take a more direct solution and make it compulsory.

              • BC says:

                >A restored state would take a more direct solution and make it compulsory.

                European history provides a very good Eugenics program: Women are kept in their father’s house and remain chaste while men can only marry once they own their own house. It’s about a million times more effective at motivating men to work hard and selecting only the successful for reproduction.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Women just don’t remain chaste much longer then 17 unless they are totally frigid or subjected to Saudi level restrictions which whites just aren’t willing to impose (this is one of my few real disagreements with Jim). Europeans married them early and men in the countryside had homes early.

                  The current level of feral women and womenless men also means this kind of solution can’t be imposed immediately. Women need to be married off after a certain age period or be subject to claim by any single honest man who will take them. None of this ultra late virgin marriage shit (which in Europe was ONLY for high nobility where their father could keep multiple guards with them at all times, the rest were married off or ended up as not virgins).

                  Yes I know eugenics was at one time enthusiastically supported by progressives but its one thing they weren’t wrong about.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That’s the stable state we’re aiming for BC.

                  The problem is, things are insurmountably messed up right now and Cominator’s solution has the virtues of being both effective and sufficiently fast.

                  A compromise would be to make the sterilisations ‘voluntary’ but about as voluntary as anything is under the financial incentives system when housing, etc. are seen as tradeable goods. Basically create very strong financial incentives that promote the nuclear family and make the ‘r-type’ family (if you will) nigh-on impossible to do.

                  (Basically the opposite of what we have at the moment.)

                • peppermint says:

                  > Women just don’t remain chaste much longer then 17

                  of course they don’t, 17-21 is when they’re ready, they can absolutely be convinced to remain chaste during 17-21 if they are realistically promised marriage to a hotter guy if they do than if they don’t

                • jim says:

                  Possibly, but I am not seeing evidence for this.

                  Late virgin marriage did not survive the removal of extremely drastic coercive controls.

                • peppermint says:

                  by definition, eugenics only affects adults after 20 years

                  turning undead solves our problems completely and immediately

                • calov says:

                  The problem for us is that the old European model of marriage came into being through a combination of unironic religious belief and custom that had developed organically to the point that it was internalized, and besides this was socially enforced.

                  Even with both of those pillars, there were still plenty of babies conceived prior to wedlock and bastards, even if it wasn’t the norm like it is now.

                  But you need both of those pillars. Even among devout Christians who have the first pillar, the second is lacking, so it is exceedingly rare, even in the most conservative churches, to have a couple come to the clergyman to be married where both of the betrothed are virgins.

                  It’s hard to imagine a way to get this cat back into the bag without either forming alternate societies, like the Amish and Orthodox Jews, or else imposing it on the populace, the state providing strictures and penalties for violations of the sexual morality taught by the church.

              • info says:

                ””A restored state would take a more direct solution and make it compulsory.”

                Allow natural selection to come back like no more saving morons. Give the mediocre nothing.

                Nature does natural selection much better than we can comprehend and for free and minimal cost.

                Your solution would be anti-freehold by definition and comes with many more downsides than upsides including blowback.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Allow natural selection to come back like no more saving morons. Give the mediocre nothing.”

                  The problem I have with that is before Trump the job market was broken and it was broken even for honest men with good degrees like engineering.

                  No welfare state socialism rule is a good one IF nobody tries regulatory state socialism or mandates wreckless lending to layabouts and DINDUs.

                  Problem is if someone like CR convinces the king that regulatory state socialism or wreckless lending to DINDUs is a good idea it will inevitably result in unemployment particulary at entry level.

                • info says:

                  ”No welfare state socialism rule is a good one IF nobody tries regulatory state socialism or mandates wreckless lending to layabouts and DINDUs.”

                  If some people do inevitably try regulatory state socialism. Then its best to facilitate a situation that they turn to venezuela very quickly.

                  ”The problem I have with that is before Trump the job market was broken and it was broken even for honest men with good degrees like engineering.”

                  That’s why its best to do it in combination with what Trump is doing to fix the Job Market.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Problem is if someone like CR convinces the king that regulatory state socialism or wreckless lending to DINDUs is a good idea it will inevitably result in unemployment particulary at entry level.”

                  Pure straw man. Nobody ever claimed any of that, as well you know. It’s pathetic playground bullshit and it’s why NRx is completely irrelevant in 2018.

            • peppermint says:

              your parody of eugenics is blaming nature for what is obviously the result of nurture – why? – because threatening to chop the balls off of capable men with rough backgrounds is a great way to stir up some soft power, you ghoul. go to heck.

              • peppermint says:

                Hmm, or maybe the ghoul wants to betray the White working class to steal the women of the White working class for itself or its kind.

      • peppermint says:

        Ghouls have no interest in ideas and the thought that your brother proves Obummer a failure probably never occurred to them. They hate him because it is implied that he could, or might, vote Republican. The working poor are usually invisible to ghouls since ghouls can only see opportunities for soft power, but Republicans are seen and recognized as enemies.

        • Yara says:

          Or, the ghoulite never stopped being eugenicist, and Boasianism was just a cover.

          • peppermint says:

            If it knew what an idea was it wouldn’t contradict itself paragraph to paragraph and post to post.

            Men of above average intelligence and leadership skill like CR was in life become level 2 ghouls like like CR is.

            Is your neurotypical empathy preventing you from ignoring its hello fello humans words?

            Spergs are born and I’m pretty sure ghouls are made, spergs want to act normal and are very suggestible and ghouls want power and are easily led, spergs sperg out about ideas and ghouls are utterly indifferent to ideas.

            Ghouls consistently betray the White working class at every opportunity, then, instead of displaying remorse, explain it was a one off mistake. Remorse, shame, fear, boredom aren’t emotions the icy undead are capable of.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Mea culpa.

              Like everyone here, I’ve changed my mind over the years, which means by definition that I was promoting very wicked ideas at various times.

              I don’t know about your trajectory Peppermint, but I know mine fairly well and I can tell you I did harm as a Marxist, I did harm as a Blairite, I did harm as a Burkean, I did harm as a Libertarian, I did harm as an Anarcho-Capitalist, I did harm as a Paleo-Libertarian, I did harm as a Reactionary and no doubt I’m still doing harm as Alt.Right.

              We need to be ruled, not to rule. Our civilisation does not need 70 million (or 300 million) rulers, it needs ONE.

              One people, one system, one leader.

              • peppermint says:

                I said paragraph to paragraph, not year to year, ghoul. You’ll cause harm “as” anything unless some Grace restores your humanity.

                • peppermint says:

                  (It occurs to me that ghouls are incapable of appreciating levity. Grace, being also a name for a White girl from a good family, is consequently a metonym for a good woman, because if anything can redeem a ghoul, it is the love of a good woman, translated, the need to protect a woman and her children)

            • peppermint says:

              Spergs and ghouls will talk your ear off about how communism is the best idea ever. Spergs will use communism as consistently as possible to propose policies that would help the White workin class. Ghouls will use communism as designed to propose policies to harm the White working class.

              Future inquisitors need to be able to tell ghouls from spergs, especially because ghouls will pretend to be spergs when the inquisitors come for them.

              I realized CR is a ghoul when it didn’t respond the way a sperg would to my comments about its’ demeanor and level of knowledge.

              The icy undead can feel anger and say even stupider things when taunted. Look it this specimen’s comment about never having touched a computer since 2005 when Goatse Gibbon and Hairy Hardon were far and away the best desktop OSes.

              If I was going to repost an irrelevant ESR blog it would be the one about awitching to Ubuntu. The actual cathedral is one vendor, one version, once for eternity, like Android and PoetteringOS, the actual bazaar is the package ecosystem that is being eaten by codes of conduct and broken, changing, agile interfaces.

              • The Cominator says:

                I’m a literal sperg and I’m not exactly pro communist.

                • peppermint says:

                  Many spergs are, though. Spergs are suggestible and that’s what they’re taught in school. The vast majority of commie spergs are earnest and harmless, ghouls are creepy and never harmless. When the inquisitors come for the ghouls, they will pretend to be spergs, so as spergs we need to police our own and make the difference clear.

            • Yara says:

              I like your demon lord/necromancer/ghoul setup but I disagree with your ranking. No way are SJWs lvl 3. They’re lvl 0.5 at best, downwardly mobile gutter trash, pretty much powerless themselves, but get to tell commoners to go fuck themselves on behalf of their bureaucratic masters. Foot soldiers, grunts, etc. Then above the SJWs you have various distinct classes of Creatures from the Deep. Like, you put SJWs one step below Hillary Clinton, but I would be seriously surprised if she has literally ever in her life had even the briefest interaction with one. She probably hasn’t ever even physically seen whatever betentacled creepmonster caste occupies the space a full half-dozen levels above the hopelessly plebeian SJW.

              • The Cominator says:

                I think (in spergish terms) of them more as the armies of hell.

                SJWs are elite rank and file troops which are fanatical and always want to fight. If rightists and centrists aren’t there to attack they will attack other leftists or each other.

                Since unlike everything else in hell’s armies (including hell’s lords) which fights for the cause of hell out of self interest or fear they really believe in it. This makes them particulary despised within the army of hell.

                Hells lords in fact hold a special hatred for them, both out of contempt for their stupidity in truly believing and fear that they will actually kill helllords for insufficient zeal (when every hell lord is motivated by pure self interest).

      • Alrenous says:

        Horror: leftists are not human.

        Existential horror: actually, leftists are very human.

    • Bane Blumpf says:

      And it’s clearly more than just a lack of intelligence. Even some of these people that would be regarded as intelligent by various metrics are still seemingly unable to actually “think”. As Jim says, they just follow a script. I’m not sure if there’s a correlation between intelligence or not but I know intelligent and unintelligent NPCs.

      I think a lot of us have known that these people exist for a while now, It’s all coming to a head now with that “inner monologue” study coming out. But I’m still not convinced either way about the inner monologue.

      Maybe these people following a script spend so long repeating their rubbish to themselves via inner monologue, and then defend it against a strawman counter argument via inner monologue. When confronted with real reasoning which they haven’t rehearsed against they don’t know what to do, and attempt to get back on script by repeating the same scripted arguments.

      What about the average dindu? Do they have an inner monologue?

  2. […] The NPC plague […]

  3. daniel says:

    I thought the whole NPC thing was about some people not having inner speech. An ‘introverted autist vs normals’ sort of thing, not a ‘right vs left’ thing. It’s been discussed on anonymous imageboards for years now.

    • The Cominator says:

      Yes that is the case but have you noticed that nearly all NPCs are also good leftists.

      • Conformist. Which means leftist in a leftist environment, but something different in the Bible Belt etc. I work at a still neutral corporate environment in Europe, so the NPC I pretend to be for survival is an apolitical goody-two-shoes whose only comment at any shit in the news is being sorry for the victims and being slightly upset why humankind can’t just behave better, has some safe boring hobbies, doesn’t comment at all when a coworker got gaymarried and changed his surname and so on. Because that is precisely what all the NPCs around me doing.

        I wonder how many of the NPCs around me in the office are actually thinking people who similarly pretend to be. I have one strong candidate but it is hard to know if he is far right, far left, or just has a bunch of weird original ideas.

    • Roberto says:

      Ultimately it’s about some 5% of people possessing distinct personalities versus the 95% of automatons who never had an original thought their whole lives; obviously there is strong correlation between having a distinct personality and being intelligently creative (an inborn trait), which is why the egalitarian and entropic Left hates the NPC meme.

      It’s also an extreme version of the bugman meme. Small-soulled bugmen are everywhere nowadays, and insofar as their entire lives can be summed up as “work –> consume –> work more –> consume more,” it can legitimately be argued that they are indistinguishable from NPCs. There is something insect-like, or even plant-like, about these “people.” It is never the bugman who achieves Great Things.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        You have the makings of an Anonymous Conservative 2.0 there Roberto!

        Beware the plant people 😛

        My God, I’d love to have the reproductive strategy of a dandelion, wouldn’t you?

      • The Cominator says:

        Most creative personalities tend to be leftists/dreamers personality types. Rightist tend to be logically thinking cynics. Right wingers tend to be left brained.

        But the modern left is so cultlike and bovine that the creative types have no place there either.

      • I am not sure I like the bugman meme. Back when things were good the system was upheld by boring petite-bourgeois folks who had entirely conventional views in everything and were mostly just doing their job. Good, functional social systems are boring and are upheld by boring people. Granted the boring petite-bourgeois is not quite the same as the bugman. But we really don’t need the average man to be all critical thinking and original, that kind of society would quickly descend into leftist chaos. I mean, the root of all evil is the human drive to compete for power, so we have to be grateful for the kind of boring people who don’t. Change the system and they will be just as loyal to the new one.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          That’s too reactionary for this crowd Divvy. They’ll call you a leftist for mentioning ‘petit-bourgois folks’. Apparently John Major was right and we are living in the classless society now. You could be a property speculator with a portfolio worth 10 million bucks or a pizza delivery driver with a hundred grand in student loan debt, but this information is of no predictive power as to what you might tend to do or think lol

          You’re quite right though – the opposite of democracy with the politicisation of everything is basically a society of mostly conformist members going about their business in remarkably uniform fashion.

          It’s also known as happiness, but to the American Revolutionary, it’s an affront to his love of Libertá

          • jim says:

            > You could be a property speculator with a portfolio worth 10 million bucks or a pizza delivery driver with a hundred grand in student loan debt, but this information is of no predictive power as to what you might tend to do or think lol

            You are defending the commie categorization of classes. The reactionary categorization of classes (priest, warrior, merchant, producer) has more predictive power. For example you are arguing the priestly position for priestly reasons, regardless of whether you are a professor or a postgrad with a hundred thousand in college debt, regardless of your position in the priestly hierarchy.

            The argument we are having is not predicted by our position in the commie class categories. It is predicted by our position in the reactionary class categories.

            Lenin himself correctly observed that people’s position in the commie class categorization failed to predict what people do or think – that the commie class categorization was a political weapon, not a useful instrument for prediction – that the working class lacked “working class consciousness” – and proceeded to conclude that they were not going to develop “working class consciousness” either.

            In the recent election, was people’s position in the commie class categorization predictive of how they voted? People voted by race, by religion, and by their reactionary class category.

            • The Cominator says:

              Ie the Trump victory was a victory of Vaisyas-Optimates over Brahmins-Helots-Dalits with Trump chipping into some of the Helot support from the Democrats and getting a higher Vaisya turnout (despite higher Brahmin turnout against him).

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                For some reason I only just saw this.

                The Trump victory was a victory of Helots and Vaisyas by the Moldbuggian class structure.

                Since he predicted that the Helots were always and everywhere bought&paid for by the Brahmin overlords, the model fails.

                Worse, most of the Optimates opposed and continue to oppose Trump.

                If Yarvin was writing in the 1970s, his Optimates might make sense, but in 2018 the Optimates are either themselves Brahmins (Jack Dorsey) or else Vaisyas out of water (Mike Ashley).
                Either way, they’re all part of the Brahmin side, as are ordinary Vaisyas. The way to run a successful small business is to get into bed with the council. The way to run a successful large business is to get government contracts.

                The way to do that is to join the religion.

                The only people who aren’t part of the Cathedral religion are the white working class, who mostly straddle Moldbug’s Helots and Vaisyas, depending on whether they own their own business or are employed by someone else’s. The introduction of ‘self-employment’ and ‘the gig economy’ is the final nail in the coffin of this idiotic model.

                Moldbug was right about many things. Class was not one of them.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  Trump elections confirm the Moldbug class model, falsify the Marxist class model that you are arguing (and that the Democrats have been trying to run on.)

                  Saying otherwise is like a troofer seeing molten steel pour out of the tower – ideology over eyesight. Every coal miner and gun owner who votes Trump falsifies the Marxist class model and confirms the Moldbug class model. Every HR Cat Lady that votes against Trump confirms the Moldbug class model and falsifies the Marxist class model.

                  You are calling upon us to campaign on the Marxist class model.

                  1. We don’t campaign, we plot.
                  2. The Marxist class model is failing the Democrats.
                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  This is simply false. The overwhelming majority of optimates opposed Trump, whether they supported Hillary or not. The behaviour of vaisyas was mixed, with many small business owners supporting Trump but many that benefited from illegals opposing.

                  The Vaisya-Dalit alliance falsifies the model, even if it’s a one-way alliance. (The mere presence of one-way ‘alliances’ falsifies the model.)

                  As to Marxian class descriptions, you’re mixing in other parts of Marx’s crazy ideology when it’s not justified. We don’t have to believe that the international proletariat experiences class solidarity across borders in order to believe that proletarians exist.

                • jim says:

                  Trump is an optimate, the very archetype of optimates. He not only is an optimate, he plays one on television for the masses.

                  Recall the incidents that provoked him to run. Brahmins pissing on him all the way.

                  Where is the optimate opposition to Trump? It exists, but I seldom hear it or see it. Partly because the Brahmins have largely destroyed the Optimate caste, with Trump being one of the few remnants. If it exists, it is silent and ambiguous. You don’t see optimates never-trumping.

                  The Trump election was optimate versus Brahmin. And when Trump does a photo op, apt to surround himself with warriors and vaisyas.

                  It is absolutely clear that the reactionary class division predicts behavior (Brahmins drink Coke Zero in a prius and vote Hillary) and the Marxist class division (evil capitalists and oppressed proletarians in need of guidance by Brahmins, recently supplemented by oppressed single women, oppressed gays, oppressed Muslims and oppressed people of color, also in need of Brahmin supervision and guidance) does not predict behavior, whether in voting, Coke consumption, or tattoos. Trump is an optimate, optimates fund him, Vaisya vote for him. Brahmins, dalits and helots vote against him. Which voting habit, dress styles, and food preferences cut right across your Marxist class categories. Trump voters don’t have tattoos, don’t drink Coke Zero. Brahmins eat at Chipotle, Optimates would not be seen dead at Chipotle. Can you imagine Trump dining at Chipotle?

                  Observed divisions in hair and tattoos, not to mention voting behavior, reflect the reactionary class division, not your Marxist class division.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The only deviation in the pattern from the reactionary class category was that Trump cracked Democrat support among Helots-Dalits. He did better then Republicans normally do among those ambitious of bettering themselves (better then any Republican with blacks since Nixon, and the number has been going up throughout his presidency as things in the ghetto are genuinely improving).

                  Vaisyas overwhelmingly supported Trump, rural people in states which heavily illegal labor voted against him in the primary but voted for him in the general.

                  Optimates by and large DID support Trump. Brahmin’s in silicon valley and the “Super Optimates/Lords of Hell” (Rothschilds, Rockefellers) were against him.

                • jim says:

                  > Optimates by and large DID support Trump. Brahmin’s in silicon valley and the “Super Optimates/Lords of Hell” (Rothschilds, Rockefellers) were against him.

                  Jews are not optimates, never optimates. Always outsiders if Orthodox, or Brahmins if progressives. Reaction 101: Race and religion trumps economic role.

                  Rockefellers were optimates, but descendants of Rockefeller are now Brahmins.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I consider some of the old billionaire families with “Foundations” that support progressive causes (Rothschilds, Rockefellers, DuPonts, Oppenheimers, the Bush family) to be a seperate category.

                  I call them the Lords of Hell. They are NOT Brahmins and yet they are not “normal” optimates.

                • jim says:

                  An optimate operates a successful business. Seeing that Brahmins are higher status than himself, even the HR cat lady, he buys his way into the priesthood by purchasing a church and adjacent shrine funding a foundation. He and his decendants drop all connection with the horribly low status activity of operating a business, and engage solely in foundation related activities. So, next generation no longer optimates, wholly Brahmins.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Foundations can fund almost anything they want to buy and they can run businesses through them but they don’t have to pay taxes.

                  Zuckerberg (who i’ll say is more or less a Brahmin) was pretty blatant about this in putting all of his facebook stock in a foundation that he controls in order to avoid all taxes.

                  I’m not sure what to call them they are IDEOLOGICALLY more aligned with the Brahmins and in fact to some degree control the state church the way the black nobility for a long time controlled the Papacy.

                • jim says:

                  Foundationers are a subcategory, that have both optimate and brahmin characteristics, but on the whole, more brahmin than the brahmins, particularly in the second generation.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim:

                  “Where is the optimate opposition to Trump?”

                  Hashtag Never Trump for starters.
                  His behaviour, it’s just so not conservative.
                  The Kochs presumably didn’t *fire* Jeff Tucker for his book calling Trump literally Hitler.
                  Etc. etc. etc.

                  “the Brahmins have largely destroyed the Optimate caste”

                  Agreed, which is not an argument in favour of the Moldbug class structure model.
                  The Marxian ruling class still functions perfectly: it’s just instead of Moldbug’s Optimates, it’s now largely Brahmin non-Optimate billionaires and Brahmin-allied Optimates.

                  “You don’t see optimates never-trumping.”

                  You ONLY see Optimates never-trumping. There’s no point in a pleb ‘grass roots’ Republican never-trumping. When they do it, it’s just called ‘supporting Rand/Ted’.

                  “when Trump does a photo op, apt to surround himself with warriors and vaisyas.”

                  Agreed, which is one of the downsides to Trump. He relies on millions of loyal Helots who are willing to be beaten and have their cars vandalised for supporting him, but he never prioritises THEIR interests. This alliance will fade if not formalised.

                  White Helots are like chickens in Marion Stamp Dawkins’ experiment: give the choice, ceteris paribus they prefer sawdust on top of the wire floor. Place the food in the cubicle that lacks sawdust and they won’t walk to the one with the sawdust inbetween feeds.

                  “It is absolutely clear that the reactionary class division predicts behavior (Brahmins drink Coke Zero in a prius and vote Hillary)”

                  You’re only defining the Brahmin class, not arguing for the alliance between them and the Helots. They loathe the Helots in the current year.

                  “Marxist class division (evil capitalists and oppressed proletarians in need of guidance by Brahmins, recently supplemented by oppressed single women, oppressed gays, oppressed Muslims and oppressed people of color, also in need of Brahmin supervision and guidance)”

                  Straw Man. I was very very very clear: Marx’s *definitions* are correct, more correct than Moldbugs since Optimates barely exist in the current year whereas billionaires do.
                  The other garbage, particularly the parts about oppressed identity groups, is either irrelevant (in my view) or else unMarxian (in the view of Jason Unruhe).

                  “does not predict behavior, whether in voting, Coke consumption, or tattoos.”

                  Marx’s defined classes do predict tattoos. People who have surplus disposable income get tattoos. Unfortunately for the retard Marx, he didn’t understand economics. People who can’t afford to rent a house have more disposable income than people who can, hence the gap in the tattoo market sitting at the middle of the income brackets.
                  Tattoo customers fall into the following broad categories:

                  – parasitic ‘freaks’ who dropped out of society
                  – the underclass who spend their money because they’re shut out of the larger purchases of life
                  – people who are all in for the government for career or ideological reasons

                  Tattoo non-customers fall into the following broad categories:

                  – aspirant conformists
                  – people who need all their money
                  – people who are against the government for career or ideological reasons

                  The exception is left-leaning socially liberal libertarians, who are socialists in all but economics, weirdly similar to the SWPLs who are also socialists in all but economics and talk about oppression but hate the working poor.

                  “Trump is an optimate”

                  Trump is a billionaire. It’s a stretch to call him an optimate by Moldbug’s definition:

                  “The Optimate caste has to be mentioned, because it was until quite recently the US’s ruling caste. It is not clear, however, that the Optimate value system still exists in any meaningful sense, and if it does it is decaying rapidly, with most young Optimates becoming Brahmins. However, status among any men and women who do still follow the Optimate way is conferred by birth, breeding and personal character, with wealth serving as a prerequisite but not a mark of actual distinction. The Bible of the Optimate caste is, of course, the Social Register.”

                  Not Trump, and Moldbug himself notes that this caste barely exists. That means his model is essentially just a verbose variant of Calhoun’s inverse-Marxist model, namely tax contributors and tax recipients. Moldbug tries to accommodate the non-governmental parts of the Cathedral but fails to account for Google, Facebook, Nike, Santander or Harry’s Razors in his Vaisya caste.

                  He also fails to account for Trumpists and MAGApedes in his Helot caste.

                  “Brahmins, dalits and helots vote against him.”

                  This is simply false.

                  It’s just wrong, it’s incorrect.

                  Trump’s voters include millions of distressed workers from David Stockman’s “Flyover America”.
                  These are almost Helots, but not quite. They’re certainly not Vaisyas or Optimates.

                  They are, however, paradigm cases of the working class, compatible to some extent with Calhoun’s tax contributor class.
                  The most accurate is Marx. I know that’s triggering, but I’m talking only about his DEFINITIONS OF SOCIAL CLASS, nothing else.
                  It absolutely does NOT follow that these white workers have solidarity with illegals, to put it rather mildly, even though the illegals are very much working class – at least the ones who clean Peter Schiff’s swimming pool.

                  “Brahmins eat at Chipotle, Optimates would not be seen dead at Chipotle. Can you imagine Trump dining at Chipotle?”

                  Absent his money, absolutely. So can everybody else. This is one of the reasons the Brahmins ridicule him.
                  Sure Brahmins do indeed eat at Chipotle, but in their hearts they’re gourMETs.

                • jim says:

                  > You ONLY see Optimates never-trumping.

                  Name an optimate that never-trumps. And justify your claim that he is an optimate, not a brahmin.

                  The center of the never trump movement was Alex Castellanos and Eric Erickson who were not optimates by any stretch of the imagination, and were of the priestly class – being media whatsits, thus, Brahmins. Show me a never Trumper, his background is priesthood, not business. He has power, prestige, and status, but not money.

                  Your Marxist account of American classes is surreal, absurd, and contrary to common sense and casual observation, ideology over eyesight.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator:

                  “The Foundations can fund almost anything they want to buy and they can run businesses through them but they don’t have to pay taxes.”

                  These are Optimates of the Cathedral religion.

                  Moldbug’s categories are porous and self-contradictory.
                  Calhoun’s categories fail to capture the Foundations.
                  Marx’s crude money-only definitions describe them perfectly: the capitalist class paid by usurious rent-seeking only.

                  The great swindle of our time is for middle-class ‘socialists’ to claim middle-class workers are in fact capitalists in order to divide them from proletarian workers.

                  In practice, there’s no class conflict between proletarian workers and their employers in small business.

                • jim says:

                  Moldbug’s class categories correspond to easily observed cultural behavior (drinking coke zero in a prius) and political voting and activism behavior. Your Marxist categories don’t, and as Lenin complained, they never did.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Republicans_who_opposed_the_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016

                  Plenty of privileged upper-class WASPs there, and that’s just the parliamentary Republican Party.

                  The heads of country clubs were not receptive to the guy who talks like a commoner, has no decorum and grabs people by the pussy.

                  I shouldn’t need to make this case, it’s completely obvious to any balanced person.

                  Trump appealed to people like us – dissident Brahmin – and to working-class distressed industrial proletarians in flyover country.

                  His base was, and is, MAGA-hat wearing working class whites of average and below-average intelligence, plus above-average intelligence racists, right-libertarians, reactionaries and so on.

                  He has no appeal whatever to billionaires who know a thing or two about wine and are on the Queen’s Christmas list.

              • The Cominator says:

                That is my point they are a seperate category and they are above the Brahmins. They are also to some extent the final boss… they need to be destroyed not because of their wealth but because of what they do with it.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t think they are above the brahmins. They desperately beg for holiness from Harvard. Harvard is the final boss. This was obvious with Bill Gates doing stupid evil stuff that he knew full well to be stupid.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m honestly not sure on this point…

                  Lets call them instead of the Lords of Hell the Black Nobility.

                  So does the “Black Nobility” control Harvard and thus the State Church or does the State Church control them.

                  Maybe you should do a post on this… the command and control structure for the state church really has not been examined in proper depth (oh yes Moldbug proved well it exists and how much control it has over mass media and therefore public opinion) and without it we don’t know who needs to get a ride on a helicopter 1st…

                • jim says:

                  > So does the “Black Nobility” control Harvard and thus the State Church or does the State Church control them.

                  Observe Zuckerberg wetting his pants.

                • jim says:

                  I see them kissing Brahman ass and grovelling in fear before the Brahmins. I see them show up to the white house correspondent dinner hoping to suck correspondent dick.

                  When a billionaire starts a foundation, he in effect says that his status is insignificant to the immense superiority of the brahmins, so would some brahmins please give him a few droplets of their immense status.

                  Look at Zuckerberg’s body language. He is terrified, grovelling, and wetting his pants in fear. Not the master of the universe.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator:

                  “That is my point they are a seperate category and they are above the Brahmins. They are also to some extent the final boss… they need to be destroyed not because of their wealth but because of what they do with it.”

                  LOL cue accusations of leftism

                  They need to be destroyed because they can’t be reasoned with, and what’s driving this need is not envy but disgust, not at their wealth but at what they’re doing with it.

                  Absobluddilutely, bravo, shame it only took ten gazillion years for the penny to finally drop.

                • Yara says:

                  >When a billionaire starts a foundation, he in effect says that his status is insignificant to the immense superiority of the brahmins

                  But there are vastly different kinds of billionaires. Freshly minted spergy tech billionaires are indisputably the lowest variety.

                • Yara says:

                  Cominator, I’m partial to the Black Nobility hypothesis. It goes a long way to explaining the secret society phenomenon.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I pointed out that Zuck was spooked by the spooks (after initially defying them unlike the other tech moguls and having a lot of things suddenly start going wrong) myself but Zuck is not “Black Nobility”. Zuck is a Brahmin sperg noveau riche.

                  I suspect that whatever the reason the “Black Nobility” Foundations support progressive causes its not because they got blackmailed by the Cathedral’s glow in the darks the way Zuck was.

            • The four classical castes are a good way to spot various signalling spirals:

              Warriors: toughness, courage, manliness, see Jack Donovan as an extreme example (yes, this can be sometimes gay, see the Nazi SA)

              Priests: holiness, education, being accurately doctrinaire

              Merchants: money, success, but mostly money

              Producers: loyalty, reliability, discipline

              In this context, the boring petit-bourgeois whom radicals of every sort despise, yet they are extremely important for upholding every system, are producers, their conventionality, conformism and traditionalism is a reliability signal, that they will show up for work or not screw customers over. By signalling conformity to all kinds of social standards, they are signalling reliabiltiy in the business/work matters that are important for trusting them.

              In what is called bourgeois revolutions in the Marxist-derived terminology, albeit I don’t know a better terminology other than high treason which would not be widely understood, an alliance of merchants and priests defeated the warriors. It seemed the warriors stayed defeated, so priests went on to go after the merchants, allying with the producers: Communism. But during WWI, the warriors made a comeback, which resulted in stuff like Fascism, so a priest-merchant-producer alliance was formed called more or less liberalism, primarily antifascist, somewhat anticommunist to placate the merchants. Once the warriors seemed defeated again, we saw a resurgance of the original Communist priest-producer alliance against merchants. In 1960, 1990 or even 2000, a typical right-winger would be a pro-business libertarianish conservative: someone with merchant values.

              But what we are seeing today cannot readily be described in this terminology. While warriors did not make a comeback as a class, we see warrior values on the Right again. Merchants are split into woke capitalists, who are priest allies, and optimates. Producers are split on an ethnic-racial level, albeit most actually producing producer are white. Sexual redpillery, PUA, based-or-cuck attitudes, the resurgence of masculinity reflect warrior values without an actual warrior class. It is weird and does not fully match the old classifications.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          I envision the bugman as twisted petit bourgeois, complicit in its own destruction. Childish pursuits (always nymph, never adult), nihilistic, credulous, naive, detached from the world since youth, climbing the wrong ladder, seeking only what is worthless.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            THIS.

            Also he’s a walking Misesian misallocation.

            When you over-pay state employees to do exaggerated or non-existent work, of course they have no idea what to do with their excess pay so they spend it as peasants would if you gave them excess pay.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Indeed the poor behaviour of inner city youth is largely a by-product of giving them unwarranted income.

              Marx was right in his definitions and 100% wrong in his prescriptions.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      The problem with the ‘NPC’ concept is that it’s perfectly possible to form an emotional attachment to, say, Jaina Proudmoore or Skeletor.
      In effect there’s little functional difference between that relationship and the relationship you have with a dead writer or a musician that no longer produces new material. The range of possibilities is truncated but it doesn’t ultimately matter.

      In the end, the difference between interacting with an NPC (or a finished body of work) and having an ongoing conversation is vanishingly small. New utterances from a ‘really genuinely conscious agent’ are just inert objects transported into the future.

      It ultimately makes no meaningful difference whether you hear something new at some future point from a living breathing human being, or whether you discover a new song by say Elvis Presley that you’ve never heard before and it changes your opinion of his work. These are functionally homologous existential situations.

      (This is where someone claims I’m denying consciousness or ideas exist.)

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Indeed our experience of NPCs isn’t even separated temporally in any principled manner. It’s quite possible we may encounter a lost out-take in which Skeletor says or does something that changes how you conceive of him as a character, and in a more literal sense, it’s quite possible Brann Bronzebeard will convert to the cult of the blood trolls in patch 8.1.

  4. X says:

    Jim I was reading your Another day, another scalp, and it occurs to me that indeed you’re correct that the left perpetrated 9/11. Your mistake is not realizing that the Zionists are the leftist puppet masters. My question for you is what evidence can cite that the Neocons are not leftist wolves in sheepskin?

    Btw, I don’t think CR is NPC. You exaggerate. He’s probably just a confused person who drank too much Koolaid.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      I didn’t know you were holding the tribe responsible for 9/11 X. What do you think of Ryan Dawson?

      I don’t think Jim doesn’t think neocons are leftists by the way. The evidence is completely undeniable.

    • Yara says:

      Zionists are not leftist puppeteers, you mongoloid. They’re uncomfortable bedfellows at best, and sometimes they’re used as a lightning stick to prod the slumbering American golem to action, as indeed in 9/11. Just look at Jerusalem’s embassy-opening ceremony, to which nobody came. The Rothschild dynasty was (is?) behind Shillary 120%, but they’re hardcore internationalists and Israel the nation is probably little more than just another momentarily convenient tool to be wielded and discarded on the epic journey to World Peace, i.e. World Government.

      • X says:

        Yara everything you have written is reinforcing the hypothesis that Zionists are the leftist puppeteers. Did you have a rebuttal in mind which you forgot to write down?

        • jim says:

          > > Just look at Jerusalem’s embassy-opening ceremony, to which nobody came

          > everything you have written is reinforcing the hypothesis that Zionists are the leftist puppeteers

          Nuts.

          • X says:

            Since when do puppets need to show up where their strings originate? Since when did the Zionists want you to keep your eye on the ball by making it obvious for you what is actually going on?

            Divergent thinking should be a larger component of IQ tests.

      • X says:

        Yara (given a moment to slowdown from multitasking a bit) I realize that you think my use of the term Zionist is intended to mean exclusively:

        Zionism (Hebrew: צִיּוֹנוּת‬ Tsiyyonut [t͡sijo̞ˈnut] after Zion) is the national movement of the Jewish people that supports the re-establishment of a Jewish homeland in the territory defined as the historic Land of Israel (roughly corresponding to Canaan, the Holy Land, or the region of Palestine).

        I define Zionists as those who created the State of Israel to fulfill the destiny of Revelation and this of course includes the world government and 666 system. The Great Harlot:

        Revelation 17:6 I saw that the woman was drunk with the blood of God’s holy people, the blood of those who bore testimony to Jesus […] 9 […] The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits […] 18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_claimed_to_be_built_on_seven_hills#Asia

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_hills_of_Rome

        But we know that it’s Jerusalem because of the Abomination of the Desolution and:

        Revelation 14:1 Then I looked, and there before me was the Lamb, standing on Mount Zion

        All the world’s power will end up on the seven hills of Jerusalem. The Zionist elite are fulfilling their destiny as written in scripture. This is why for example the Bush clan were members of Skull & Bones and worship the Beast.

        • Yara says:

          >When assigning world-historical crimes of monstrosity to those I believe guilty, I use highly nonstandard definitions, thereby deflecting blame from the demon lords who deserve it to their sometimes unwitting, sometimes ghoulish familiars.

          Contemplate self-annihilation.

          • X says:

            Yara I have a much more comprehensive assimilation. We’re not fighting Bush and Mossad. We’re confronted with Satan. It you’re atheist, then you are indeed self-annihilated. How does 180+ IQ Freeman Dyson become a Christian if it’s irrational. Please read my latest blog which I linked from the prior one and make sure you view the chart showing that atheism is negentropic. Via atheism you share a trait with those who are retarded on the IQ spectrum.

    • Roberto says:

      The British government imports millions of Muslims. That’s excellent for the budgets of crime prevention units, but crime prevention (Jihad prevention) is a tough work. How do you prevent Jihad from your large Muslim population? Good question; glad you asked it.

      There are two basic strategies. The first is intimidation. You identify those Muslims who have already been radicalized, and you scare the shit out of them. The best way to do that is have intelligence about what motivates these radicalized Muslims and, most importantly, what they are afraid of. Intelligence can be provided by informants (human intelligence) or by electronics (signal intelligence). That’s MI5 and GCHQ, respectively. Have you ever been credibly intimidated by glow-in-the-darks, X? No, because you are just a gibbering nutcase. Well, I have faced such intimidation; trust me, it’s not a pleasant experience whatsoever.

      Okay, but what about those 99% who haven’t yet decided to go on the path of snackbar? How do you prevent them from radicalizing? Well, here’s where things get really interesting. Here’s where we encounter the psychological operations. (Psyops) What you, the politically correct progressive government agent need to do, is to convince those 99% of non-Jihadi Muslims that Islam, properly understood, is a Religion of Peace and Progress. And so, that’s what the British government is doing: psyops to convince Muslims that Islam is progressive and peaceful, and that Jihadists are “bad Muslims.” Arguably, the psyops are working: you don’t have a suicide bombing every day. At least for the time being.

      There’s just one problem, though: right-wing scum (ewww). Those nasty Islamophobes keep pointing out that Jihad is explicitly commanded by Islam, and that Jihadists are not bad Muslims – they are the good Muslims, the Muslims who properly practice Islam. The evil Islamophobes are telling the Muslim population, “Your religion is not a Religion of Peace. It is a Religion of War.” And you don’t expect the Muslim hearing that to embrace Christianity or become an atheist, do you? No; if you keep telling him that his religion is violent and terroristic, he might just believe you! Problem.

      So, in parallel to your various psyops to convince Muslims that Islam is peaceful and progressive, you need to shut down the Islamophobes who insist that Islam calls for Jihad. You want your Muslim population to be radicalized by neither the Jihadists nor the Islamophobes. You must ban criticism of Islam, lest Muslims realize that the criticism is true, that Islam really is violent and warlike, and that Jihadists are the good Muslims.

      That, more than everything else, explains why the British government is investing so many resources into hunting down, locking up, and shutting down specifically the Islamophobes. It’s a goddamn top priority!

      But here’s another thing. What if you can convince the Islamophobes that there are much more burning and pressing issues than Muslims? What if — just a wild hypothesis — it is possible to get right-wingers, shitlords, and other deplorables to focus their hatred on something else? Hey, what distraction can be used to make shitlords stop talking about “Islam is a terrorist dogma” and start talking about something else entirely?

      As you may or may not have noticed, there are a lot of anti-Zionist websites operated from Britain. For some mysterious and perplexing reason, these “right-wing” websites seem quite reluctant indeed to discuss Islam being a violent religion that calls for terrorism. Many of these totally authentic “right-wing” websites often claim that Islam is not a problem at all; that Muslims are really the victims of a much stronger force, a much bigger arch-nemesis. A grand “Final Boss,” if you will. Heck, they sometimes exhort the readers to “join together, Christians, Muslims, and everyone else” against… why, of course: International Zio-Rothschild-Cabal-Likud Jewry.

      Thus, while Islamophobes get their asses locked up behind bars under any and all pretexts, the anti-Semi… err, “anti-Zionist” writers seem to never get caught. Perhaps they just haven’t looked hard enough for ’em, hehe.

      “Hello, fellow nationalists. Yo – did you hear about how the Bataclan massacre in Paris was a false flag by the Israeli Mossad, intended to make Muslim look bad? Just like 9/11? Why, Lasha Darkmoon herself said so, and a number of bloggers agree. Anyway… so what about Palestine, guys? As a genuine, authentic right-winger, I am extremely g-g-goncerned and worried about the oppression of these poor POCs by the Jews. Just look how racist the Jews are. Racist, racist, racist kikes! It is obviously the Zionists who are the REAL terrorists. Right, fellow authentic right-wing nationalists?”

      It’s almost like Troofism and Nazism are fake movements, run by same group of people, for quite similar purposes. Impossible, right?

      • eternal anglo says:

        Utterly based and redpilled. Jim’s is effectively two of my favourite blogs in one at this point. Three counting Peppermint.

      • jim says:

        > As a genuine, authentic right-winger, I am extremely g-g-goncerned and worried about the oppression of these poor POCs by the Jews. Just look how racist the Jews are. Racist, racist, racist kikes! </sarcasm>

        Yes.

        I can believe a right winger who is more worried about the jews than the browns, but a right winger who is worried about racist Jews oppressing poor innocent peace loving practitioners of the religion of speech fails to pass the smell test.

        More generally, anyone who calls Jews “racist” fails to pass the smell test. If Israel has no right to look after the interests of Jews, who has a right to look after the interests of whites?

        • Alrenous says:

          Jews are extremely racist, as defined as someone motivated by spite for another race.

          Welfare destroyed the black family, exactly as it was intended to do. That it didn’t also completely wipe out the white family is something proggie jews are disappointed about. (Orthodox, of course, mind their own business for the most part.)

          This racial spite makes jews extremely useful mercenaries and general patsies for proggie unhinged power-lust.

          • The Cominator says:

            “That it didn’t also completely wipe out the white family is something proggie jews are disappointed about.”

            Combined with feminism it is in the process of doing so outside the upper class. And even then the upper class families don’t generally have a lot of kids.

        • Calvin says:

          Universal principles are exclusively a white people thing, shared by no one else. Whites have the right to look after the interests of whites because we are white and the best people in the world. Israel has no right to look after Jews because Jews are a malevolent plague that needs to die. Ergo you take whatever position does them the most harm, then simply uphold a different one for your ingroup. Same thing Jews do themselves. Once you abandon universalism, it’s easy.

          I don’t hold that position myself, but it’s not hard to understand.

          • jim says:

            That position makes sense, but when someone starts weeping sad tears for the oppressed Palestinians, he is not in fact taking that position.

            • Calvin says:

              Most everyone maintains at least some kind of leftie cover identity, by necessity a lot of people get good at faking it. I myself have made a few apparently sincere “open borders for Israel” weepy posts solely to encourage progs to lynch the Jews in their midst. I don’t really care about Israel, but anything that makes progs kill off their financiers is a good thing in my book.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Most everyone maintains at least some kind of leftie cover identity”

                You don’t need to show your full power level but if you are not an out of the closet right winger you are not doing your all in the war. We’d win this war immediately if we were all open about it rather then cowering. Besides open right wingers get treated more indulgently then people who pretended to be good progs but are accused of heresy. The worst you’ll get is some social ostracism. Fuck em.

                “I myself have made a few apparently sincere “open borders for Israel” weepy posts solely to encourage progs to lynch the Jews in their midst.”

                This is counterproductive and stupid. What is better is the Trump approach which says screw all Muslims we support Israel 1000X more then liberal American jews.

                This makes the alliance (which has almost totally broken down) between the right wing nationalist Zionists (who are not truly our enemies) and liberal reform diaspora jews (who are our enemies) untenable.

                One Stephen Miller is also worth 1000 stormfags.

                • Calvin says:

                  “You don’t need to show your full power level but if you are not an out of the closet right winger you are not doing your all in the war.”

                  I mean online, while in prog thoughtspace.

                  “This makes the alliance (which has almost totally broken down) between the right wing nationalist Zionists (who are not truly our enemies) and liberal reform diaspora jews (who are our enemies) untenable.”

                  Religious zionists are indifferent to white survival at best, actively celebrating our death by islam at worst. Prog Jews are quite good at maintaining an alliance with Israel that goes against their nominal principles. Most don’t really give a shit if some weepy arabs get vaporized by napalm or whatever, but they would largely care if Israel is forced to abide by actual prog doctrine.

                  My personal position is that the Arabs and Jews should be colonized and gradually annihilated by a resurgent West, but that’s more of a long term agenda. Right now they’re of little interest save how they can be of use to white Christian survival.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “You don’t need to show your full power level but if you are not an out of the closet right winger you are not doing your all in the war.”

                  I mean you should be right wing on Facebook, fuck em.

                  Zionists jews don’t hate whites progressive jews hate whites. Orthodox Jews mostly voted for Trump. They may not be our real friends, but they certainly are not our real enemies. Stormfags tend to do the horribly counterproductive thing of driving them together. This is a mistake.

                  Prog American jews are mostly anti Israel at least as long as Netanyahu runs it (and Netanyahu ideologically is prettymuch one of us).

                • Calvin says:

                  “Zionists jews don’t hate whites progressive jews hate whites. Orthodox Jews mostly voted for Trump. They may not be our real friends, but they certainly are not our real enemies. Stormfags tend to do the horribly counterproductive thing of driving them together. This is a mistake.”

                  Having a prog sockpuppet weeping about how Israel is evil and racist and needs open borders immediately drives them apart, since the sincere jewish progs are obliged to join in. Those that don’t render themselves vulnerable to being out-lefted and devoured. That’s the idea.

                  “Prog American jews are mostly anti Israel at least as long as Netanyahu runs it (and Netanyahu ideologically is prettymuch one of us).”

                  They’re largely just anti-white and have a strong tribal bias that allows them to ignore any cognitive dissonance. Sure, there are plenty of true believers but most of the ones that matter most really have no issue watching a gaza baby getting napalmed. Those that genuinely believe are, as Jim says, taking themselves out of the gene pool.

                • jim says:

                  > Having a prog sockpuppet weeping about how Israel is evil and racist and needs open borders immediately drives them apart, since the sincere jewish progs are obliged to join in. Those that don’t render themselves vulnerable to being out-lefted and devoured. That’s the idea.

                  But having supposed neo nazi weeping about how Israel is evil and racist joins them together.

                  Israel should be Jewish, but should be hospitable to guests and outsiders who accept the Jewishness of Israel, and America should not be Jewish, but should be hospitable to guests and outsiders who accept the Americanness of America.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Having a prog sockpuppet”

                  Oh I see when you put it that way yeah.

                  I’m too used to fake right wingers on some forums whining about Pali rights.

                • Calvin says:

                  “Oh I see when you put it that way yeah.

                  I’m too used to fake right wingers on some forums whining about Pali rights.”

                  I’m talking about going to prog spaces and weepily declaring Israel needs open borders, more gay rights, more full-throated poz. The only goal is to sow discord in their ranks, Israel itself means little.

                • Joe says:

                  A progressive Jew and a Zionist Jew who are arguing will identify and ingroup each other while superficially maintaining their argument. Their argument uncannily morphs from “what is best for America” to “what is best for Jews” in the process.

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing it. The very Jewish Trots proceeded to murder their Jewish colleagues, getting their fellow Jews to ingroup them while they outgrouped their fellow Jews.

                  More recently, observe what happened when Trump moved the embassy to Jerusalem.

                  And reflect on Madoff. He tells his fellow Jews that he is front running his goy clients, and because they are fellow Jews he will let them in on his scam to profit from ripping off they goys – but it turns out that it is his fellow Jews he is scamming.

                  Jews used to own the diamond trade, because they used to have higher levels of social cohesion that we did. Now they don’t own the diamond trade any more.

                  It uses to be true that Jews had a high trust society. It is not true any more. Trots took advantage of their delusion that they still had a high trust society to murder them, and Madoff took advantage of their delusion that they still had a high truth society to swindle them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The thing with Madoff is he didn’t market to anyone you had to look for him. Thats why nobody suspected the con for so long, because he wasn’t really trying to sell it to anyone.

                  Since it mostly went through his social network (at least initially) most of the people he ended up ripping off were fellow jews.

                • Joe says:

                  I am looking at common people. You appear to be looking at those near the apex. It is likely that the individuals you are describing are more ruthless than the individuals I am describing.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        You’re a complete retard. That Scottish lad was threatened with jail-time for the fact his DOG raised its paw in a YouTube video clearly and unequivocally marketed as comedy.
        Nobody disputed the fact it was comedy and nobody even tried to claim he was a neo-Nazi. Nevertheless he went to court and was terrorised into submission.

        I’m not going to stand up for the Tommy Robinsons of the world too strongly: they’re missing the point. Millions of Muslims didn’t randomly decide to rock up – they were, and are still being, invited by the UK Government.

        The most convincing, non-tinfoil theory of the current year in the UK is this:

        White Britons have a bad name among corporations. No matter how much advertising gets flung at them, no matter how much cheap credit, they still have this nasty habit of saving and planning for the future, looking after their possessions and refraining from mad excesses.

        Some inroads are definitely being made: the lower classes are already splurge-merchants par excellence – though not as good as migrants and minorities.

        Women in particular are easily turned into good consumers, but put them in a marriage with a strong traditional white conservative man and they row in with his style of doing business.

        This will not do.

        Hence propaganda demonising whites, relentlessly pushing YOLO and high living, pretending race-mixing’s normal, discouraging ‘reckless’ ‘excess’ reproduction and pushing charity for the third world.
        Meanwhile the government keeps savings rates well below inflation, to the extent that anyone saving for twenty years sees their finished product lump sum worth less than half of what it was to begin with, while pumping up the housing market with subsidies and sub-prime and bail-out guarantees and expensive regulations and added costs and stipulations.

        Now I’m not allowed to notice anything *about* the people at the top who benefit from this big favour (of ‘electing’ a new people) but if we call them global capitalist scum, that’s good enough.

      • Yara says:

        Typical mass-produced synthetically fabricated ideological hogwash dialectical thoughtshackle shit.

        You: “The Muzzies are so evil, therefore I must in-group the poor, innocent, helpless, inexplicably victimized Jews.”

        The other side: “Joos are solely responsible for everything wrong in the world, therefore I must in-group the poor, innocent, helpless, Zionist-victimized Palestinians.”

        Bespoke: “Semites of all colors are shit; vanishingly few deserve the incomparable privilege of living in the Angloworld; the strong rule the weak; the consensus account of 9/11 is comically absurd and you have to be Jim Mick Donald to straightfacedly compare the collapse of WTC 7 to the toppling of a tree; American military defence makes Israel dependent and weak; 6 gorillion Zionists must face the billion-strong Muslim cesspool without the aid of Pentagon-roaming Israeli generals or suffer time immemorial’s existential punishment of the incontinent.”

        And the Muslims have to go back.

        • Roberto says:

          It’s funny because I actually agree with you about Semites of all persuasions being shitty and having to go back. But troofism and nazism are still fake (and gay).

          • Yara says:

            Jim claims that WTC 7 toppled like a tree.

            Do you concur?

            • jim says:

              Clarification: WTC 7 began its fall by toppling like a tree. This rapidly broke the structure a little way above the bottom, whereupon the the stuff above the midpoint proceeded to free fall downwards, as it would have in a demolition, while continuing to rotate and move sideways, as it would not have in a demolition.

              The planes blasted big holes and caused massive damage on the south side. The videos generally show the north Side, except for one that shows the west side. WTC7 topples towards its south side.

              • X says:

                Clarification: WTC 7 began its fall by toppling like a tree. This rapidly broke the structure a little way above the bottom, whereupon the the stuff above the midpoint proceeded to free fall downwards, as it would have in a demolition, while continuing to rotate and move sideways, as it would not have in a demolition.

                I don’t want to restart this same debate again. So you get the last word after this.

                I just want to make it clear that your naive ignorance of physics and structural engineering means your delusion is impossible.

                Not one here will click that link and actually refute the details there. Instead they’re change the subject by making some nonsense about troofers blahblahblah. So how can we help goyim when they’re so determined to remain ignorant?

                • jim says:

                  So what we saw in front of our eyes is impossible.

                  Yeah, right.

                  Put a big notch in a building, set it on fire, and it is impossible for it to fall down. </sarcasm>

                  True that steel buildings generally do not fall down, but that is because they have fire resistant insulation on the steel beams. Smash a building up, it will fall down.

                  You can plausibly argue that it is unlikely for a steel building to fall down from fire alone, but there has to be some level of physical damage that will result in it falling down.

                • Yara says:

                  Would you please stop shitting up the 9/11 threads? Thanks in advance.

                • Yara says:

                  (to X)

                • Yara says:

                  >So what we saw in front of our eyes is impossible.

                  I saw 23 angles of WTC 7 falling straight down with undetectable rotational or lateral movement. You say you saw something else. Show me the evidence, baby.

                  >Put a big notch in a building, set it on fire, and it is impossible for it to fall down.

                  A blazing, raging forest fire with wooden trees does not even behave as you describe. Is not steel many times harder, stronger, more resilient, and less susceptible to fire than wood of any variety?

                  >[it is T]rue that steel buildings generally do not fall down, but that is because they have fire resistant insulation on the steel beams.

                  So there was an impact on WTC 7. I went looking for pictures and/or video and found no evidence to support this claim. Clearly you have some where I have none. Present the evidence.

                  (I dare you.)

                • X says:

                  So what we saw in front of our eyes is impossible.

                  Your delusion of collapse without controlled demotion is impossible as the link I provided explains in detail.

                  I have never made the argument that the buildings did not collapse or that the planes did not exist. Please don’t be disingenuous.

                  Would you please stop shitting up the 9/11 threads? Thanks in advance.

                  You were doing a great job of that making such weak arguments as “dancing Israelis” and “Silverstein said to pull it”.

                  Do you have any particular technical disagreement the link I provided?

                • X says:

                  A blazing, raging forest fire with wooden trees does not even behave as you describe. Is not steel many times harder, stronger, more resilient, and less susceptible to fire than wood of any variety?

                  That’s a clever analogy. Imagine some of the burnt trees still standing after a forest fire.

                  And my linked post explains in more detail why it is impossible that we would not still see some of the center core steel columns still standing if the collapse had not been a controlled demolition.

                  Jim has a simpleton imagination and he thus makes huge blunders when trying to understand physics and structural engineering.

                  Also this simpleton argument I oft see repeated that incompetence of the US govt would explain the access of the hijackers. That is Not Even Wrong, because it entirely side-steps the issue that hijackers could not cause the WTC buildings to collapse in a controlled demolition pattern. That pattern is quite starkly distinct from the pattern of non-controlled demolition. The reader should actually go view the fire induced collapses of other steel buildings and note there was still a substantial portion standing and what remains is more of a bent entangled hairball, not a neat pile of sized-cut beams as we saw at the 9/11 debris pile. Also go view a natural pancake collapse and it looks nothing like the debris result of 9/11.

            • Yara says:

              >whereupon the the [sic] stuff above the midpoint proceeded to free fall downwards, as it would have in a demolition

              Nigga, r u srs?

              >while continuing to rotate and move sideways, as it would not have in a demolition

              i.e.

              >demolition causes downward movement, but never rotationally or laterally

              WTC 7’s invisible lateral or rotational movement aside, are you really going to admit that?

            • Roberto says:

              If you seriously base your 9/11 troofism on the collapse of WTC 7, you’re delusional.

              For one, the supposed planners of 9/11 would have absolutely no way of knowing that WTC 7 would catch fire from debris of the collapsing North Tower. Unless you want to argue that that was specifically part of the plan, in which case… “the plot thickens.”

              Secondly, to do a successful controlled demolition you need a team of expert demolitioners working on the scene for some time prior to the demolition – of course, there had been no such team, and couldn’t be any without getting spotted by myriads of people. Plus, the number of conspirators just can’t be that high in the first place.

              Third, your insistence that “Silverstein admitted to demolishing the building” (he absolutely did not) further sinks your credibility; do you think that Mossad or CIA would expose their sinister plan to so many people?

              “Mossad: hey, Larry, we’re gonna do a crazyyy false flag against the Twin Towers; want us to demolish WTC 7 too while we’re at it?” “Larry: sure, go ahead.” sounds plausible to you?

              Fourth, it’s nice that you apply ‘cui bono?’ to 9/11; consider applying ‘cui bono’ to the troofer movement itself as well. Have you noticed that troofers:

              1) often link to nazi sites, and are linked by them;
              2) have a hate-boner against Israel that goes much beyond 9/11, usually involving pictures of poor children in Gaza and so on;
              3) in the current year, are furiously raging against Vladimir Putin being a “kike shill”;
              4) usually dislike Donald Trump?

              Really makes you think, huh? Who could be behind this agenda? USG itself, perhaps?

              Fifth, since the planners of the airline hijackings are also the planners of the controlled demolition of WTC 7, there is obviously no compartmentalization involved; all the people who take part of the project know about all the rest of what’s going on. Yeah, conspiracies and intelligence operations don’t actually work that way.

              The collapse of WTC 7 is the *weakest* troofer argument.

              • jim says:

                > The collapse of WTC 7 is the *weakest* troofer argument.

                Which is of course, precisely why they declare it to be the strongest – to pre-emptively avoid people saying “well, if the two towers were controlled demolitions, how come WTC7 also went down?”

                Troofers use manipulative methods of debate. This is one of them.

                Honest people, people who genuinely believe what they claim to believe, don’t do this. The sincere, but wrong, person leads with what he believes is his strongest argument and sticks with that argument, rather than thinking how to confuse, misdirect, and distract. Troofers, on the other hand, will always distract you.

                They present an argument that assumes, rather than argues, the truth of some fact that if true would prove their case, inviting you to think past the sale. If they sincerely believed that fact, they would argue for it, instead of trying to sneak it past you

                And then when you point out that this taken for granted assumption is spectacularly and thoroughly falsified by the evidence, they move right along with a dozen new claims, then, not long thereafter, return to assuming their already refuted claim is true, that you agree that it is true, that everyone knows that it is true, that they have a zillion witnesses and videos proving it to be true, even though they never answered your objection.

                These are indicators of people who do not actually believe what they claim to believe. They argue like people who seek to deceive, to persuade you of what they know is not true. They do not argue like people who sincerely but incorrectly believe.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                >The collapse of WTC 7 is the *weakest* troofer argument.

                Not only is it the weakest it’s not even remotely consistent – not just for the reasons you stated but because 4 WTC was actually demolished a month after the attacks because it was too damaged to be repaired!

                Why even bother bringing down 7 WTC the same day? What sane plan includes that element when you can simply *actually demolish it a month later and no one would care*?!? The only rational explanation is that hijacking four jets, demolishing the north and south towers, slamming a plane into the Pentagon were insufficient but that the collapse of an irrelevant office tower on the same day instead of a controlled demolition of the same building in a month was what really pushed the story over the line. It’s absolutely bonkers.

              • Yara says:

                >If you seriously base your 9/11 troofism

                And just what is “my 9/11 troofism”, exactly? What insane ideological complex am I supporting with my cold-eyed observation of physical phenomenon and governmental deceit?

                >on the collapse of WTC 7… For one, the supposed planners of 9/11 would have absolutely no way of knowing that WTC 7 would catch fire from debris of the collapsing North Tower

                And just who are these “supposed planners of 9/11”? Have I ever made any hard claims regarding their ultimate culpability? (No.) Who am I out to retroactively “get”? (No one.)

                >Third, your insistence that “Silverstein admitted to demolishing the building” (he absolutely did not) further sinks your credibility

                Ad hominem. Reputation is irrelevant to scientific inquiry. I have made an evidence-based argument; confront the evidence or desist from your inane ideological yammering.

                >Fifth, since the planners of the airline hijackings are also the planners of the controlled demolition of WTC 7, there is obviously no compartmentalization involved; all the people who take part of the project know about all the rest of what’s going on.

                I’ve made no such claims, thank you very much. However, I did once speculate that Israel’s responsibility for the events of 9/11 was limited to the demolitions op, not the numerous domestic intelligence operations necessary for the events of 9/11 to take place, nor the subsequent nearly two decades long cover up, satisfying Jews’, in this case Israelis’, striking technical excellence and tendency to be used as pawns in larger machinations.

                If you have an evidence-based argument for another group’s involvement in the demolitions, present it.

                >Secondly, to do a successful controlled demolition you need a team of expert demolitioners working on the scene for some time prior to the demolition – of course, there had been no such team
                >of course, there had been no such team

                The building fell. It fell in a manner visually indistinguishable from demolition to the layman observer and to demolitions professionals. It did not collapse from fire, which is
                physically impossible and historically unprecedented. It did not topple like a tree as a legitimately catastrophically impacted skyscraper could conceivably do. It fell straight down: to quote Jim, “in free fall”. These are the facts that we can readily and accurately observe — the existence or nonexistence of a demolitions team is not readily and accurately observable, to my knowledge. If you have evidence otherwise, present it.

                Once you accept that WTC 7 was demolished, we can talk about the specifics. We know, for example, that WTC 7 housed prominent offices (backup HQs?) of many very powerful entities. Might it even have been wired when it was built, as an ultimate backup failsafe? Perhaps.

                >The collapse of WTC 7 is the *weakest* troofer argument.

                There you go again, inverting reality and ascribing ideological motivation to the pursuit of truth. Don’t be a faggot; stop it now.

                >Really makes you think, huh? Who could be behind this agenda? USG itself, perhaps?

                Quite possibly. Intelligence agencies are well-known to employ disinformation tactics to discredit opposition. State-supported 9/11-related disinformation, if it exists, would mean that they want to muddy the water, suggesting the existence of something interesting in the vicinity.

                • Roberto says:

                  Your “evidence-based argument” is “it looks like a controlled demolition to me.” Yeah, I don’t care lol. You’ve spun the Mossad narrative in the previous threads, and that narrative has been conclusively refuted. (Which conclusive refutation you are going to deny as if it never occurred, as is typical)

                  You want people to accept a nonsensical conspiracy theory — and no, not all conspiracy theories are necessarily nonsensical; *this one* is — based on “it looks like a controlled demolition to me,” and hinge your speculations primarily on that. No dice, Yara. If you had evidence of a controlled demolition, you would present the evidence. Since you don’t, you don’t.

                • X says:

                  Secondly, to do a successful controlled demolition you need a team of expert demolitioners working on the scene for some time prior to the demolition – of course, there had been no such team, and couldn’t be any without getting spotted by myriads of people.

                  The details of the construction ongoing just the many months prior to 9/11 and the exclusive access they had at all 4 buildings (including Pentagon) was extensively documented towards the end of my blog that I linked numerous times in the discussion we had in one of the prior blogs. Out of respect for our host, I will not link it again. The removal of asbestos was their cover and alibi. Exclusive access in unseen elevator shafts, accesses between walls, and even closing off entire floors for periods of time. Those workers appear to be intelligence assets as only one of them has ever been named and interviewed.

                  Details matter.

                  Your “evidence-based argument” is “it looks like a controlled demolition to me.”

                  Does lying make you feel good?

                  The link I have provided more than once on this blog explains the irrefutable evidence. It is not just about what we saw. It is about actual facts related to the kinetic energy and the NIST models of their collapse. You have not read my linked post, therefore you’re unable to meaningfully comment on the contents of my linked post.

                • jim says:

                  Building seven was rated in the design documents for three hours uncontrolled fire, on the assumption that no fire would ever go uncontrolled for more than an hour or so. The assumption was that the insulation on the steel beams would keep them from softening for three hours. This is kind of crappy insulation, but it should normally be more than sufficient.

                  The water was out, because of the destruction caused by the planes, and the firemen were busy with various emergencies, so the fire raged uncontrolled for seven hours.

                  World Trade Tower seven lasted four hours longer without falling down than it was designed to do, despite massive damage on the south side that eventually caused it to fall like a tree towards the south side.

                  You are a liar, and your manipulative style of argument demonstrates conscious knowledge that you are deliberately and intentionally lying. You don’t argue any of the claims you make, rather you assume them as proven, and as evidence, you circularly point to more claims which assume your preferred reality to be well known and proven.

    • Roberto says:

      “But Roberto, can you show us some of those bloggers who are clearly involved in the psyop?”

      http://jewishracism.blogspot.com

      http://careandwashingofthebrain.blogspot.com

    • Nikolai says:

      Imagine arguing with Jim for days on end, writing hundreds of comments only to come to the conclusion that Jim believes neocons aren’t leftists. Hint: he was telling you the exact opposite.

      Imagine constantly boasting about how smart you are while falling for the ZOG meme. The proposition that Zionists run the world is something believed only by 105IQ white nationalists who can’t comprehend any issue not being about racial conflict.

      You are an autist among autists. Read these posts.

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

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

      https://blog.jim.com/culture/not-the-jews-2/

      https://blog.jim.com/politics/nazis-are-virgins/

      • X says:

        I remember reading most of those before.

        Where Jim writes about Jews not being so interested in applied engineering and science, as compared to the theoretical and ideological pursuits, let’s note the claim that the bankster-Zionists-cabal are not orthodox Jews. They’re employing various forms of political and financial leverage to take control of the goyim who do that grunt work implicitly at their behest.

        So Jim’s thought that the cabal is hostile to technological civilization is too strong of a conclusion, i.e. a non-sequitur. The environmentalism and Ted Turner save-the-earth (Georgia Guidestones) propaganda they promulgate are not necessarily their religion. Don’t conflate disinformation manipulation with someone’s religion. That’s a category error.

        Jim argues that possibly we’re using Israel. Maybe the neocons suckered Mossad into doing the heavily lifting for 9/11 in exchange for our continued military alliance. The problem with that story is Antony Sutton’s research at the Hoover Institute which links the bankster-Zionist-cabal to being the money behind the strings leading to the Bolshevik revolution. Is Antony Sutton disinformation?

        I don’t think said cabal is purely Jewish or even necessarily gives shit about the Jewish religion or the Jewish people. I always come back to physics and economics. They‘re an opportunistvirus that steps into the power vacuum of collective human organization and the prisoner’s dilemma it entails. This is why the blog I wrote yesterday is looking for technological solutions to ameliorate that implicit power vacuum.

        I don’t believe the said cabal (or perhaps competing cabals) runs everything in the world. I suspect they’re quite busy trying to coexist with chaos and figure out how to both increase entropy while moving us towards a world governance and the destiny of the end times. Clearly Bitcoin was the work of a genius in that regard as you’ll understand if you read my linked blog.

        Jim wrote:

        If Jews ruled America, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority would be reduced to smoking grease spots in half an hour and the Al Aqsa Mosque would be flattened in a day. Therefore, the matador’s cape, not the matador.

        Nonsense. The cabal surely understands that Israel must be persecuted at the end times. That shows you have a completely juvenile lack of understanding of the chess involved here.

        The next time you decide to write about IQ, I suggest you realize that someone with an IQ more than 2 SD higher than yours would appear to be writing noise because you wouldn’t have thought through the models they may have inside their head.

        The entire way the Zionist state was brought about with Prescott Bush financing Hitler should raise some red flags.

        • jim says:

          > > If Jews ruled America, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority would be reduced to smoking grease spots in half an hour and the Al Aqsa Mosque would be flattened in a day. Therefore, the matador’s cape, not the matador.

          > Nonsense. The cabal surely understands that Israel must be persecuted at the end times.

          You attribute Christianity to the cabal, the Christian interpretation of the end times, which is inconsistent with the claim that they are Jews and that they are the Zionist Occupation Government, that they are Israelis, Mossad, etc, and is also inconsistent with the glaringly obvious fact that progressives are postchristian, and seek to immanentize the eschaton. Immanentizing the eschaton is inconsistent with believing in end times persecution.

          Many of them are biologically post Jewish, but they are ideologically post Christian.

          Typical troofer: You change your story with every breath. When one claim hits inconvenient evidence, you momentarily shift to a different and incompatible claim, and then back to your original claim as if it had never been refuted.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            “the glaringly obvious fact that progressives are postchristian”

            Glaringly obvious yes, but what’s not at all obvious is why Christianity followed that particular trajectory and who led it there.
            The plausible Moldbuggian narrative is that America, with its separation of church and state, provided a memetic selection pressure that gave non-theistic Christianity an adaptive advantage, but that doesn’t explain why anglo-Christianity was already headed in the progressive direction.

            Yes progressive-leaning Christianity installed itself as the “totally not a religion” state religion in the colonies, but why was anglo-Christianity leaning progressive in the first place?

            It seems rather convenient that it was Cromwell who opened the door to certain reconciliations, but I’m not noticing anything.

            If you want a second excuse to call me a leftist all over again Jim, here’s another red pill for you: is it possible that the left embracing market capitalism with state micromanagement from the early/mid 1980s has anything to do with them switching deers, I mean horses, from Soviet communism to Chinese Deng-communism?

            /scream! No! We reactionaries love Deng! He stopped the purity spiral!

            • jim says:

              > > “the glaringly obvious fact that progressives are postchristian”

              > Glaringly obvious yes, but what’s not at all obvious is why Christianity followed that particular trajectory and who led it there.

              Yes, is obvious. You just have to read yesterday’s leftism. Go back to the elect of William Wilberforce.

              The puritans were holier than thou, William Wilberforce and his elect holier than Jesus, the super protestants holier than the risen Christ, then the next step was holier than God. And here we are.

              Marxism is a Jewish heresy, so cultural Marxists like yourself are generally Jewish heretics – you not only show Marxist shibboleths, but also Jewish shibboleths. Jewish heretics, in particular Trots, hate Jews twice as much as anyone, and hate orthodox Jews even more so, just as white progs hate whites and particularly white Christians. The Trots are all Jewish, and twice as antisemitic as Stormfront.

              Progressivism, however, is a Christian heresy, and Jewish progs are conversos. They intermarry, if they marry at all, do not have Jewish grandchildren, and, unlike Nazis and Trots, do not obsess over Jews and Jewishnes.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                “Yes, is obvious [why Christianity took the progressive path prior to America]. You just have to read yesterday’s leftism. Go back to the elect of William Wilberforce [and you’ll see which path it took].”

                lol

                But WHY that path?

                “cultural Marxists like yourself are generally Jewish heretics”

                lol I bet I’m a feminist too. Hey why not a tranny?! I’m almost insulted.

                “Progressivism .. is a Christian heresy,”

                Indeed, but WHY did Christianity transform into progressivism PRIOR to the memetic environment of ‘separation of church and state’?

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Any thoughts on the Gramscian infiltration of the institutions of capitalism once the commies realised Chinese communism was better than Soviet communism, by their thinking?

                Or perhaps another ad hominem followed by a flat denial that capitalism’s been infiltrated – of course it’s just being bullied instead. Maybe, who knows!

          • X says:

            You attribute Christianity to the cabal

            You’re all over the place. Your stuck clock apparently isn’t close understanding the model I have of what is going on.

            progressives are postchristian […] Immanentizing the eschaton is inconsistent with believing in end times persecution

            Disagree. The root is psychological ressentiment. IMO, you’re too literal with your models thus conflating the map with the territory.

            Revelation does speak about the Beast co-opting the various tribes of Christianity.

            Here follows what I wrote months earlier about Christianity:

            In Europe, democracy and Christianity supplied the evidently massive demand for ressentiment. Even the etymology of the word Ecclesia derived from the word ecclesia, which was the voting assembly in the direct democracy (aka socialism) of Athens. In Christianity, Ecclesia (or ‘Church’) is the whole set of all the faithful. Christianity and demand for social justice in the form of democracy was spreading virally by “spiritually” placating the ressentiment of the people w.r.t. the insoluble problem of unequal distribution of wealth and the corruption it begat. The grievances were real, but the solace was illusory (except for its beneficial higher-order effects on defection of clans thus enabling wider cooperation). This was evident in the appearance of the Book of Revelation around that time […] Due to the viral spread of this phenomenon, the Roman Empire was forced to embrace Christianity circa 311 AD in the Edict of Milan. And by 380 AD it became the official state religion.

            In addition to the positive impacts on cooperation via ressentiment masked as “spiritual” idealism with hope for improving social justice, the Western branch of the schism (i.e. the Roman Catholics) had instituted stricter morality than in the Eastern church […] It’s not a panacea that Westerners are the most ideologically (as in delusional opposed to reality) based. The core of the Roman Empire didn’t end. The Holy Roman Empire in Western Europe continued until 1806. The stricter Western Roman (Catholic/Puritan) morality rot reached a defining moment in 1801 when laws on enforcing morality on married women were vacated by the high priests of idealism, ressentiment, and social justice. This marked the collapse of the rule of law, as for example dysfunctional family law (c.f. also) and society would increasingly turn against wealth and (especially white) men, and towards the dysfunctional outcome of the non-righteous ressentiment-based idealism in the forms of social justice and direct democracy.

            Typical troofer: You change your story with every breath.

            The only change was your aliasing error incomprehension of my model.

            • X says:

              Ressentiment aided us greatly when it was the West’s turn to advance the agricultural and industrial ages. But now that idealism has become our decadence. The idealism was always there. If it wasn’t there then we would have never cooperated when the East was unable to. Westerners view progress as monotonic. Asians view our existence as a cycle or circle. They believe they’re reincarnated as a snail. Now that idealism is making us vulnerable to Marxism, as had been the case in Europe before. Europe peaked at the start of the 20th century. Now the USA is peaking. It’s Asia’s turn to rise. See this linked chart:

              https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/uncategorized/the-shift-from-west-to-the-east/

            • jim says:

              > You’re all over the place. Your stuck clock apparently isn’t close understanding the model I have of what is going on.

              I tell the same story invariably. (terrorists, box cutters, planes, three passenger planes full of passengers fly into three targets, tower fires get hot, but only flame hot, barbecue hot, not molten metal hot, towers began their fall by falling like trees.) In response you change your story to ever time you run into contrary evidence, then in the post after that move back to your original story as if conflicting evidence had never been presented.

              • X says:

                In response you change your story to ever time you run into contrary evidence

                Just because you can’t digest all the facets of my explanation of 9/11, it doesn’t follow that I’ve changed my argument. It only exemplifies that you think I did because apparently you can’t fit my entire argument into your brain in one go.

                This debate about 9/11 has become redundant, boring, and stale. Astute readers should go directly to the link I provided and become informed.

        • Nikolai says:

          I have no idea what you’re on. There is no Zionist-bankster-cabal. To the extent that there are people in power who conspire to destroy everything we hold dear, those are mostly post-christian or satanic. Any Jews involved are communist atheist Jews who tend to lean anti-zionist, i.e. they want to make Israel into another South Africa.

          That Jews tend to be more interested in theoretical science rather than applied science is a completely separate phenomenon from environmentalist progs wanting to destroy technological civilization. Jews like investigating theorems and doing stuff on paper, they don’t really like working with their hands. Progs think industry and technology is a sin against Gaia and they also just hate whites who built modern industry.

          Also it’s worth noting that banks don’t really have power. Power has banks. If banks actually had power, Goldman Sachs wouldn’t be hiring affirmative action women and browns and they wouldn’t be flying a tranny flag outside their headquarters. Finance, investment banking and venture capitalist guys are notoriously masculine (or at least they used to be). If they were actually in power, they wouldn’t be filling their offices with trannies and muslims. People like Jordan Belfort don’t want to actually interact with transvestites, but they do because the Cathedral owns them.

          If you’re IQ was actually two SD higher than mine, you wouldn’t be going on and on about muh zionist bankers. The only people who buy that narrative are stormfags who think evil jewish mind rays are the cause of all conflict in the world. Get a grip man.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Strategically we should be agnostic on the JQ.

            The behaviour of the neo-cons, the banks, the central banks, Marxist academics, SJW journalists, anti-white propagandists, pornographers, feminists, wall street and corrupt politicians is sufficient to attack them on those grounds. We don’t need to admit it if we notice any patterns.

          • X says:

            I have no idea what you’re on.

            Agreed. You’re waaay of course.

            There is no Zionist-bankster-cabal.

            You’re blind. Who is Soros? Who wired the controlled demolitions of 9/11. Etc.

            those are mostly post-christian or satanic

            They are satanic, but they’re not post-Christian. They’ve been there all long such as Constantine. And the ressentiment-based idealism of the Europeans has been ripe for the manipulation. C.f. my reply to Jim for more on that.

            Anti-zionist Jews are not significantly in the Zionist-bankster cabal. I already stated that they’re just using the Zionism as a ploy in a complex geopolitical chessboard.

            That Jews tend to be more interested in theoretical science rather than applied science is a completely separate phenomenon from environmentalist progs wanting to destroy technological civilization.

            My gosh man did you fail to read what I wrote, “let’s note the claim that the bankster-Zionists-cabal are not orthodox Jews.”

            Also it’s worth noting that banks don’t really have power. Power has banks.

            Banksters (not bankers) are the global elite power who also happen to have their fingers on the levers of banking. That doesn’t mean they’re confined to banking.

            Get a grip man.

            Get some reading comprehension man.

            • jim says:

              Soros is an employee of the state department. His business model is that he buys up worthless debt from bankrupt third world nations, then the US taxpayer makes the debt worth something, and then he applies the profit to state department purposes that would be too embarrassing to be directly funded out of the US budget.

              9/11 was quite obviously not a controlled demolition. Each tower began its fall by falling sideways like a tree, thus breaking the supports midway, and after the supports were broken, then it free fell downwards.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                Yeah but that Building 7 though.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s a matter of scale. It looks cleanly vertical in descent, but if you were up close to it, it’d look very ragged and random in descent.
                  It looks straight because at a distance sufficient to see the entire building, the differences, which are small in total size compared to the total size of the overall building’s dimensions, are averaged out in our assessment of what we’re seeing.

                  It’s a little like the phenomenon of ‘straight lines’: there’s really no such thing, yet we have no difficulty in working with the illusion that straight lines are common.

                  Zoom in to your best attempt at a straight edge ruler or blade and you’ll see outrageous peaks and troughs. These are averaged out when you judge that you’ve perceived it as a straight edge, because compared to the total width, the width of the variations is sufficiently small to ignore, at the appropriate scale to perceive the object.

                  It’s no different for a building: in order to perceive it in full, you have to look at it from quite a distance. That distance means that the width of the local variations in the shape of the descent tend, thanks to how randomness works, to ‘cancel’ or average out so you judge that what you’re perceiving is straight or vertical.

                  If you were stood right on top of it, you’d observe horizontal differences of many yards between any two vertical segments.

                  The thing you’re talking about is nothing more than an optical illusion and you’re making the same mistake that ‘punctuated equilibrium’ enthusiasts make when they deny evolution by natural selection on those grounds.

                  Essentially you believe your senses are infallible and operate at infinite resolution.

              • X says:

                Each tower began its fall by falling sideways like a tree, thus breaking the supports midway, and after the supports were broken, then it free fell downwards.

                The video where the upper section of WTC2 tipped and rotated, then collapsed into its footprint defies your claim. If it had continued falling in the direction of its momentum, then it would have not been pulled back into a descent into its well contained footprint. Go back to my linked post and view the video of that WTC2 (not WTC7) collapse from many different angles.

              • X says:

                Soros is an employee of the state department.

                And who does the State dept. work on behalf of? Which puppeteer controls the State dept.?

            • Nikolai says:

              Soros isn’t in power, he just does the dirty work of those with actual power. And he clearly isn’t a zionist, he funds open borders groups in Israel.

              9/11 obviously wasn’t a controlled demolition. The US government is dysfunctional and incompetent. Do you really think they could stage 9/11? They can’t even stop naval ships from crashing into each other.

              The elite control banks, but the elite are not banksters or bankers or whatever you’re on about. Being a member of the elite gets you a job at Goldman, getting a job at Goldman doesn’t make you elite.

              I swear everyone over the age of 35 has some kind of mental disorder. (Except for Jim and Trump).

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                “The US government is dysfunctional and incompetent. Do you really think they could stage 9/11? They can’t even stop naval ships from crashing into each other.”

                I expect even the US government, particularly in 2001, would not have given the task of staging 9/11 to the people responsible for naval ships crashing into each other… although it would be amusing if they made a film about it and decided to go that way.

                Why do you 9/11 guys think it’s so pivotal anyway? We can get to your destination without having to agree with your steps to get there.

                • Nikolai says:

                  “Why do you 9/11 guys think it’s so pivotal anyway? We can get to your destination without having to agree with your steps to get there.”

                  Troofers are generally dishonest, overly conspiratorial, don’t understand how power works or who even is in power, and just kind of dumb. It’s in everyone’s best interest to weed them out.

              • X says:

                Soros isn’t in power, he just does the dirty work of those with actual power. And he clearly isn’t a zionist, he funds open borders groups in Israel.

                Did you fail to read my reply to Yara wherein I explained that in my taxonomy “bankster-Zionist” does not mean someone exclusively devoted to Zionism as you naively understand it to be. The role of Israel in the end times is for it to be persecuted while the Beast co-opts it for its soul-stealing, Great Harlot purposes. Soros worships the Beast along with the Neocons and their national security agencies pals who perpetrated 9/11.

                9/11 obviously wasn’t a controlled demolition.

                You’re insane. One more time I will ask you to read and refute this. Are you completely incompetent in your knowledge of physics and structural engineering.

                I swear everyone over the age of 35 has some kind of mental disorder.

                Another Millennial snowflake babbling like an idiot to his elder who has put in much more effort studying the facts. That is why you end up bankrupt and I end up wealthy. Because you babble nonsense and are too lazy to actually study the details. Details matter son.

                I am X gen and we are all over your generation. Because you guys hate details.

                • Roberto says:

                  >The role of Israel in the end times is for it to be persecuted while the Beast co-opts it for its soul-stealing, Great Harlot purposes. Soros worships the Beast along with the Neocons and their national security agencies pals who perpetrated 9/11.

                  >You’re insane.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Lmao. See Robero is definitely under 40

                • X says:

                  Lmao. See Robero is definitely under 40

                  Yet I do not see any rebuttal from any of you responding to the irrefutable physics and structural engineering which can only be explained with controlled demolition.

                  The typical Millennial defector that you are, you are totally incapable of making an accurate technical argument. And thus you will self-immolate along with Western civilization.

                • X says:

                  The role of Israel in the end times is for it to be persecuted while the Beast co-opts it for its soul-stealing, Great Harlot purposes. Soros worships the Beast along with the Neocons and their national security agencies pals who perpetrated 9/11.

                  You’re insane.

                  Roberto you lack sophistication in your reasoning. This is symbolism, not literal. The Beast symbolizes the lust for absolute power. The Great Harlot symbolizes all the things humans “prostitute” themselves for. Again don’t take the most literal meaning of the word ‘prostitute’, but rather the more general and abstract meaning.

                  High IQ people build abstract, generative essence models. Lower IQ individuals see only literally what is front of their nose and are unable to relate the generative essence of seemingly disparate instances of phenomena.

                • Nikolai says:

                  The point of words is to communicate ideas and information, when you make up definitions for established words it defeats the purpose. ‘The world is run by zionist banksters except zionist doesn’t mean zionist and banksters aren’t banksters.’ You’re a headcase.

                  Soros is your poster child for zionist banksters and he doesn’t actually wield power. Jim’s poster child principle applies here. If there were any real zionist wall street types running the world, you’d have a better example than Soros.

                  “That is why you end up bankrupt and I end up wealthy. Because you babble nonsense and are too lazy to actually study the details. Details matter son.”

                  Case in point, the careerist materialism of boomers and gen x. Simply defining success by how much money you have in your bank account. What an empty way to view life. I’d rather be bagging groceries than end up like you.

                  “Yet I do not see any rebuttal from any of you responding to the irrefutable physics and structural engineering which can only be explained with controlled demolition.”

                  Jim rebutted all your claims over the past week or two, seems redundant for me to repeat the same refutations.

  5. Walter Alter says:

    Lefties might be robots but they got conservatives’ butts against the wall in 2018 and I’m guessing that it’s not because conservatives are smarter than the radicals who own the media, the arts, academia and youth and who got no problem with “Africans”. At some point the reality of who got de power and who is scrambling for footing in the modern age has got to be faced. Either we’re more stupid than they are or we’ve been hypnotized by an evil wizard. Digging in ideologically and filling more sandbags is not a winning strategy. How did they get there and what do we change? We can learn from them, and they from us. Who learns the mostest the fastest is going to dominate this phase known as “endgame”. This is emphatically not a troll. Without Trump, we’d be at the wrong end of a gun sight, and even with Trump, it’s dicey and not looking to be sustainable, dark web or no. Keep your eye on the declassification of the FISA court and FBI documents and your fingers crossed for the midterms.

    • jim says:

      Lefties have power, but don’t have brains. I have observed that in practice, smart lefties get suspected of heresy and purged, which problem set in around 2006, 2008 and has rapidly been getting worse. Even overly complex and subtle sentence construction is apt to result in a purge. “I could not follow that sentence, therefore you raped me by mansplaining!”

      Used to be that any lefty smarter than 140 got purged, now it is more like 115 and dropping.

      Khmer Rouge started off as foreign educated PhD students, and the blueprint for the new Cambodia was PhD thesis. In the end, innumerate, and unable to count except on their fingers. The same dynamic is happening here.

      It is difficult to ban some thought without banning all thought, and the left is rapidly moving towards banning all thought. Observe, for example, the Global Warming debate, which is rapidly walking down the path walked by the Khmer Rouge.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        IQ tests are predicated on the interchangeability of question answers of all difficulties, the infallibility of answers (correct was deliberate, incorrect was also deliberate), the irrelevance of sign (standard deviations are squared then unsquared to eliminate sign – I’m not joking) and the statistical significance of very small numbers of test items.

        Whenever someone talks about ‘IQ 140’ they’re appealing to a difference of two test items out of 527 in a sample of ten thousand participants. Most IQ tests have meaningful test items of less than half that, and a norm group of a tenth of that.

        It’s gobbledigook.

        At best IQ tests are a reliable way to screen for learning disabilities. If you’re dealing with someone highly intelligent, you don’t need a test to confirm it.

        • Simon says:

          You’re not wrong about that.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Other than his libertarianism, David Gordon’s a pretty good philosopher.
            He’s rock solid on logical positivism. In fact quite a few of the Mises Institute guys have no time for Popper, Fisher and the rest.

            Sadly, most internet shitlords prefer to listen to the verbose meandering starbursts of ego-manifestation stylistic arabesque bagatelles of Stefan Molyneux.

            • Simon says:

              I was referring to your last sentence. Perhaps your parents should make you sit an IQ test.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Fine. Which part do you disagree with?

                IQ 140 is defined as being at the 99.38th percentile, which means you beat 99.38% of people who participated in the norm group during the design of the test.
                That’s six in a thousand that you beat.

                WAIS-IV had a norm group of 2200, so to receive an IQ score of 140, you’d have to beat just thirteen-to-fourteen people in the norm group.

                How does one beat another person in an IQ test? By answering more questions correctly.

                OK, so how do we control for flukes? Well internal consistency’s generally achieved by having redundant test items, but this doesn’t impact individual scores, especially in comparison, so we can discount it (which is good for you, because it means we can treat the test items as all being meaningful, not redundant).

                How many test items would it take to tell the meaningful rank order of that top fourteen people out of 2200? A thousand? More?

                What are we testing for here, stamina?

                But that’s just the beginning of it……. are you calling me a liar about the definition of a standard deviation? Psychological testing’s predicated on a weird way of looking at the world – neither linear nor logarithmic but instead based on variance.
                Central to this idea is the standard deviation. Wikipedia it: you square everything at the start and root it at the end, *to cancel out the sign*. That’s right: a dip and a blip are interchangeable.

                The whole thing’s nothing more than the numericalisation of human action – we’re in the same ballpark here as ‘utils’ basically.

                If you get the first question in the Ravens Progressive Matrix wrong, it’s no different to getting the final question wrong. I kid you not.
                So a genius worried about his finances might make two careless slips in the ‘stupidly easy’ section and actually score lower than another person who fluked two of the ‘crazy hard’ questions by picking at random.

                In fact, given that Ravens is based on four-way choices, there’s a 25% of guessing correctly at random, and that level of indeterminacy isn’t accounted for in any way in the statistical measures at the end. The assumption is that every answer was deliberate and informed!

                It’s witch-craft.

                If you don’t like Keynes then you don’t like Fisher.

                I assume most of us are hard-line Austrians and also hard-line Dawkinsian ‘selfish gene’ types who have no time for Hamiltonian kinship proportions except as rhetorical shorthand.

                Then you don’t like Fisher and you shouldn’t like psychometrics.

                Again, IQ tests ARE reliable if the question you’re asking is “is this person a retard”.

                • EH says:

                  You’re not entirely wrong about the the reliability of measuring high intelligence using standard statistical methods, but the norming of major IQ tests goes beyond those methods. Read up on “item response theory” and Rasch measures. For instance (n.b. slide 19).

                  The basic idea is that the probability of getting an item correct depends only on the product of the difficulty of the question and the ability of the test-taker, but that probability is not a step function of ability but a softened step function, a logistic curve. (Well, actually there is also a parameter for how soft the curve is, how good the question is at discriminating.)

                  The difficulties of a pool of questions and the abilities of a population of test-takers can be measured simultaneously on the same scale by putting them in matrix with people as rows, questions as columns, a “1” in cells where the person got the question right or a “0” for wrong. The people in the norming group don’t need to reflect the population, you can even do continuous re-norming, which is a big advantage, though question vetting still requires some effort, see link above. There are variations in scoring that take into account multiple-choice guessing and missing some easy questions but getting harder ones right. A bit of matrix math and a log-transformation and you get an equal-interval scale for intelligence with a true 0, that like Kelvin with temperature lets you say this question is x% harder than that one, or this person is y% smarter than that one. This is a true measure of intelligence, unlike IQ, which measures the supposed rarity of intelligence relative to some age.

                  These Rasch measures are used on the S-B and W-J tests. The only choice is of scale, so setting an average 10 y.o. to be 500, the s.d. is about 8.5 near the mean for adults and the average about 510. The high score in the norming sample for the SB5 was 592, so the normal distribution doesn’t hold at the high end.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                You know the best way to produce an elegant bell curve?

                Roll dice and add the results.

                One die produces a straight line, a few more produce something quite lumpy but by a dozen dice, it’s looking very much like a bell curve.

                1+1+1+1+1…..1+1
                1+1+1+1+1…..1+2
                1+1+1+1+1………..
                1+1+1+1+1…..1+6
                1+1+1+1+1…..2+1
                1+1+1+1+1…..2+2
                1+1+1+1+1………..
                1+1+1+1+1…..2+6
                …………………………

                etc.

                produces a bell curve with a huge cluster of same-sum combinations around the middle, with one standard deviation falling at the 78th percentile each side of the mean, and a standard error of the mean diminishing with sample size.

                It’s whackadoodle city, treating randomness as highly significant in predicting human action.

                The most damning part is the dehumanising assumption of symmetry: there are many ways to be a retard but according to Fisher et al, there are just as many ways to be a genius. I guess it’s all just down to luck after all.

                Pure garbage.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Even worse, even when kurtosis is KNOWN (such as the differing shapes of the curve in practice for men and women), they still insist on using the egalitarian metrics to interpret the data.

                  We ought to be totally against all this nonsense, but thanks to Race Realists and Stefan Molyneux, we all love it.

                  Well I don’t care, Race Realists, if blacks are brighter, more hard-working, loving and law-abiding than whites: they’re not my people and I don’t want to live in that society. I want MY people, even if they’re worthless.

                  And I take it back: forget the eugenics, Cominator. You’re not killing my people.

                  I don’t care about IQ and I don’t care about GDP. I care about the white race: ALL of them from the greatest aristocrat to the most ignorant pleb.

                • LE says:

                  > I don’t care about IQ and I don’t care about GDP. I care about the white race: ALL of them from the greatest aristocrat to the most ignorant pleb.

                  “Hail fellow white male”

                  It is increasingly obvious that you don’t think of yourself as white. You don’t have white shibboleths, any more than you have reactionary shibboleths.

                  Old type Marxism. The peasant should ingroup the Marxist, and outgroup the peasant who has one more cow, but the Marxist secretly outgrouped the peasant, because peasant not part of the vanguard of proletariat.

                  New type cultural Marxism. The white should ingroup the Marxist, while Marxist outgroups whites.

                  You tell us that capitalists of our own race, nationality, ethnicity, and religion, are driving the bus over their coethnics, and that therefore we should outgroup our co-ethnics, and ingroup with people who outgroup us.

                  The Jewish Trotskyite (and almost all Trotskyites were Jewish) tells the peasant to outgroup the peasant next door who owns one more cow than his neighbor. Then he tell his fellow Jew “Haha, see, my fellow Jew, I have fooled the dumb peasant. The stupid ignorant peasant has ingrouped me. Now watch me torture his neighbor to death, and then torture him to death”

                  And his fellow Jew goes “ha ha, stupid Christians”

                  The peasant with one cow helps the two Jews torture the peasant with two cows, then the two Jews torture the peasant with one cow.

                  Then the Trotskyite tortures his fellow Jew to death. And then Stalin shoots the Trotskyite.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The problem with saying you care about all whites is you in-group the real enemy. The real enemy isn’t Jews or even Muslims. Its left wing white people.

                • X says:

                  The problem with saying you care about all whites is you in-group the real enemy. The real enemy isn’t Jews or even Muslims. Its left wing white people.

                  You’re claiming the real enemy is nature. How can nature be the enemy. This is the ressentiment delusion of Westerners. We’re always attempting to attain Babylon or heaven on earth.

                  Instead embrace the fact that nature abhors a vacuum. Embrace disorder.

                  Our defensible ingroup is red pill teaching of damned facts about the nature of for example females, collectives, and Islam.

                  But this shit about building another monarchy or other form of attempting to defend Babylon is of course failure directed masturbation.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator:

                  “The problem with saying you care about all whites is you in-group the real enemy. The real enemy isn’t Jews or even Muslims. Its left wing white people.”

                  It’s very tiring being misrepresented at every turn. It’s exactly like trying to have a conversation with leftists: they’re not interested in getting to the heart of the idea under discussion, they just want to claim that technically looked at the right way what you really wanted to say was X even though you said Y because they can read your mind.

                  You’re doing the same thing.

                  Are white leftists THE problem right now? Absobloodylutely they are.

                  It’s not the fashy nazbol types who want to let them off the hook, it’s you! You say simply shutting down a Google or a Nike or a Bella Italia is off the table because…. well I’m not entirely sure why: you claim it’s not muh natural rights – something about this being equivalent to envy-redistribution socialism I think, no idea, it makes no sense to me.

                  But yes in answer to your oh so honest and thoughtful question, white leftists will OF COURSE have a secure and healthy place in a pro-white society under TRS-type uber-Trumpian rule.

                  What they won’t be able to do is practice leftism. The universities will presumably be refashioned into skills centres and centres of genuine learning. No place for the humanities as currently constituted and obviously no place for ‘BME trans intersectionality studies’.

                  The media will be state owned most likely and will reflect the opinions of its owners, not the opinions of Owen Jones and Paul Krugman.

                  Business will have to prove itself worthy or it won’t be allowed to do anything. We’re NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT talking about a regulatory bureaucracy. It’s just a case of “you do bad things and we see you doing them, you get shut down”. Simple.

                  So yes, the most extreme soyboy LGBTQPI++++* types will have nothing at all to fear when whites regain the controls.

                  They’ll have the same civic and human rights as anyone else, including the ability to raise a family and own a family home on one wage: the man working.

                  That’s a pretty good deal and they either take it or they GTFO.

                • jim says:

                  > It’s not the fashy nazbol types who want to let them off the hook, it’s you! You say simply shutting down a Google or a Nike or a Bella Italia is off the table because…. well I’m not entirely sure why: you claim it’s not muh natural rights

                  We have explained the reason to you many times, and you refuse to listen.

                  It is because if the Archbishop issues new dogma, and the Grand Inquisitor pronounces the old dogma to be heresy, Google will enforce the new dogma as it enforced the old, and fire any adherents of the old dogma as it fired those who committed heresy against the old dogma and scarcely notice the change.

                  We are dealing with Havel’s Greengrocer here.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “But yes in answer to your oh so honest and thoughtful question, white leftists will OF COURSE have a secure and healthy place in a pro-white society under TRS-type uber-Trumpian rule.”

                  Not in mine… other then some very talented ones true believer leftists and especially white male leftists just can’t be allowed to live. Its ESPECIALLY important to eliminate white male leftists. White males will then truly be able to act as a bloc.

                  The right always errs by being too merciful we can’t do that this time. We can make exceptions for truly genius leftists (increasingly they’ve been purged) we can hear the defense of those who say they were apolitical people and were just conforming and the dumb single women can be forced into semi-slavery but other then they must die. I don’t care if we have to beat Mao’s record to do it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “if the Archbishop issues new dogma, and the Grand Inquisitor pronounces the old dogma to be heresy, Google will enforce the new dogma as it enforced the old, and fire any adherents of the old dogma as it fired those who committed heresy against the old dogma and scarcely notice the change.”

                  You’re in the habit of describing a thing while claiming to be explaining the reasons for it, Jim.

                  Yes the above would be very nice and I hope if the situation arises, that will indeed happen.

                  Nevertheless the question remains unanswered: WHY give them the benefit of the doubt?

                  We need to Nuremburg those mothers, if only for justice sake.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “true believer leftists and especially white male leftists just can’t be allowed to live.”

                  It’s interesting. Jim was just offering a ‘too cool’ option and Cominator offers a ‘too hot’ option.

                  This is why we need a King.

                  The King will choose the wise option. It may be hot, it may be cold. We shall see.

                  But since everyone’s agreed on the need to have a deliberate rule rather than rule by code-book, there’s really no fundamental disagreement here.

                  (I’m still not NRx though. Wow we agree there too.)

        • Javier says:

          Notice how whenever CR comments, the topic gets totally derailed? Always, without exception? Talk about missing the point.

          Replace IQ with whatever proxy for intelligence you want, the point still stands.

          • peppermint says:

            Let p be a proxy for intelligence.

            Its correlation with IQ is θ.

            We can take some (1-s)IQ+sp and it may be a better or worse proxy for intelligence.

            A sum of independently distributed distributions of finite variance will have a bell curve. A sum of genes of finite impact will too.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Logical positivism’s arcane enough without misusing their “look at me, ancient Greek baby” symbols.

              Theta’s for probability distributions not correlations.

              If you take the Pearson’s Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient, or p-with-a-long-stem (let’s call it p), for any gene distribution and performance on IQ tests, it’s unusual to find anything significant going on, because around a third of what’s measured by IQ tests is environmental, which does not mean parenting-driven: it means how much thinking the person does in their life, how easy they find it and so on.

              The hunt for “the intelligence gene” is forlorn and probably always will be. Pleiotropy is our friend and we shouldn’t yearn for a world of single mutation saltations.

              But yes, what Javier said: so long as we don’t pin our theories on logical positivist constructs, we can stay on topic.
              As soon as the thesis changes from “the NPC plague” to “I believe it makes sense to talk about IQ140 vs IQ145”, it really ceases to be about NPCs anymore but is instead about wild indefensible claims that Austrians should shun.

              • peppermint says:

                Theta is for angles. Correlation is almost like the cosine of an angle.

                Anyway, the genetics aren’t independently distributed, there are clusters, consequently, the IQ should be a multimodal normal distribution. Which is observed.

                • peppermint says:

                  open question: did CR understand that that comment was genetic clusterist and leave it alone because he doesn’t want anything to do with genetic clusterism, or did he read like a good boy without thinking it meant anything?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Not sure what you exactly mean Minty.

                  Sometimes you speak like a razor; other times you speak like cotton wool.

                  You mean can selection work on haplotypes? Of course it can. Selection can work on organisms or even GROUPS (though usually individual organisms’ capacity to defect reduces the efficacy of the latter).

                  Ultimately selection works at the level of the individual gene, but there’s absolutely no reason not to assume that genes often increase their reproductive success by teaming up with other genes.

                  Richard Dawkins is not arguing for naked codons in soup and denying the existence of life.

              • peppermint says:

                Q: how correlated are environmental factors with genetic factors?

                Try coming up with an a priori answer that you find politically acceptable.

                The actual answer is that smart parents are supposed to provide a good environment, but in reality, smart Boomers were particularly prone to uncritically accepting Boomer ideas and raising their children to be pinko commie faggots.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint being uncharacteristically insightful:

                  “Q: how correlated are environmental factors with genetic factors?” (etc.)

                  Indeed. We are not atomised individuals and we are not atomised insulated family units, nuclear or otherwise.
                  We are a society and Maggie be damned.

              • peppermint says:

                Pps. No one takes raw IQ scores seriously and you know it. People actually talk about the characteristics of 0σ, 1σ, 2σ, 3σ+ people, because no one knows how to objectively measure above 3σ.

                Ppps. We know that gorillas are smarter than somalians. Some day we’ll determine the intelligence of chickens and spiders the way we determine distances to far away stars and galaxies, you will never accept the results, but soon you won’t be able to prevent the research.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  (No-one’s denying intelligence is a thing. I baulk when people make distinctions between super-duper-smart people and hemi-demi-semi-super-duper-smart people. These distinctions generally hinge on mistakes, flukes, and differences of two or three questionnaire items. This isn’t meaningful, regardless of how it relates to the wobble of the mean and the size of the arc between the 50th and 78th percentiles.)

                  (If you want to fall back on “dumb people are dumb”, that’s completely fine. There exist fucktards and they shouldn’t have a vote, even with their dollars.)

        • peppermint says:

          Yes, ghoul, we have all read The Mismeasure of Man. Gould was a pseudoscientist whose scientific career was predicated on the idea that punctuated equilibrium, which is a fundamentally static way of looking at fossils, isn’t obvious in Darwin’s writing, the finches specializing on their islands being a blatant example of it, and whose career, being a Harvard kike, was predicated on being a kike and giving a scientific patina to blatant lies about race and IQ.

          IQ is real and you know that IQ is real.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            >IQ is real and you know that IQ is real.

            You have to admire his consistency.

            He’s for communism, against sound money, denies the importance of fathers in raising children and denies IQ – all for “reactionary” reasons.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              LOL Steve ^_^

              You think I don’t find that delicious too?

              I’m not for communism, just anti-capitalism. Is there a difference between capitalism and communism? Both are egalitarian doctrines based on the wisdom of the masses.

              I’m not against sound money in the current paradigm; it just becomes irrelevant once you have a stable society.

              I deny the importance of parenting: the importance of fathers for SOCIETY – and for FATHERS – is one of our principal values, perhaps the top one in fact. We need the Patriarchy, but we don’t need the Patriarchy *because for the chillldrennnn*: we need it for the nation and because it’s better for us, for men. We want the Patriarchy because we’re MEN, and as it so happens, the world’s better off when MEN are in charge: not children ffs

              I don’t deny intelligence but I do deny that statistics can perform transformations on fungible questionnaire answers made by people and then draw meaningful conclusions with infinite resolution. Logical positivism is the school of Keynes after all.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          As I understand it, there are harder IQ tests that can distinguish more extreme values (at the high end, of course).

          Here is one: http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/titan/titan.html

          With some comments: http://miyaguchi.4sigma.org/hoeflin/titan/gradynorm.html

          However, it also seems to me that the field could stand to become a bit more rigorous. Perhaps they should retire the psychologists and psychometricians and engage some physicists on this task.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            That’s an excellent idea.

            Perhaps IQ tests could be done in two stages: WAIS-III to check for retardation, and then if 120+ is indicated, progress to Titan for fine detail sufficient to sort the GM-wheat from the polluted chaff.

            It’s not that questionnaires aren’t useful: it’s that differences of two or three test items, ignoring flukes and mistakes, can be made to look important when they’re processed and regurgitated through clever statistical transformations like the bell curve model of psychometry.

          • peppermint says:

            for the past century there have been endless efforts to prove that everyone has the same IQ without making IQ useless, which is impossible by definition

            in practice the standard tests are able to do what anyone wants anyway: sort the 2σ from the 3σ quickly with minimal effort

            1σ are easy to spot and irrelevant, 2σ can be dangerous

    • X says:

      How did they get there and what do we change? We can learn from them, and they from us. Who learns the mostest the fastest is going to dominate this phase known as “endgame”.

      It’s just time. Don’t blame it on anything. It’s just nature doing entropic maximization. The collapse of everything you’ve valued in your life will radically accelerate because the global economic collapse is about to erupt and it will be much worse and sustained than the 2008 subprime deleveraging contagion:

      https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/markets-by-sector/foreign-exchange/directional-changes-the-worst-in-40-years/

      Armstrong has not been incorrect on the major political and global economic themes since I have been following him when he was still in prison around 2011. He also predicted the rise of a 3rd party inside of the Republican party. Everyone here should read his archives.

      As for why that former $2 trillion Japanese postal hedge fund manager was in prison for 7 years on an unconstitutional contempt-of-court, it is related to manipulation of the Russian elections in 2000 which is also related to the Russia issue Trump is now involved with. Details here.

  6. Art says:

    Care to share links to any of these conversations?

  7. Bruce says:

    Jim, dying to hear your take on the lady accusing Brett Kavanaugh.

  8. Roberto says:

    How do you all do, my dear reactionary fellows?
    Those dirty millionaires we have to send-up to the gallows.

    The problems in society all stem from those rich swine,
    Whose material affluence just exceeds that of mine.

    Damn capitalist scum: our most formidable enemy,
    Their exploitation of labor is oh-so-detestable to me!

    Your consciousness is false, such a shame my precious homie,
    Now hear me out and don’t you fucking dare to call me “commie.”

    If you dispute my claims then certainly you’re libertarians,
    Denouncing you I gladly will, and flay you like barbarians.

    Your private swimming pool will be transformed into a graveyard,
    The family will drown in it and you’ll have none to save-ya.

    Should services of whores on occasion you procure,
    No more balls, problem solved – that’s my kind of cure.

    Convince you to refrain from reproduction I was gonna,
    Or you’ll just get the chair for half-a-gram of marijuana.

    I swore that I’d be leaving but promises don’t feel like keeping,
    Should you commit class-treason, your wife will simply end-up weeping.

    I inverted your philosophy just like Marx did to Hegel,
    With a reasoning that’s no less circular than a fat bagel.

    Speaking of being fat, that reminds me of my plan,
    To save the proletariat – all leisure must be banned!

    The restaurants, the chains, the pools, even air travel,
    The fabric of society we must start to unravel!

    I am obsessed to death with some obscure Alt-Right celebrities,
    Who won’t concede the harmfulness of all class-based disparities.

    Eugenics I consider to be a capitalist conspiracy,
    I’ll counter-signal all that you believe without coherency.

    To engage in entryism, I listen to your fashy podcasts,
    Yet for some strange reason, you have rendered me an outcast.

    So next time that you see me, don’t ask me for my motive,
    My drunkenness has proven just how badly I’m emotive.

    This, though, I will tell you with unsurpassed certainty,
    My blood-line’s ending is the most karmatic penalty.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      How does your alternative differ from globohomo?

      • Roberto says:

        >How does your alternative differ from globohomo?

        Presumably, this question is really addressed to the whole community and not just to me.

        So you’re asking, “How is the Spandrellian Trichotomy and the Jimian Throne-Altar-Freehold program differ from globohomo?”

        In other words: ethno-nationalism doesn’t matter; having a non-pozzed state religion doesn’t matter; technological singularity doesn’t matter; restoring patriarchy doesn’t matter; abolishing democracy doesn’t matter; allowing free association doesn’t matter; THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IS THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD REGULATE THE ECONOMY; ALL ELSE IS IRRELEVANT AT BEST, FELLOW REACTIONARIES.

        Admit it, CR. You’re an entryist.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          What am I entering? I’m no longer a reactionary and don’t claim to be one.

          I’m alt.right and people of my kind favour radical protectionism. Some of us favour nationalisation, economic rights (such as the right of all workers to a family wage) and draconian interventions to curb leftism no matter the nature of the institution concerned.

          • 7817 says:

            Alt Right? Please. You are not alt right you giant goober.

            Quoting from VDays blog here, forgive me:

            “The Alt Right is of the political right in both the American and the European sense of the term. Socialists are not Alt Right. Progressives are not Alt Right. Liberals are not Alt Right. Communists, Marxists, Marxians, cultural Marxists, and neocons are not Alt Right. National Socialists are not Alt Right.”

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              I respect him, he changed my mind about the international division of labour, which was arguably the first step to rethinking economics.

              He’s completely wrong about the above. The alt.right is the embodiment of white people taking their own side. All other discussions are secondary. You can be a white nationalist, an ethnic nationalist, even a civic nationalist, so long as you embrace solidarity for white people.

              Economics is a side issue. It’s perfectly fine to be a Christopher Cantwell or a Jay Oh de la Ray, just as it’s perfectly fine to be a Joachim Hawk or an Eric Striker.

              Laissez-faire advocates sincerely believe theirs is a right-wing position. In my view they’re mistaken because they excuse all manner of harmful degeneracy on the grounds of natural rights. That doesn’t stop them from taking white people’s side if they want, but sometimes they refuse to do that, favouring economics first and foremost.

              If they do that, they’re enemies. We take the side of white people first and foremost.

              • 7817 says:

                “You can be a white nationalist, an ethnic nationalist, even a civic nationalist, so long as you embrace solidarity for white people.”

                Word salad.

                If you were paying attention you’d know that generally civic nationalists hate white nationalists.

                Didn’t believe Jim at first about you being entryist, just thought you were misguided, but you went all out to prove him right.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Speaking of Vox Day and the international division of labour, why is it that you as a Voxist are opposed to the total out-sourcing of all heavy industry and manufacturing?
              I assume that, like Vox, you oppose the total in-sourcing of particular industries on the grounds that this changes the demographics of the nation, but what’s so bad about losing the good jobs? Won’t we all be better off when the price of everything falls?
              That’s what Bob Murphy would say: mutually beneficial trade, regardless of borders, is bound to be overall a good thing for humanity.
              Since out-sourcing industry/manufacturing doesn’t affect the demographics of the nation losing those industries, why does it matter?

              I think people here know MY answer, but since I’m leftist infiltrator scum and Vox Day’s at least somewhat respectable, what’s the reason for a Vox Day acolyte opposing the international division of labour in the context of easy transportation?

              I expect it’s the same as my own: it makes us poorer. It’s not a true reflection of what Ricardo was talking about – Iceland is never going to excel at growing mangoes and mining gold in Scotland is a bad idea. The modern situation isn’t about that: it’s about moving finished machinery to places where labour’s cheaper.

              OK, assuming you agree with that characterisation of the reasoning for Vox’s opposition to the international division of labour in the modern context, what’s stopping you from pursuing other types of economic interventionism for the exact same reasons based on the exact same logical chain?

              I’m serious, and since you’re interested in the demographics of nations, what’s compelling you to side with those who benefit from poverty pay at home and sky-high house prices, when these are in effect ‘economic’ distortions on the reproductive rates of the population, in rather a dysgenic way? (Reproducing less on account of expected affordability is what Anonymous Conservative would call a ‘K-selected’ behaviour. I don’t like that theory but we all know what we’re referring to with those labels.)

              The case for laissez-faire as a right-wing pro-white position evaporates on closer consideration, but of course it’s tempting to just dismiss more nat.soc-leaning folks as leftists, a la Dinesh d’Souza. Saves a lot of thoughtful reconsideration of holy precepts.

              • 7817 says:

                I’m not even smart enough to be a Vox Day acolyte if I wanted to be, but in my view outsourcing all manufacturing is cutting your own throat. Bring on the tariffs, bring the jobs home, make America self sufficient again. We’ve got most of the necessary natural resources, lets take care of our own house.

                I’m not one who cares to much about “white people” I just care about “my people”, which is a much smaller subset.

                • X says:

                  Protectionism doesn’t work because your in-group will defect on each other. This is that entropy argument we already had on the prior blogs. I will not recapitulate it.

                  For example, I was thinking about how we might incentivize a democracy to not vote for stupid shit. So I contemplated the idea that only those who would pay significant taxes would be allowed to vote. Thus in theory we’d all vote to reduce the size of the government. But there are several reasons that will not work out. First, because there’s government debt, so we can all vote for our preferences and it is charged to the future. A collective decision making process has no bottom line responsibility.

                  Secondly, by restricting the vote to those who have the reins of the economy, the oligarchs vote for how they can increase their monopolies over the general population.

                  Collectivized action is always subject to the trend of entropy towards maximum disorder. Westerners mistakenly believe that progress can be perpetually ordered and monotonically increasing. Thus we Westerners turn to insane holy wars (to demonize and place blame) when nature isn’t obey our delusions of unreality.

                  Most of you who respond to me on this blog are suffering from delusions, which is for example why it is impossible for y’all to accept the reality of what happened on 9/11.

                  C.f. my recent comments on the prior blog for practical suggestions for enduring the collapse of Western civilization underway.

                  Jim has pointed out monarchies also succumb to defection. Any highly ordered large-scale phenomenon will succumb to entropic decay. Saplings grow exponentially fast to oak trees, but they don’t grow to the moon. Their rate of growth is decelerating from the seedling genesis until their stage of maturity and eventual rot and collapse.

  9. Calvin says:

    Do you think this is an actual (albeit hamhanded) effort to foster some kind of dialogue? Or just a cynical excuse for progs to virtual signal about how they’re so benevolent they tried to help the poor benighted neo nazis see the error of their ways, but Gaia damnit they were just too hateful?

    • Inquiring Mind says:

      There is a risk to one’s career and social reputation to even be remotely connected to Jim’s fine Web site, even if to only post comments scolding our host and like-minded commenters.

      Suppose, back “in the day”, of course, you were patronizing bathhouses to “preach salvation” to the wayward men there — could you disclose this in polite circles without snickers that you were “one of them” but hadn’t yet “come to terms with who you are”?

      I think this is “Hasbara” all-the-way-down. Hasbara is known as the State of Israel encouraging their supporters to defend Israel on Web sites and other outlets of disseminating information, but there is also Russian Hasbara and Left-liberal Hasbara and so on.

      • X says:

        Who. The. Fuck. Cares.

        Are you not prepared to live in the mountains if need be? Or even to die if need be.

        White Christian men should not be afraid. If you’re afraid you already lost. Jim hiding behind anonymity can’t lead. Who can trust that.

        Live and die with the honest truth.

        • jim says:

          I am literally prepped to live in the mountains if need be, and I notice that anyone that does not hide behind anonymity is targeted, usually capitulates, and winds up, like Jordan Peterson, a tool of our enemies.

        • Calvin says:

          Whinging about hiding behind anonymity while literally going by “X” destroys any credibility you have. Are you too autistic to notice that?

          • jim says:

            X is anonymous to us. I doubt he is anonymous to the FBI and Robert Mueller. He wants us to identify ourselves to his employers.

            • pdimov says:

              Anonymous? He’s not anonymous at all. Has a linkedin profile of all things.

              • jim says:

                If the government demolished the towers, he would need to be anonymous. If he thought the government demolished to towers, he would be anonymous.

                He addresses us as “X” to be in character as the brave speaker of truth to power.

                • Inquiring Mind says:

                  Gee, do I have to explain everything?

                  Jim’s post about “NPCs” is wondering out loud where the trolls around here come from. They are trolls, yes, but they are so scripted they fail the Turing Test for being human?

                  For a long while, this place was free of trolls because they wouldn’t be caught dead here. Eventually the trolls appear as they do every other place on the Web. But they read from a script — and repeat themselves.

                  Sailer’s blog has “Tiny Duck”, who used to be annoying and who can resist feeding such a troll even when we are warned not too? But TD has become so predictable and so repetitious that this being’s pronouncements are just rumbling noise, like the passage of large trucks that we learn to “filter out” as we go about our work.

                  I brought up Hasbara, not referring specifically to media relations by the State of Israel but to the Tom Clancy-esque Sum of All Fears federation of various factions having nothing in common apart from having a nihilist agenda.

                  It is like a new class of beggars we see in town that even our aging Ur-Leftie mayor is complaining about. They stand on “pedestrian islands” with signs and beg from motorists. But they don’t have the desperate look of homeless and substance abusers and PTSD sufferers about them. They look like homeless people from a Hollywood movie — they look as much like homeless beggars that 20-something actors look like high school students.

                  My theory is they belong to a cult religion or a church that tells them to go out begging — modern-day Hare Krishna’s? Likewise, the trolls hanging out at a “rough” place like this (to the sensibilities of a proper left-liberal person) — are they “told” to hang out here?

                  Am I paranoid to believe that supposed homeless beggars standing on concrete islands of high traffic-volume intersections are really disciples of a cult church? That Jim’s NPCs (and no, I don’t mean people who disagree with Jim and even get into arguments with him, Jim knows, I know, and you know whom we are talking about) are organized and directed to make sure no corner of the Web is outside Cathedral influence?

                • Roberto says:

                  Your intuition is correct, IM, but I’d say that the longer a commenter stays on a blog, the less likely he is to be a government-paid troll; government-paid trolls employ a “hit and run” modus operandi. They come to your blog, give you the mind-fuck of all mind-fucks, then disappear. CR and X were probably not sent here by a government. That makes their script-like manner of argumentation *all the more* creepy, pointing in the direction of NPC.

                • X says:

                  Jim you’re not anonymous to the NSA.

                  The decentralized methodologies I’m recommending are resilient to the loss of any one leader.

                  If you’re just in fear for yourself, then that’s cowardly. Satan can only take your body, not your soul.

                  Inquiring Mind says:

                  Jim’s post about “NPCs” is wondering out loud where the trolls around here come from.

                  I posted on Jim’s blog 5.5 years ago.

                  I tried to post a few times over the years on my original username (my real name), but his WordPress filters had banned me. I seem to banned in general from WordPress.

                  Recently the political situation in the West reached the climax, so I made the effort to employ a decentralized VPN to post which is not detected by the WordPress filter. Jim has since whitelisted me and I am trying to respect his trust by not excess posting nor posting any more links about 9/11. Those who want to explore what I know to be truth, can find the links already on this and the prior blogs.

                  My theory is they belong to a cult religion or a church that tells them to go out begging — modern-day Hare Krishna’s?

                  As Karl Popper pointer out, when you start having delusions of being attacked by ghouls, then you’ve gone insane and are preparing to execute a holy war.

                  You’re a Westerner who is apparently suffering the analogous psychological dysfunction as the SJWs, just expressed from a different set of core values. The Westerner’s psychological ressentiment is the root cause of our self-deception. This ideological trait can be helpful for generating enthusiastic cooperation but it can also lead to catastrophic holy wars on the backside of the mountain peak.

                • Inquiring Mind says:

                  X, you are not one of the NPCs we speak of.

                  Although you are working really hard to annoy Jim, me, and everyone else around here, you don’t fit the NPC profile.

                  But I am suffering from a psych disfunction? Me?

                  I am just trying my hand at Sailer-esque “noticing” to comment that the beggars who suddenly show up at all of the major outside-the-urban-core intersections look a little “off”, that they are “ordinary” people who are begging to advance some agenda?

                  I have psych disfunction? Who am I, the David Vincent character from the TV show The Invaders where I am claiming the beggars are space aliens disguised in human bodies through a “regeneration process”, have crooked pinkie fingers and go “poof” in a flash of orange smoke when struck by a car?

                  All I am claiming is there is “something” about the concrete island beggars — their hair, their hands and fingernails, their affect, their physical fitness — that makes them appear to be persons acting as street people instead of being street people. And I have a psych disfunction?

                • Inquiring Mind says:

                  I might add that space aliens are not real, but Hare Krishnas certainly are.

                  You haven’t had the experience of walking through an airport, some cute girl makes eye contact with you as if she is a long-lost girlfriend you are supposed to recognize by sight, walks up to you, pins a flower on your lapel and then demands money for it? And then you notice she has a stud “nose ring”, this is years before everyone young woman was doing this. That Hare Krishnas in airports wasn’t a “thing.” And I am paranoid?

                • peppermint says:

                  > you’re not anonymous to the NSA

                  you’re lucky your ass in anonymous to my foot

  10. Nerevar says:

    Some of the popular AIs in this world use human feedback to guide the answers of the AI in accuracy, training it for for the future, whether it slotted words corrected and chose the right response, etc. Presumably our benefactors who twisted their anti-mud AI to confront the alt-right are going to be doing some similar. But at some point the human worker drones rating the responses of the AI are themselves going to end up redpilled. But it’ll be a nice income so maybe they’ll keep at the job anyway if it brings in the bucks.

    By the way ddg is not going to beat Google if they do not have hordes of humans looking at people’s searches and evaluating the machine’s responses

    • Yara says:

      Pretty soon the whole Internet will be flooded with such AI, top to bottom. It’s already capable of adequately mimicking conversational IQ of perhaps 100; soon it will be 105, then 110, and shortly thereafter 130, 135, and so on.

      It’s a sad thing, a tragic thing, the death of the Internet and the obsolescence of man. I occasionally reflect that I was born 10 years too late. Oh well. Now has some benefits, I suppose: I get to see it all unravel.

      • Roberto says:

        What scares me is not AI bots joining forums to shill their scripts (“how do you do, fellow humans”), but AI being used by the government to early on identify — and allow law enforcement agencies to target — thought criminals. Imagine the AI analyzing everything you do on the internet and sending intelligent reports to the authorities.

        • TBeholder says:

          Why would anyone even bother with this?
          The history confirms that there’s always enough of human collaborationists ready to rat out their neighbour for free. Including very enthusiastic ones.
          And that what really matters is deterrence.
          And if the intended paymasters are too deluded to see this, they will be parasitized upon.
          In that “hi-tech” buzzword herders could shill something like this to their benefactors, but they would be interested in making a cash cow from the project, as opposed to delivery of a finished, reliable, efficient product. So this would end up like F-35 at “best” — more probably, just like the rest of CS hipster travesty (as described by Moldbug et al).
          If they are not a pre-organized “third party” out to reap cash forever, they will be given a proper committee to direct and oversee them. Which will start with implementing affirmative action cadre policy, and then proceed to make completely sure their jobs last forever.

      • Roberto says:

        And since most of today’s thought criminals will be alive when that happens, the AI might be used retroactively to identify who did what & predict present or future behavior.

        Roko’s Basilisk: Big Brother Edition.

  11. Frederick Algernon says:

    It would probably be beneficial if we all made an effort to screen capture NPC interactions. For science.

    • Yara says:

      Beneficial to whom? Do you benefit by gazing into the soulless, soy-eyed abyss?

      • The Cominator says:

        There are people on the Chans who screenshot such things.

      • peppermint says:

        from talking to CR I know what ghouls are like and I can respond directly to what they’re actually saying. Maybe there are other types to study.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Good intel comes from multiple points of observation under varying shades of context. More sources means more precision (like a GPS constellation).

  12. Roberto says:

    I point out that the NRx program is absolutely dissimilar to globohomo in a variety of crucial ways, and you respond by “I am keeping notes, and when I get power, I’ll designate you a wrecker and an ally of Big Capital.”

    Splendid.

  13. Joe says:

    You need to ban your NPCs.

    • Joe says:

      Note that NPCs are also allowed to insert unrelated things such as life experiences (real, copied or made up) so that their characters are not entirely one-dimensional. When it comes to important subject matters, however, they will never depart from the script.

  14. Mister Grumpus says:

    Boy you sure got the jump on this one. Exactly one month later and everyone’s going nuts over this NPC thing.

Leave a Reply