The origin of cuckservatism

The Cathedral’s position on right wing individualism is rendered obvious by the mindless conformity and rigid ideological uniformity of our tenured academics, and the robotic programmed speech of NPC leftists of twitter, and by the ever swelling apparatus to impose correct thought on everyone, for example the Human Resources Department.

But at the same time there is a problem with right wing individualism: Burke is the father of cuckservatism. The trouble with Burke is that the Burke of Liberty subverted the Burke of authority. When Burke condemned the French Revolution and assorted left anarchists and socialists, he had to invoke the throne and altar that he was otherwise busy undermining.

The Burke of Authority invokes throne and altar

If no stationary bandit, going to have mobile bandits. If no state religion, going to have a worse state religion.

The text that the revolutionist is writing while interrupted by Burke says “On the benefits of atheism and anarchism”. And he is deemed a rat because he identifies with the ideas and principles of Burke, and takes them to their logical conclusion, which conclusion horrifies Burke.

The picture is “titled “Death of Charles the first, or the Glory of Great Britain”, the book says “Treatise on the ill effects of order and Government on our society and on the absurdity of serving God or honoring the King”

But that position is just the position that Burke took on the British Empire, applied to great Britain itself, applied terrifyingly close to home. And a terrified Burke promptly invoked the throne and altar that he had been industriously undermining, and continued to industriously undermine. The cartoon depicts Burke menacing the anarcho socialist revolutionary with a glowing cross in one hand, representing the state religion that Burke was probably an apostate from, and the crown representing the throne he was industriously undermining.

Burke engaged in lawfare against the East India company, launching a pile of frivolous charges against an individual member of the East India Company, in which he sought to find him guilty of governing India.

The crown had long ago given the East India company authority to make war and peace. Finding itself under attack by bandit kings, it made war in a horrifying fashion, employing devastating methods that frequently amounted to plunder, pillage, and ethnic cleaning. Victorious, it transitioned from mobile banditry to stationary banditry. Burke charged it, not with the horrifying things it had done as a mobile bandit, but with bringing peace, order and prosperity as a stationary bandit. The process was the punishment. The accused suffered more grief in successfully defending himself, than he would have if he had pled guilty and accepted punishment. Despite the accused being acquitted, Burke successfully established the principle that the British Empire was illegitimate and wicked.

Cuckservatives have no ground to stand on. If liberty, why should some people have property and others not have property, why should some people have authority and others not have authority, which is why Burke had to turn to throne and altar when viewing the catastrophic consequences of his own cuckservative doctrines. The Burke of liberty continually contradicts and subverts the Burke of authority.

But wholesale rejection of individualism is not an option, because then everything becomes a coordination problem, and coordination problems are at best difficult to solve, seldom have satisfactory solutions, and usually have only utterly disastrous solutions.

Consider the school lunch program: Turns out that it is much easier for a mother to feed her children healthy food than for a vast overpaid bureaucracy to feed an army of children healthy food.

At the same time, making individualism a religious principle leads not to freedom, but to totalitarianism, for freedom is secured by walls that separate the proper domain of my power and decisions from other people’s, and those walls are an intrusion on their freedom to set fire to the supermarket and steal a case of beer, leading to the socialism painfully familiar to the Chinese who produced this video.

And, as Moldbug argued, those walls have to be ultimately backed by a sovereign. Anarcho capitalism will always be conquered by tribalism.

But who defends the walls against the sovereign – and against the propensity of that sovereign to find himself surrounded by vast and ever swelling bureaucracy? Burke has a case – but the verdict of history is that Burkean liberty necessarily leads to surrender to those that so horrified Burke, and Burke’s ready resort to throne and altar foreshadowed the verdict of history. The inconsistency between the Burke of Authority and the Burke of Liberty reveals that one must devour the other. Conservatism has failed. Libertarianism reveals itself as unilateral disarmament, manifested by libertarians who cheerfully tell the baker “Just bake the cake” when a Christian baker is commanded to bake a gay wedding cake and cheerfully accept measures against husbands and fathers that would outrage them if applied against serial killers, libertarians who find it intolerable for president Trump to use the military to build a wall against invasion, but have no problem with using the military to build girl’s schools in Afghanistan to teach nine year old girls to put a condom on a banana.

Cuckservatism seeks to preserve the social technology that the restoration secured – while abandoning the principles of the restoration. This fundamental inconsistency bit Burke, and it continues to bite his successors. Conservatism has failed, endlessly surrendering. There is no alternative but to return to the throne and altar that Burke so readily returned to when order was under threat. Conservatism has failed. Libertarianism has failed. Only throne and altar can save us.

The alternative to throne is not liberty, but rather anarcho tyranny, a thousand Kings three miles away instead of one King three thousand miles away. The alternative to state religion is out of control religion, the social justice warriors.

Reaction will be implemented by reactionary methods, not by promising fifty one percent of the voters more bread and circuses. The cycle of history is that democracy gives way to the rule of one man. The end of the democracy draws near, the only question remaining being how many will be murdered in its death throes. That one man will find that guns do not suffice. He is going to need a priesthood, an official religion consistent with the rule of one man. Those who preach that the ruler rules by the will of God are in the running to be that priesthood.

Current technology is that a handful of able, well trained well equipped warriors can easily handle a mob of any size, and have little difficulty with a horde of poorly trained conscript cannon fodder. Our technological situation is analogous to what it was when the armored knight on the warhorse was the ultimate decider of battles. But guns alone cannot rule. Ideas are more powerful than guns. Our ideas are appropriate to the death throes of democracy, and to current military and information technology. Recent events have demonstrated that elections have already become largely irrelevant. Expect each election to be even less relevant than its predecessor. When the permanent government decided to ignore Trump, it decided to saw off the branch on which it sat. As Trump needed, and successfully used, the Federalist society, and the Federalist society successfully used Trump, the dictator is going to need us.

The recent parade in Italy reflects the increasing mass penetration of our ideas, in the meme of Emperor Trump, and the celebration of divine right warrior rule in the song Carolus Rex. Supposedly this is mockery of Trump – but you don’t mock by faithfully reproducing memes circulated by his most enthusiastic supporters at twenty times lifesize with loudspeakers blaring.

We are intellectuals, and the meme warriors disown intellectual analysis for meme warfare – but their memes encapsulate our ideas in their simplest and most compelling form. Meme warriors are our footsoldiers. If Trump fails, someone is going to succeed – the only question is how many will be killed before the return to simplest and most fundamental form of governance. The social justice warrior is trapped in a holiness spiral, and the position that all white males need to be killed is the next step in ever greater holiness. Let us hope we get a more stable form of governance before that happens. But sooner or later, and not very much later, we are going to get a more stable form of governance. Conservatism was born cutting its own throat. Libertarianism has surrendered. All that remains is reaction or socialist democide. Worst case outcome is socialist democide followed by reaction. We hope for a reaction that restores the social technology that has been destroyed, we hope for the restoration, and intend to provide an idea system that will make that reaction more stable, more secure, and less bloody. Restoration is the idea system that can provide the legitimacy that will make the coming dictatorship secure, peaceful, and more comfortable for everyone.

966 Responses to “The origin of cuckservatism”

  1. Mike says:

    And I think this is the reason that so many of the members of the dissident right come from libertarian backgrounds. It’s like they know something is wrong, but they diagnose it incorrectly, while getting some of the solutions and reasoning correct along the way. So then eventually they realize that libertarianism is missing something and they go full redpill. I can’t tell you how many reactionaries I’ve seen that are massive Rothbard fans.

    • The Cominator says:

      The worst members of the dissident right tend to come from white knightionalists backgrounds and beta socon papists. These people it seems can NEVER get a proper understanding of how to address the woman question. The Papists also continously try to absolve their church of any role in the poz and the white knightionalists often cling to something very close to female equality.

      The best have their roots as small l libertarians or the manosphere. They tend to develop proper economics and the woman question.

      • Peter Whitaker says:

        Also, people with libertarian and manosphere origins do not entertain terrorist sympathies, while people with skinhead or religious conservative backgrounds are liable to commit acts of terrorism.

        • kawaii_kike says:

          Aw shucks, you make it sound like terrorist sympathies are a bad thing.
          Christians never commit acts of terrorism.

          • The Cominator says:

            Christians generally don’t (and I mentioned specifically socon catlicks not right wing Christians anyway) that tends to be white knightionalists. The only act of right wing political terrorism which ever hit anyone on the left that actually mattered was Brevik and he wasn’t a conventional white knightionalists (he believed in some of their points but didn’t blame Jews for his say his erectile dysfunction).

            • Eynon says:

              What a bizarre comment to make. The largest cause of erectile dysfunction is, obviously, genital mutilation, which removes the vast majority of erogenous sensitivity in the penis. Since male genital mutilation is practiced, propagated, and defended by Jews, and since the largest group of circumcised men are Muslims who took on the tradition with their adoption of Abrahamism, blaming Jews in part for erectile dysfunction is quite accurate for many of the people who experience it.

              • AK says:

                >The largest cause of erectile dysfunction is, obviously, genital mutilation

                I’m all for banning genital mutilation and stuffing the mutilators into ovens, but this is bullshit. The largest cause is not GM (or, for that matter, “porn addiction”), but condoms, which literally make erection impossible for people with insensitive dicks. I know that when I tried fucking some bitches with a condom on, I had “erectile dysfunction,” and when I did it without a condom, everything worked just fine.

                • Eynon says:

                  Erectile Dysfunction as a pervasive condition, not the momentary description of what happens when you wrap a latex bag around your dick. Afghan warlords were not bribed with Viagra because they were using condoms.

                • Eynon says:

                  >Everything worked just fine

                  No, it worked like a partially amputated penis with no frenulum, no mucosal tissue sliding mechanism, and a keratinized glans.

                • AK says:

                  Not denying the diminished pleasure aspect. Just not sure that a reduced capacity to experience sensual pleasure, even a *drastically* reduced capacity, is the cause of pervasive ED.

                  Mutilation certainly makes coitus and/or masturbation longer (i.e., it takes longer to reach climax) and less enjoyable, but since it does not generally reduce sexual appetite, should not substantially reduce the erectile function itself. It’s like if you lose a part of your tongue, so you’re less able to enjoy food, but your saliva production should be more or less the same.

                  But I’m no expert. Anyway, we agree that this practice should be eliminated and that it would be splendid if the technology existed to restore foreskins.

                • Eynon says:

                  >not sure that a reduced capacity to experience sensual pleasure, even a *drastically* reduced capacity, is the cause of pervasive ED.

                  You just said that condoms make it harder to get and maintain erections due to the desensitizing effect.

                • AK says:

                  Well, I don’t know which is more desensitizing, condoms or MGM. Since I manage to keep it up without a condom (despite lacking a foreskin), but fail to keep it up with a condom, I assumed that if other people would avoid condoms, their erectile function would likewise be okay.

                  I also think that mass ED is a relatively new phenomenon, which cannot really be explained by the prevalence of MGM, since — at least in the West — that practice is now dying out. What has increased, ever since the faggots falsely scared us about AIDS, is condom use.

                  People today are having less sex than ever, and the sex they’re having is usually promiscuous rather than in a monogamous context; and since the faggots told us that we’re all gonna die of AIDS, and the Feminists told us that pregnancy is a “danger,” people now usually use condoms, even when there’s no need for it.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Why call it “genital mutilation” when genital improvement is more accurate. Circumcision is the complete opposite from mutilation and should be considered genital enhancement. Not only does it keep the genitals more hygienic but it also reduces sexual urges.

                  Lust is a vice that many people struggle with, so if removing the foreskin helps people resist temptation and saves them from the fires of Hell, then so be it.

                  Circumcision is a gift and a virtue. If you could look past your obsession with sexual gratification then you would be able to see circumcision for the gift that it truly is. I support male and female circumcision. It reduces sexual urges and thus makes the world a less sinful place.

                • jim says:

                  “reduces sexual urges” – sounds like an extremely bad idea.

                • Koanic says:

                  I don’t think it does reduce the desire to penetrate and conquer.

              • Eynon says:

                >Well, I don’t know which is more desensitizing, condoms or MGM.

                MGM, certainly. Covering something in latex vs. chopping most of it of with a knife. Yes, the condom covers the entire penis while prepuce amputation is only the top half, but there is basically no erogenous sensitivity lower down the penis; shaft skin is just skin.

                Over 40% of the Arab world experiences ED and its not because the Muslims are wearing condoms to fuck their virgin wives. In contrast, the entire Asia-Pacific region- which holds the large plurality of the world’s population and where no one cuts other than the South Koreans and tiny Muslim minorities- accounts for just 16% of the ED medication market.

                • AK says:

                  >Over 40% of the Arab world experiences ED
                  >the entire Asia-Pacific region… accounts for just 16% of the ED medication market.

                  Huh. Well, I trust your data, so I guess that settles it.

                  Some disingenuous people may now say, “Don’t blame the Jews! It was John Harvey Kellogg who introduced MGM to the Anglo-Protestant world, not the Jews.”

                  But would he be able to do that without knowing that Jews and Mohammedans practice it en masse? Kellogg would most likely have had a much harder time selling MGM to the general public had there not existed a handy Jewish example to point to.

                  Since Jews settled in America, Kellogg could simply argue, “Look everybody, our wise Jewish brethren over here are practicing it on their 8-day-old newborns, and everything is going just fine, so we can safely adopt that practice.”

                  So the Jewish responsibility lies in giving the goyim a bad idea by setting up a bad example, bringing darkness onto the nations rather than light.

                • Eynon says:

                  As mentioned before I don’t suggest that the rise and continuation of genital mutilation in the US can be solely blamed on Jews; rather, that The Comintator’s attempt to use ED as a strawman example of pathological irrational Jew hatred, when the religion literally began with a divine order to chop up their sons penises, was quite dumb.

                • AK says:

                  >I don’t suggest that the rise and continuation of genital mutilation in the US can be solely blamed on Jews

                  Right. As you wrote, it’s a partial responsibility, not a full one. I would, however, also mention the Jewish lobbies worldwide, backed by the Israeli Foreign Ministry, that fight tooth-and-nail to prevent the banning of MGM, together of course with Mohammedan activists.

                  Although “Religious Tolerance” is mostly a Quaker meme and not a Jewish one, it has been cynically embraced by Jews to advocate for keeping MGM legal in the West.

                  >the religion literally began with a divine order to chop up their sons penises

                  Actually, I read somewhere that the Sadducees only chopped the outer rim of the foreskin and not the whole thing; the Pharisees later extended MGM to cover the whole foreskin in order to make it impossible for Jews to pass for Greeks, to prevent Hellenization.

                  I also recall that the sections of the Pentateuch that call for circumcision are relatively late; the original Judaic legal code of the First Temple, and the original legends about the Patriarchs, did not mention circumcision. Most likely, circumcision took off during the Babylonian exile.

                  The Jews inherited MGM from Egyptian priests, who also practiced FGM; however, since the Jewish priesthood is exclusively male and patrilineal, could not inherit FGM. Presumably, originally only the Levitic classes practiced it, but then post-exile it became a national rite.

                • Eynon says:

                  >Actually, I read somewhere that the Sadducees only chopped the outer rim of the foreskin and not the whole thing

                  I’ve heard this but have never seen anything supporting it; if I recall there’s an episode in the Old Testament where someone chops off the foreskins of 100 enemy’s as a war trophy so they were certainly cutting off the whole thing was a familiar idea. Also, circumcision seems to have been a clear delineator between Jews and non-Jews which likely wouldn’t have been the case if it was just a small snip, as foreskins naturally come in many sizes and some are very short.

                • AK says:

                  Good point.

                  In the first place, circumcision in Afro-Asia was a post-war procedure enforced by victorious clans on the male members of defeated clans (that is, on those of them who were enslaved rather than killed), to set them apart as inferior and subjugated to the victors. It’s a practice that truly befits a slave population, not unlike eunuchism.

                • Koanic says:

                  From what I understand, circumcision is good hygiene for taking war-brides of unknown provenance. Judah certainly wasn’t shy about dipping his wick, and he doesn’t seem to have brought it home. I would rather not be overwhelmed by pleasure like a woman. If you can’t get hard off feminine visuals, something biochemical has gone awry.

                • Eynon says:

                  Good hygiene is bathing and not having unprotected sex with people harboring STDs. An intact human male is not “overwhelmed with pleasure like a woman”; nature did not select for that.

                  Yes, you can still get an erection fine with a partially-amputated penis, just as in the example mentioned in this thread of the mouth still watering at the smell of food even when part of the tongue has been cut off. But once coitus actually begins, the physical response no longer matches the neurological impulses- expected nerve responses never arrive because those nerve endings were cut off and turned into expensive facial cream for aging women; exposed mucosal tissue rubs raw against skin; the gliding that the penis and vagina are designed for never occurs.

                  At any rate, while I suppose a mentally ill adult who wants to amputate their healthy body parts and has found a surgeon willing to take their money should be able to do so, advocating the butchery of infant genitals is a level of degeneracy and evil that supersedes any political ideology.

                • AK says:

                  Oh, don’t get mad at Koanic. He is feminine, and needs to explain what specifically differentiates him from a woman. Sure, “not be[ing] overwhelmed by pleasure like a woman” sounds like an odd, convoluted, and twisted rationalization to us, but that’s merely because our thinking is logical and masculine while his, evidently, isn’t.

                • Koanic says:

                  The one explaining his masculinity is you, liar.

                • AK says:

                  >The one explaining his masculinity is you, liar.

                  Most men are not so insecure about their own masculinity that they would need to resort to something like, “I would rather not be overwhelmed by pleasure like a woman.” Men generally don’t compare themselves with women, unless there’s a good reason to do so.

                  You used that bizarre, uncouth line in an intellectual conversation about circumcision precisely because your circumcision is what gives you confidence in your own masculinity, so you consider that to be a compelling argument in its favor. (Otherwise, you wouldn’t have brought that up)

                  I’m sure that many times you’ve looked in the mirror and thought, “Well, I am always emotional and moody and prone to tearful outbursts, but at least there’s one thing that definitely sets me apart from women: I am not overwhelmed by pleasure.”

                • Eynon says:

                  Koanic is pious, and unfortunately the religion that the West inherited traces its origins to a divine covenant sealed with dick-chopping.

                  But if Paul abandoned it, 2,000 years ago, you can abandon it now.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yes, Eynon, thank you for injecting some sanity into the conversation. I’m sympathetic to the anti-circumcisionist perspective, but loyal to my God. And I have stated my personal preference, that so greatly offends AK, which I flatter myself was reached objectively and independently of my religion. I have strongly preferred stoicism (in the colloquial sense) since puberty; it is innate. Anyhow, it is certainly a perfectly valid choice under the New Covenant to reject circumcision, but some of the more colorful moaning about it is overblown.

                • AK says:

                  >Koanic is pious

                  If that’s the case, then he should have come out and admitted, “The bizarre line about not being overwhelmed with pleasure like a woman was just a silly rationalization that I randomly pulled out of the hat. Actually, I just follow my Abrahamic religion as best as I interpret it.”

                  People should be honest about their motives, shouldn’t they?

                  Anyone uncircumcised who reads Koanic’s, “I would rather not be overwhelmed by pleasure like a woman,” should feel insulted at being called womanlike for absolutely no reason other than Koanic’s deep-seated insecurity.

                  If, on the other hand, the real issue is religious piety, then it’s a different argument altogether. Koanic should apologize to all the uncircumcised people he falsely designated womanlike, and promise to not make retarded arguments in the future.

                • Eynon says:

                  >but some of the more colorful moaning about it is overblown

                  That part I doubt. It’s damages are constantly understated or denied altogether on the exceedingly rare occasions that it gets any mention in the public sphere.

                • Eynon says:

                  @AK

                  Since there’s no good reason to chop one third of your dick off, every secular argument for it from cut men, other than those stemming from genuine ignorance, is probably going to be rationalization rooted in religious doctrine or in denial because they feel nothing can be done about it anyway.

                  In reality, quite a lot can be done; non-surgical ‘foreskin restoration’ through tension-induced skin growth can create new, permanent tissue that mimics the appearance and function of a real foreskin and restores a lot of what was lost. A slow and tedious process, but a very real one.

                • Koanic says:

                  Of course they’re overblown. If you can’t see the nuttiness in your own side you’ve lost perspective. It’s probably the biggest thing holding ya’ll back.

                  If it sounds like you’re describing FGM, you’ve gone too far. Keeping the Gentiles uncut should not be a hard sell. So don’t bloody oversell it.

                • AK says:

                  @Eynon

                  Well, I come to Jim’s blog for high-level debate.

                  If Koanic were not intellectually lazy, he could say something along the lines of, “Some men who undergo circumcision in adulthood claim that its effect on their sexual function is rather minimal.”

                  That is a plausible argument, albeit a statistically irrelevant one (most men do report a loss of sexual function, over time) and prone to selection bias and post factum self-deception. Still, in his shoes, that’s what I’d go with.

                  (Actually, in his shoes I’d just admit that the real motivation behind being pro-circumcision is religious. Since he is supposedly “pious,” he should be able to at least be honest about what makes him tick here)

                  Instead of coming up with such a plausible rationalization, though, he came up with a very dumb one in which, perplexingly, he contrasted himself with a woman (kek), so I called him out on his effeminate, i.e., frivolous and illogical, line of thinking.

                  Anyways – personally, I’d rather just wait for a real foreskin made of my own stem cells to be printed in 3D and then attached back where it belongs. But I’m glad that in the meanwhile, other people find solutions that work for them.

                • Eynon says:

                  @Koanic

                  It’s objectively comparable to female mutilation. Not as bad as some forms, worse than others.

                  The primary challenge when it comes to accepting that fact is that people think the glans (penis head) is the male version of the clitoris; it isn’t. There is no direct male counterpart to the clitoris, but the closest thing to it is probably the frenulum, which is almost completely amputated during circumcision.

                  “Don’t take a knife and chop off the healthy body parts of your infant children” should not be treated as one “side” in an argument.

                • Koanic says:

                  Ok. Descend into self-parody all you like. It’s very persuasive, and doesn’t at all result in a ghetto of self-congratulating anti-evangelists. Every sperm is sacred, and every foreskin too! If you think Catholics stupid, I’ve got a pagan for you.

                • Koanic says:

                  Wait, I’ve got another one:
                  Oh where oh where can my clitoris be,
                  Oh where oh where can she be?
                  With his hat cut short and his shaft cut long,
                  My dick is a full amputee!

                • Eynon says:

                  >self-parody

                  You’re in denial. Now, denial is a powerful thing, so from a matter of strategy, it may be perfectly reasonable to ease people in to the reality of MGM with whatever bullshit is persuasive. But in a venue like this where we can be honest- male circumcision is not as bad as a full clitorectomy but it’s absolutely worse than labia cutting orbthe amputation of the clitoral hood.

                • AK says:

                  Pointing out that the frenulum is the male equivalent of the clitoris, hence the similarity between MGM and FGM, is not “self-parody.”

                  If I were in your high-heeled, glamorous shoes, I’d quit making up lame rationalizations.

                  Perhaps you can contribute more to a different topic, e.g., “How I felt the first time Vox Day shoved his lanky dick up my ass.” About this, you can divulge your personal experience and then lightheartedly compare anecdotes with fellow cult members. Would be super educational.

                • Koanic says:

                  > male circumcision is not as bad as a full clitorectomy

                  See, you need to lead with that so people don’t think you’re nuts, and keep bringing it up occasionally. Because a lot of the anti-circumcision people are nuts.

                  Another problem is talking about botched circumcisions without comparing to the health risks of having the foreskin intact.

                  Wailing about sacred bodily integrity is an argument that will appeal to women, not men.

                • Eynon says:

                  Honestly, the only way to break through the wall of denial is with pictures and video. No words, however persuasive, can do it by themselves.

                  And some forms of male circumcision- the “high” cuts that remove nearly all of the male mucosal tissue or carve out the entire frenulum- are probably not much different than removing the (visible) clitoris. At that point you have a dull log.

                  >the health risks of an intact human body

                  Minuscule bordering on nonexistent compared to the risks and damages of mutilation. It would be exponentially more reasonable and less harmful to suggest that every girl get a double mastectomy at age 12 to stop breast cancer.

                • AK says:

                  >Wailing about sacred bodily integrity

                  Strawman. Not what Eynon said, not what I said.

                  And you’re in no position to advise people about “how to avoid looking nuts.” A brief review of your posts so far is enough to establish that society would be much better off having you institutionalized and tranquilized.

                  By the way, when you wrote,

                  “It is possible that the Israeli government, in concert with Silverstein, guided the Muslim operatives towards their final destination.”

                  https://blog.jim.com/global-warming/no-perceptible-global-warming/#comment-1880626

                  Were you being paid by Mueller, or was it your own nutty conjecture?

                • Eynon says:

                  >Because a lot of the anti-circumcision people are nuts.

                  In general, someone who takes a knife and starts chopping off pieces of their genitals should always be assumed to be more nuts than someone who does not. Exceptions would have to be very extreme.

                • Koanic says:

                  A lot of anti-circumcisionists are nuts.

                  > It would be exponentially more reasonable and less harmful to suggest that every girl get a double mastectomy at age 12 to stop breast cancer.

                  And you are one of them.

                • Eynon says:

                  Breast cancer kills hundreds of millions, penile cancer that can be shown to maybe have rates .001% higher in intact penises affects a minuscule fraction of a fraction of a fraction of that. Genital mutilation permanently and drastically damages sexual function while removal of breast tissue does not.

                  Both are insane suggestions, one significantly more harmful and unnecessary than the other.

                • Koanic says:

                  Presumably if one amputates a girl’s clit, she can’t get off with diddling, only with a pounding. I think it’s similar with circumcision. Diddling-centric forms of sex lose most of their appeal; pound-town is the ticket.

                  If men had sensitive nipples like women, and it was a religious custom to trim them down at birth, would I care that I’d received that treatment? No. I’d regard it as masculinizing.

                  I wouldn’t get an adult circumcision, or an uncircumcision, or give one to a son. I don’t mind having been circumcized at birth /in my case/, because it suits my extremely stoic personality. But it irritates me that this Judaizing element has penetrated the USA.

                  However it’s difficult to get clear information regarding circumcision health effects when you’ve got Jews on one side and lunatics on the other.

                  Nice utilitarian argument there, Eynon, you’re just sane enough for a high school debate team, by which I mean absolutely bonkers.

                • Koanic says:

                  I suspect one of the effects of circumcision was to make Sodomite sex less appealing and more challenging, particularly before modern hygiene and lubricants. A vagina is designed for demolition in ways that a colon is not. My understanding is that Sodomy proceeds by stages, with anal being the last, and by corrupting young boys. So limiting the pleasure derivable from this process reduces the incidence of homosexuality. For example, blowjobs are much more pleasurable for the uncut. I’ve never valued them, aside from the dominance aspect.

                • Eynon says:

                  >Presumably if one amputates a girl’s clit, she can’t get off with diddling, only with a pounding. I think it’s similar with circumcision. Diddling-centric forms of sex lose most of their appeal; pound-town is the ticket.

                  Pound-town is what gets severely disrupted by mutilation because pound-town is actually supposed to be glide-town. Nothing works like it’s supposed to.

                  >utilitarian argument

                  Yes, you created one when you suggested that the costs of chopping half your dick off should we compared to and weighed against the benefits of chopping half your dick off.

                  >I wouldn’t get an adult circumcision, or an uncircumcision, or give one to a son. I don’t mind having been circumcized at birth /in my case/, because it suits my extremely stoic personality

                  “It’s manly to have half my manhood” isn’t a coherent sentiment.

                  But at least you reached the “personally I love having my sex organs turned into skin cream for Oprah viewers but I won’t get it done to my son” stage. Mentally that’s probably going to be as far most Americans can go and hopefully it will be enough to end it for the next generation.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yes, clit cutting reducing lubrication, but circumcision is merely ribbed for her pleasure. I doubt you have credible evidence that male circumcision reduces female pleasure.

                  What’s fundamentally unmasculine is attempting to define away the argument instead of having it.

                  The appeal to the unaltered human male form as the maximum in masculinity is incoherent. Nature contains species with greater or lesser sexual dimorphism. It is formally valid to argue that just as puffy nipples make a man feminine, so does being uncut.

                • Koanic says:

                  You are doing such a bad job at this that I am actually converting myself into a pro-circumcisionist. You have to strain pretty hard to be less masculine than the Jews in a given argument.

                • Eynon says:

                  2019-04-26 at 11:15
                  >circumcision is merely ribbed for her pleasure.

                  There’s significantly less skin after mutilation, specifically less bunching up behind the glans, and the ridged band at the tip of the prepuce is completely amputated, so it’s the precise opposite.

                  >I doubt you have credible evidence that male circumcision reduces female pleasure.

                  Not sure why you’re bringing up female pleasure, I’m talking about male pleasure. But it’s almost certainly worse for the female too because there’s less lubrication, less girth, no gliding mechanism. And it’s simply a less aesthetic experience all around, with the scar tissue, discoloration and whatnot.

                  >the male body as crafted by Gnon is feminine, it’s only manly once it has a crippled penis.

                  Good thing those masculine Jews fixed Gnon’s work. While you’re at it, be sure to burn off your tastebuds, lest you be overcome with emotion due to womanly flavors.

                • Koanic says:

                  > so it’s the precise opposite.

                  Visuospatial fail. Removing the foreskin makes the glans brim more pronounced.

                  As for reduced glide, that’s also a feature. It’s easy for a novice do damage to the vagina if he skips the foreplay or otherwise lets her run dry. Which leaves girls unable to engage in the promiscuity of polyamorous primates. As he learns the mechanics of foreplay, he also develops better insight for recognizing signs of cheating.

                  Paul opposed circumcision due to its association with Old Testament Law. Today that association no longer exists. Progressive heretics use the New Covenant to preach rapproachment with the false Jews; an Old Testament mindset would sooner see them slaughtered man, woman and child. Therefore I am pro-circumcision for the same reason Paul was anti-circumcision – symbolic defiance of the Jews. And more, defiance of the Sodomite globohomo elite. To be circumcized today is a statement that Sodomy deserves decapitation.

                  It seems all you anti-circumcizers are the same – Jehovah-bashing pud-prioritizing solipsistic lunatic effeminates. All the more reason.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yeah Koanic mutilate your own dick that’ll own those jews (sarc)…

                  Jesus Christ are you listening to yourself.

                • Koanic says:

                  Unless you grew up in an evangelical household or some other circumcizing Christian denomination, you have no idea what you are talking about, and your opinion is irrelevant. As usual.

                • alf says:

                  SO, while we are onthe subject, what Is the purpose of foreskin removal? Like, from Gnon’s perspective?

                  Seems to me mostly a power play: you thought you belonged to yourself? No no no, you belong to the tribe and never forget it. But it must also be a bit like a secret shared handshake, albeit with more shame involved than any regular secret handshake.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  As I understand it, the underlying social purpose of such initiation rites is to delay sexual debut and, perhaps, reduce sexual potency.

                  (If you wonder about the latter, in some cases, initiation rites can include penis scarification, introducing pebbles under the skin of the penis (“Ribbed for her pleasure”.), urethrotomy, etc. Presumably it takes a while to heal up and perhaps leads to future sexual problems.)

                  For example

                  Subincision of the penis is a traditional ritual mutilation unique to the Aborigines, the indigenous people of Australia. The mutilation is a urethrotomy in which the undersurface of the penis is incised and the urethra slit open lengthwise. Subincision is one element in the initiation of Aboriginal youths. In later ceremonies, repeated throughout adult life, the subincised penis is used as a site for ritual bloodletting. There also exists a ritual of penis holding which occurs when a subincised man enters a strange camp. The origin of subincision and the reason for its localization to the Australian continent has not been satisfactorily explained. The mutilation is still performed among tribal Aborigines, and identifies a man as holding a position of status within the tribe.

                  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6637950

                • Koanic says:

                  Foreskin circumcision is a sign of patriarchy and K-selection. In the absence of a priestly father, the ruderal promiscuous strategy dominates, for which an intact foreskin is adaptive. Thus foreskin circumcision may be as old as patriarchy.

                  See Genesis 17 and Leviticus 12.

                  In the Bronze Age, warriors looted the pants off enemy corpses, because clothes were wealth. Hence “uncircumcized Philistine”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Did the Romans circumcise, did Europeans pre 20th century?

                  Koanic somehow you’ve gone suddenly more nuts then Andre and Communist Revolutionary put together.

                • Koanic says:

                  Some Native Americans circumcized; it is perfectly reasonable to speculate that the same was true of indigenous Europeans. You are as stupid as ever.

                • The Cominator says:

                  What the fuck is an “indigenous European”? Sounds like shitlib talk for barbarian.

                  Prior to the progressive era only Jews and Muslims a few barbarians did it.

                  Civilized non Jewish patriarchies (I think we all agree Muslims aren’t even really human) didn’t do it.

                • Eynon says:

                  >makes the glans brim more pronounced

                  The glans is more pronounced in the sense that the penis is thinner with less flesh. The glans is also discolored, dried, and covered with a layer of desensitizing keratin after being constantly exposed to the air and a feces-filled diaper, then spending years rubbing against fabric.

                  The “I’ll chop up my dick to fight the Jews and fags” cope is a lot of fun but you already said you won’t circumcise your son (not that I would have thought you believed that anyway).

                • Koanic says:

                  > What the fuck is an “indigenous European”?

                  The people who were there when Europe was stone age

                  Yes, Eynon, you changed my mind about that. Good job.

                • jim says:

                  It slightly more complicated than that in that proto aryans conquered Western Europe from what is now Eastern Europe at the start of the Bronze age, and then the Aryans reconquered it after the collapse of Bronze Age civilization at the beginning of the Iron age, but yes, all Europeans, all white people fighting white people, and the Aryans predominantly blond or red headed, and blue or green eyed.

                  If you go back far enough, everyone was black, and in the neolithic, most people were brown, but Europeans were blue eyed and light skinned even in the paleolithic. The proto Aryans were lighter skinned still, and had diverse hair colors and eye colors. The proto Aryans were undeniably white, but the neolithic farmers of western Europe not exactly white, mostly rather similar to today’s middle easterners. The bronze age Europeans were as white or whiter than we are, in large part due to the proto Aryans killing all the men and marrying the women.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Libertarianism isn’t exactly wrong – it’s just incomplete.

      How to govern? As libertarian as practical.
      How to have that actually work? Be red-pilled about HBD* and sex.

      *HBD isn’t just or even primarily about IQ.

  2. Karl says:

    What recent parade in Italy? Please explain what event you are referring to.

    • Mike says:

      Some Italians, I assume Salvini supporters, had a parade with giant
      Trump-themed balloons and floats. Was pretty hilarious and cool to see with how cucked most Euros are in regards to Trump. I dont remember what region of Italy though, may have been more to the South.

      • Karl says:

        Awesome parade. Police was notably absent. No Antifa crowds attacking the parade. Apparently, no one felt offended by the parade.

        • jim says:

          They told them that they were mocking Trump, and the morons believed it.

          As I said in my post, you don’t mock by faithfully reproducing the memes circulated by his most enthusiastic supporters at twenty times lifesize with loudspeakers blaring.

  3. pyrrhus says:

    Our current legions of mobile bandits are also gobbling up enormous resources, to the point that government is insolvent, and will soon make its taxpayers insolvent..That pressure will eventually lead to many kings, as the center cannot hold…

    • X says:

      Most resources (aka capital) are a liability that require ever more resources to defend. Warlordism is a power vacuum open to whom can reduce the liabilities of resources, and is the chaotic Dark Age that the West will likely descend into over the next decades. Power vacuums are to be captured by those who can maximize the iron law of political-economics.

      Jim’s main thesis of a State religion and an earthly King is incorrect, because for example a hierarchy of God, King, Man, Women isn’t stable given that a King who correctly admits he isn’t holier-than-thou and thus not a God, is vulnerable to a holiness spiral. Corrupt 501(c3) Christianity is not Christianity. The State religion was despised by Jesus. John’s account of Jesus and various other scriptures such as 1 Samuel 8 clearly indicate that we are not of this world and to come out of the State, rendering to Ceasar not the inalienable capital provided by our Creator. The 16th Amendment was never ratified and is an unconstitutional, non-apportioned tax. True Christians should never pay it. Jesus came bearing a sword. The Amish are not obligated to contribute to the corrupt Social Security scam. It is possible to resist for those who live by the principles which create inalienable capital. Capital such as belief in everlasting life which can’t be taken even by sword because they’re non-transferrable.

      The solution is to come out of the Great Harlot system and live according to Biblical principles as correct interpreted, not according to false prophets (e.g. 501c3 churches beholden to the corrupt State) nor sacrificing Biblical principles for profitable. The burgeoning Knowledge Age (wherein the primary capital of a venture is your non-fungible knowledge and not the huge capex of farms or factories) and decentralization technologies such as Bitcoin reduce the importance of resources which are liabilities.

      Jim is barking up the correct tree about females being a rib and not capable of leading a principled existence without guidance. Men who abrogate their responsibility to females deserve their fate. Ditto complacent men who keep fantasizing about a solution and not acting to live by principles which for example require they individually take action to come out of the Great Harlot.

      • Coco the Gorilla says:

        9/11 is the result of Islamic terrorists and FBI incompetence. Building 7’s collapse had been expected several hours before it occurred by everyone on the scene. Troofers can’t stick with one single lie, but rather, fire rapidly thousands of lies and then play whack-a-mole between them.

        • X says:

          The Beast from the Earth

          …12 And this beast exercised all the authority of the first beast and caused the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed. 13 And the second beast performed great signs to cause even fire from heaven to come down to earth in the presence of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived those who dwell on the earth, telling them to make an image to the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet had lived.…

            • X says:

              Pergamum (Revelation 2:12-17) — The church where ‘Satan’s seat’ or ‘throne’ is; needed to repent of allowing false teachers (2:16)

          • jim says:

            If the Jews had accepted Christ as their earthly King, which he gave them opportunity to do when he purged the temple, though he knew they would fail, Christianity would have been born as a state religion, in that the purged Temple hierarchy, the state religion of Israel, would have been Christianity, albeit a different kind of Christianity.

            State religion is Gnon’s plan for man. We always have a state religion. Christ and Christianity is not opposed to state religion. It is opposed to false and evil state religions.

            • X says:

              Agreed at least to the extent of the point of Romans which is often misinterpreted. We are not to obey an evil government but we should obey a good government.

              Unfortunately good governments are rare and apparently unstable because men fall away from a Biblical principled life.

              As the contention over liability-resources decreases (per my comments about a Knowledge Age), perhaps mankind advances to not needing States. I think that is precisely what Bitcoin is about. It appears to be ushering in the end of the nation-states. It’s a process and we still need to pursue a principled, Biblical life.

              • X says:

                The Bible makes it clear that we are fallen creatures and we should not idol perfection. Thus we still need a decentralized means of adherence to Biblical virtue as a check and balance on the repeated devolution of the State.

                Only less than 5% of the churches teach that Christians should defect on an evil State. We have a duty to come out of the Great Harlot.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  We are always ruled by priests or warriors, and even when warriors rule they need a priesthood.

                  Therefore, that priesthood should preach that which is right and true, or at least unfalsifiable. There is always going to an official priesthood, even when it is, as now, officially unofficial. And we should be that priesthood, because we know the truth, and support virtue, while our current ruling priesthood is going ever deeper into delusion, and is evil.

                • X says:

                  We are always ruled by priests or warriors, and even when warriors rule they need a priesthood.

                  1 Samuel 8 Israel Asks for a King

                  5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead[b] us, such as all the other nations have.”

                  6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord. 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”

                • jim says:

                  Water under the bridge. Gnon ordained Kings, because we failed to rule ourselves.

                  The story the bible tells is that before Samuel, God told the Hebrews no King, because direct rule by God. (Which is to say, the priesthood resolved feuds.) But, because too many people were disinclined to listen to God, God then ordained Kings. And here we are.

                  Maybe if everyone was IQ 130, we could do without an official religion and without a state. But every successful stateless society has had an official religion, and most actually existent stateless societies have been horrifyingly unsuccessful.

                • X says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive

        • jim says:

          No, 911 was not caused by FBI incompetence. It was caused by Mueller. It was caused by Mueller’s program of refusing to find Muslim terrorists, while determinedly searching for white male heterosexual Christian terrorists regardless of whether they existed or not. Every FBI agent rapidly discovered that noticing Muslim terror was a very bad career move.

          The 911 troofer movement is a shill movement created by the FBI to provide cover for the malevolent use of the FBI to serve political objectives and to provide cover for Mueller. They invent dancing Mossad agents, while strangely failing to notice very real FBI agents conspicuously displaying selective blindness, while strangely failing to notice the entirely real activities of Robert Mueller.

          • X says:

            Vacuous arguments couched in identify politics are intended to deceive by pulling on the strings of Nietzsche’s ressentiment.

          • St. Mandela II says:

            The 911 troofer movement is a shill movement created by the FBI

            Let’s have some actual evidence, Gaylord McSamefaggot.

            If I were a betting man I would comfortably stake my life on your imminent failure to produce any such.

            • jim says:

              Let’s see you discuss the entirely real evidence of the complicity of Mueller and the FBI, instead of you glibly dismissing undeniable evidence that the fall of building seven was predicted and expected by those who witnessed the terrorist damage to the south side.

              Troofers grab at any scrap of evidence that can be creatively interpreted as evidence that the FBI was not complicit, while ignoring the elephant in the room.

              Maybe the reason you deny the evidence that the fall of the towers was caused by the obvious because you are crazy, but why do Troofers ignore the evidence that the FBI looked the other way, and Robert Mueller ordered the FBI to look the other way?

              You might be nuts on your own initiative, but you are not ignoring FBI misconduct on your own initiative. You are ignoring FBI misconduct because of a paycheque.

              • X says:

                Troofers grab at any scrap of evidence that can be creatively interpreted as evidence that the FBI was not complicit

                Some “Troofers” think the FBI was complicit, but do not accept your reasoning on why they were complicit and whom was actually pulling the strings behind the curtain of 9/11.

                Again the perpetrator(s) links to the very bottom as quoted below, not some simplistic identity politics explanation invented (by a false prophet) to lure the ressentiment of men to idol an earthly King:

                The Beast from the Earth

                …12 And this beast exercised all the authority of the first beast and caused the earth and those who dwell in it to worship the first beast, whose mortal wound had been healed. 13 And the second beast performed great signs to cause even fire from heaven to come down to earth in the presence of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived those who dwell on the earth, telling them to make an image to the beast that had been wounded by the sword and yet had lived.…

                • jim says:

                  > Some “Troofers” think the FBI was complicit

                  Show us troofers exposing the FBI and Rober Mueller, or I am deleting all further comments from you.

                  Given what troofers claim to believe, they should believe that the terrorists were actors hired by the FBI, or that the FBI turned a blind eye because it was in on them being actors. Troofer’s purported belief system is internally inconsistent in ways that systematically favor the FBI, an organization notorious for sponsoring shills, from which I conclude that they do not believe what they claim to believe.

                  That troofers fail to acknowledge the terrorist damage to building seven is to be expected, given what they claim to believe. That they fail to acknowledge the FBI turning a blind eye is most odd, given what they claim to believe.

                • X says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive.

                  If you already showed us Troofers exposing FBI or Robert Mueller misconduct in 911, show us again. Give me a link that goes directly to a Troofer talking about Mueller or the FBI turning a blind eye to the terrorists – though I suppose a Troofer would say “the supposed terrorists”

                  You repeat yourself all the damned time. Repeat yourself on this issue.

          • Koanic says:

            > No, 911 was not caused by FBI incompetence. It was caused by Mueller.

            One of your biggest findings IMO. I’ve learned to hate that cadaverous deep socket traitor, even if he is cooperating to save his skin. Put him in a tower and set it alight! Either that or give him a medal for striking DC and NY, then let the families of the victims run the afterparty.

  4. Doug Smythe says:

    > As Trump needed, and successfully used, the Federalist society, and the Federalist society successfully used Trump, the dictator is going to need us.

    We’re going to have to organize and organize extensively to pull it off. The ideal model will be a hybrid of a) the Monastic colleges of scholars from which the modern University originated, b) conventional think-tanks like the Federalist Society, c) Masons, and d) outlaw motorcycle clubs.

  5. Koanic says:

    Heaven is not a democracy, and Hell has religious freedom.

    • Obadiah says:

      The Lord is the Lord. The Lord is not the democratically-elected official.

      • anon says:

        The Lord also isn’t a mortal, and the Lord also doesn’t have to compete for power against others. We don’t live in heaven, unfortunately.

        • Obadiah says:

          >We don’t live in heaven, unfortunately

          No, we sure the f-word don’t, do we? Where we live gets closer to Hell every day because we have forgotten Hell exists.

        • info says:

          The 2nd coming will involve violent subjugation of all nations under his rule.

  6. Bob says:

    >Current technology is that a handful of able, well trained well equipped warriors can easily handle a mob of any size, and have little difficulty with a horde of poorly trained conscript cannon fodder.

    Does this require expensive tech only the state or super-rich can afford, like jets/tanks? Or is it night vision, aristocratic martial discipline, and patriarchal cooperation?

    • The Cominator says:

      Both really. Saudi Arabia purchases all sorts of expensive military doo-dads but they have almost zero capability to use it effectively.

      The US military has people who are quite capable of using it effectively but generally lawyers do not allow them to actually win wars (Afghanistan is unique in that I don’t think we could win even if we were allowed to, Timur was the only guy who sort of conquered Afghanistan and he was a native and probably the most ruthless conqueror in history bar none).

      • The Cominator says:

        I am writing too fast in a stream of consciousness manner… I mean GENERALLY lawyers won’t let them. I wish this site had an editing function for comments from people other then Jim himself…

      • lalit says:

        Bullshit! Afghanistan was conquered by the Greeks, then the Mauryas, then by Harsha, then by the Arabs, then by the Turks, then by the Mongols, then by Timur, then partly by the Sikhs.

        The U.S. cannot keep Afghanistan or any other islamic country for that matter, simply because it is no longer a cohesive entity.

        • The Cominator says:

          Greeks couldn’t hold it, Turks didn’t hold it. Not all that familiar with the others… the Arabs sort of held it long enough to impose Islam but they didn’t conquer it the way they conquered North Africa and the Levant.

          Timur as I mention did hold it without much trouble but he was a native and probably histories most ruthless conqueror bar none.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            In a previous post we discussed this already. The only groups that don’t win in an Afghanistan either do not actually want to win (US, USSR, Brits) or do not need to win.

          • lalit says:

            Algernon said it best, but I’ll add one point because it presents such a juicy target.

            Timur was not an Afghan! Wiki it.

            The rest of your “facts” are also wrong, but that one was too juicy to let go.

            • The Cominator says:

              There are no singular Afghans but my understanding he was an uzbek which is one of their major tribes.

              • lalit says:

                Nope, the Pashtuns are the major tribes. Uzbeks and Tajiks are minor tribes. And Uzbeks and Tajiks are considered foreigners by the Pashtuns, originating as they do from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan respectively, having set up shop up north and never leaving in spite of the best efforts of the Pashtuns to convince them to leave via various incentives. Stubborn bastards.

                Give it up, mate! We all make error now and then. No shame in admitting an error. No less a man than Jim cheerfully accepts his errors. Why shouldn’t lesser men like you and I?

          • info says:

            Mongols held it the longest.

  7. Alrenous says:

    Good point: in fact Burke was a leftist.

    Bad point: stationary banditry is also leftist. E.g. the population will resist, because it’s banditry. This will annoy the bandit, so they will import a new, more gullible (typically browner) population to replace the existing one. If they don’t, it’s simply because they’re a bit slow on the uptake and haven’t yet figured out the optimum strategies.

    Alternatively, they (China) will breed out all thoughts of resistance. Which incidentally includes, apparently, creativity and the ability to cooperate spontaneously.

    I have never found the idea of Burke as conservative to be convincing. As far as I can tell Moldbug mentions Burke once – noting that the other side appreciates some of his virtues. This is not some kind of oversight.

    • The Cominator says:

      “Bad point: stationary banditry is also leftist. E.g. the population will resist, because it’s banditry.”

      This is the ancap view. The problem is that ancapism doesn’t ever happen in practice as lack of a stationary bandit causes mobile bandits to move in. Power abhors a vacuum.

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        I’m pretty sure Alrenous’s view is only war is right wing. In the absence of external threat your enemies are competent people on your ‘side’.

        • The Cominator says:

          War is right wing in terms of some things like the woman question. Feminist societies can’t win wars and even if they need to put women in factories need to damn well preach that the sexes are not equal. War also tends to have less tolerance for hostile aliens.

          War tends to be left wing in terms of economics, command economy like features tend to appear to suppress civilian consumption taxes might increase that kind of thing.

          • BC says:

            > War tends to be left wing in terms of economics, command economy like features tend to appear to suppress civilian consumption taxes might increase that kind of thing.

            Not sure where you get that idea. Take the US economy during WW2. The feds tried organize a top down centralized command economy and failed. Everyone ignored the committees and boards FDR put up. Instead the military put out huge contracts, picked multiple supplies, gave bonuses for making things faster and cheaper, and ignored the civilian goverment attempts to control things. The results was a massive war output. Attempts at rationing things like gas were laughable failures.

            • The Cominator says:

              I’m not sure of all the details but I do know that the Federal government massively rationed things and essentially forbade most civilian production of consumer goods (except for alcohol and cigarettes generally). Car production was stopped almost immediately for instance and Henry Ford was deposed as head of his corporation because of the perception that he was too slow to stop civilian production and convert to military production.

              • jim says:

                The command economy fucked up disastrously. But it was successful in the short term in taxing far above the Laffer limit, thus in the short run was a big success.

                Ford was replaced by an incompetent screw up, but that he was replaced ensured the transfer of resources from civilian to military.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              Highly recommend James Holland’s WWII trilogy which goes into great detail about the logistics and infrastructure as well as Victor Hanson’s The Second World Wars. These 4 books make the economic and industrial picture very clear.

              • The Cominator says:

                I will read them at some point… one of my spergish interests (they tend to change in a way I can’t control) is WWII… when I start obsessing over it again those are my 1st four books.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I understand completely. The focus of my academic work has been colonialism and post-colonial societies, specifically on warfare, conflict, and infrastructure, but i have read enough on WWII to pick up a minor. I never get tired of it.

                  You might be interested in this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqWI717s-6A

                  If my course load wasn’t so heavy i would do it in a heartbeat.

        • Alrenous says:

          War is a form of discipline. The worst one, but it’s better than being on the far side of the zero.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          War is, at further remove, the process of ontological priority. It both asks and answers the question of what has what priority.

          When an entity engages in warfare with another, it is asking the question: which of us has priority? And asking the question also occasions it’s answer. The entity that exists has higher priority than the entity that no longer exists.

          War is the process of ontic priority. Those modes of being that exist and continue to exist and have more frequently or less contingently existed, then, have demonstrated higher priority than such modes of being that do not exist, have passed out of existence, have less frequently or more contingently existed, or could not exist.

          For an entity to be described as virtuous at warfighting, for it to become more virtuous at warfighting, then, is for it to be something that participates in such higher priority modes of being; to anticipate them, even; to be something that can anticipate them.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        ” ancapism doesn’t ever happen in practice as lack of a stationary bandit causes mobile bandits to move in. ”

        Actually even if they solve that problem, ancapism doesn’t exist. By the time you have any kind of functioning covenant community that isn’t susceptible to invasion by bandits or immigrants, and is robust enough to cope with crime and bankruptcy/delinquency, the housing association (and associated insurance and security firms) are a de facto government and if you oppose them they just kick you out.

        All ancapism does is take the name badges and put pretty stickers on them. Instead of “department of”, the badge now says “incorporated”.

        Ancap covenant communities are to out-sourced tax-funded services as North Korean live-in work projects are to concentration camps.

        • jim says:

          Saga period Iceland looked mighty like well functioning anarcho capitalism.

          They had an official priesthood with a monopoly power to interpret the law, the Godar, but not a whole lot of power to enforce the law, because a key point of the official religion was that everyone had the right and duty to himself avenge wrongs done to him, that a monopoly of legitimate force was dishonorable and offense against the Gods.

          The posse was usually headed by a Godar with an axe and a sword, but “Godar” means priest, literally means God botherer. A Godar in practice did not act to settle a feud until both sides were tired of feuding.

          Saga period Iceland had no monopoly of legitimate force, a market economy revolving around dollars, (silver coins from which the US dollar is named) and a social order in which the dollar was mightier than the Gods. Sounds like anarcho capitalism.

          It needed corporations, and but did not have them, in part because of the resolute individualism of the official religion.

          • ten says:

            A gothe/gothi, gothar is plural.

            My understanding is God meaning “invokee” and gothi meaning “invoker”, *ghut-, root *gheu(e)- , close enough to botherer(?)

            Or maybe “libatee” and “libator”, *ghu-to-, root *gheu-, from cultic libations around burial mounds which was central to germanic culture during the time the words god and gothi petrified

    • jim says:

      Conservatives are Burkean – meaning Burke is a conservative, and conservatives are leftist.

      If we had a population that would resist stationary banditry, they would already resist mobile banditry. Why are not more members of the Family court and child protective services disappearing?

      In a sense everything except anarcho capitalism is leftist, but what are anarcho capitalists going to do when a group forms a synthetic tribe and sets to bending the law in its favor?

      The defeat and torture of the pinkertons, and the ensuing seizure of the ironworks by the union, demonstrates that anarcho capitalism does not work. When push comes to shove, people will not fight for a contract and paycheck, while they would fight, and kill, and burn, and torture, for the union.

      • Mike says:

        Uh Jim, it’s not “leftist” to have a state, if that’s what you are implying. Aristotle says in his Politics that “man is a political animal”, it is natural for him to want to rule and gather into hierarchies. In my opinion, if you are anarcho-capitalist you are just as insane as any Marxist. Rejecting the concept of the state is never a right-wing belief, it’s a fundamental case of trying to “immanetize the eschaton” like any leftist does. It’s only when the state becomes anarcho-tyrannical that it is evil.

        • jim says:

          No one is likely to mistake Saga period Iceland, the wild west, or late nineteenth century early twentieth century California for the eschaton.

          Early twentieth century California was great, and Saga period Iceland not bad at all. Trouble is that early twentieth century California was utterly impotent to defend itself against the feds once the successors of the Puritans took it over, Saga period Iceland impotent to defend itself against the Christians, who acted as the takeover vector for a Christian King, and Pinkertons impotent against the trade union. All three cases demonstrated the impotence of anarcho capitalism against a synthetic tribe.

          Anarcho capitalism is only successful if defended by something very like a state religion, which creates an obvious contradiction. Altar without throne is fragile. Warriors need to fight for family, tribe, King, and Altar. And the first of these is family, without which all the others are impotent. The King is the King because the patriarch of the family is the patriarch. And the patriarch needs property, and the Altar needs a King. Greco Roman paganism died for lack of Kingship, and Augustine dynasty destabilized by the impotence and powerlessness of the husband. The Pope was Pope because the Carolingian emperors made him Pope, and the Carolingian emperors were emperors because the Pope made them emperors.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Deleted for presupposing that Han Soyboy, Captainess Marvel, and the shaving ad that denigrates men, manliness, and masculinity “Shave with our razor and you too can be an emasculated soyboy” represents consumer demand, it is what customers want, and presupposing that this is so self evidently true that we agree with this and you don’t need to justify it.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Well I didn’t say that. You’re putting words in my mouth, as always. The reason you do that is that what I *actually* said can’t be dismissed as unreasonable.

                What I actually said was that capitalism reflects the demands of its customers – the people who bring it money.
                In a society in which the state is the source of profit and loss, it makes sense to please the state.

                Some phenomena, such as Gillette, are well-explained by “Gillette is serving its customer the state”, while others, such as Domino’s Pizza, is well-explained by “Domino’s is serving its customer, stupid fat peasants with money left over after they were shut out of the housing market who can’t see when they’re being overcharged and poisoned”.

                Either way, capitalism is resisting no evil. It’s not capitalism’s job to resist evil: it’s the state’s job. Once the state’s DONE its job, capitalism can serve healthy wants, not unhealthy ones.

                • jim says:

                  > What I actually said was that capitalism reflects the demands of its customers

                  What you actually said was that capitalism reflects the demands of its customers in the context of firms supplying leftist crap. But in this case, in the case of firms vomiting leftism over their customers, it is absolutely obvious that this is not what customers demand, therefore, by this excellent but selectively used definition, Han Soyboy, Captainess Marvel, Gay Weddings, the shaving ad attacking their customers for being men are not capitalism but socialism, that webcam girls are never shown to be under the authority of their pimp, and that music videos show male and female courtship roles as identical and interchangeable, are not capitalism, but socialism. Which of course, it exactly what it is.

                  > Some phenomena, such as Gillette, are well-explained by “Gillette is serving its customer the state”, while others, such as Domino’s Pizza, is well-explained by “Domino’s is serving its customer, stupid fat peasants with money left over after they were shut out of the housing market who can’t see when they’re being overcharged and poisoned”.

                  Now, you are changing the context to Domino’s serving delicious pizza.

                  Well, when I go to my local Domino’s Franchise, which I do about once every couple of weeks, I don’t see any fat people, zero, and anyone there that I recognize is easily able to afford takeout from Domino’s every week or so, and everyone that I recognize lives in a house that their family own. The coffee shop in the mall on the other hand, is full of fatties, as is the bar near Domino’s, while the coffee shop by the sea has no or very few fat people, and the bar near the sea also has few fat people. The bar near the sea is somewhat more expensive and tasteful, and located near beauty, and the surprising sparcity of fatties may reflect the fact that it it gets a better class of people.

                  I absolutely do not believe that there is anyone so poor that getting pizza from Domino’s every week or so is going to impact their finances, and I am unaware of anyone eating pizza every night, except during some temporary emergency that that prevents them from home cooking.

                  And, looking at people dropping in to my local Domino’s to pick up a pizza, it looks like buying a pizza correlates very well with fitness, health, and affluence.

                  Venues that supply food for solitary individuals tend to be full of fat people, who for all I know are may well be shut out of the housing market by disinclination to save money and a lousy credit rating, but Domino’s pizzas, at least at my local Domino’s franchise, are primarily meals for at least two people. I don’t see one person pizzas on the menu at my local Domino’s franchise, and the people buying a family meal, or a meal for a couple, at my local Domino’s franchise, generally look like fit, affluent and high functioning individuals.

                  The pizza ad on my television is presumably directed at their typical customer, and it depicts the sort of people that I see at Domino’s. In the ad, the patriarch of the family, who lives in a suburban home that he presumably owns, orders pizza delivery as a treat for his wife and family, implying that it is something that does not happen all that often, and that pizza is meal for a group of people. There is no one so poor that he should not order pizza delivery for his family every now and then, and that is the behavior and the demographic that the ad targets, and the behavior and the demographic I see at my local pizza franchise.

                  Fatties tend to eat frequent small meals, hence seldom order pizza, and fat people tend to eat by themselves just as alcoholics tend to drink by themselves, hence seldom order pizza – Domino’s Pizza targets large family or group meals that are uncharacteristic of fatties.

                  Another thing I don’t see in my local Domino’s franchise is Coke Zero or diet pepsi. I suppose they must have it, but it is not readily visible in the fridge that displays drinks, whereas places that are frequented by fatties always have mostly diet drinks and diet foods on display, and it is what I always see fat people drinking.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Either way, capitalism is resisting no evil. It’s not capitalism’s job to resist evil.

                  Yes, well put.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  Next on Communist Revolutionary’s agenda is banning airplanes to Hawaii and replacing them with choo choo trains on train tracks to Hawaii. Of course, the trains will be powered by Unicorn FartsTM which are scientifically proven to NOT be greenhouse gasses…

                • Alrenous says:

                  the surprising sparcity of fatties may reflect the fact that it it gets a better class of people

                  IQ is associated with lower BMI. Unless you control for ‘education’. In other words IQ is associated with BMI unless you control for IQ.

                  Kanazawa believe low IQ makes you fat, but I think high mutational load makes you more vulnerable to metabolic disruption, and makes you stupid.

                  for all I know may well be shut out of the housing market by disinclination to save money and a lousy credit rating. I doubted this. Lots of stats saying 60%+ are living paycheque to paycheque. The numbers contradicted me, though: debt in America is overwhelmingly mortgages. And the thing about mortgages is you can take out a second mortgage. Some are even structured more like a bank account and there’s no downside to simply ploughing every spare dollar into them until there’s an emergency.

                  Capitalism normally doesn’t resist evil, but it does when e.g. it hires security guards. There’s demand for such things.

                  The State is evil by definition, so if it’s the State’s job to resist evil, you’re all fucked.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  R7 Suppository doesn’t understand reaction:

                  “Next on Communist Revolutionary’s agenda is banning airplanes to Hawaii”

                  For pleasure trips? You bet! Private planes will need to pay hefty taxes for existing and for travelling each time.
                  In no other context is it legitimate for people to just randomly go to Hawaii just because they wanna.

                  That shit has to stop, 100%.

                  I don’t think you understand the anti-consumerist/anti-capitalist form of reaction: we want to undo the Whig revolution – all of it.

                  All these human rights you were bestowed with by the liberals, but prior to the point where you, or ‘Jim’, think they went too far: they’re to be rolled right back to where they were in the pre-Renaissance period.

                  If you’re Tom the son of the local baker, you will be a baker. You will bake according to guild standards, you will not ‘innovate’ and you will not lace your food with ridiculous amounts of fat, sugar or salt: good, plain, natural, healthy food as has existed since the time of Charlemagne **and nothing else**.

                  You will not be permitted to READ the bible, but you will be permitted to have it read TO you: in Latin.
                  If the priest wants to elaborate on the content in your native degenerate local tongue, that’s up to him, so long as he clears it with the bishop, the archbishop and all the way up.

                  Life need not be complicated by endless consumer trinkets: life is about family, community, society.

                  The ‘good bits’ of modernity can stay, under the control of the highest levels of the hierarchy.

                  The rest need to be thoroughly expunged.

                  This is, according to the more capitalistic-leaning reactionaries, a form of 19th century socialism, in particular ‘Marxism’.

                  Those pesky Mediaeval Marxists!

                • jim says:

                  > If you’re Tom the son of the local baker, you will be a baker. You will bake according to guild standards, you will not ‘innovate’ and you will not lace your food with ridiculous amounts of fat, sugar or salt: good, plain, natural, healthy food as has existed since the time of Charlemagne **and nothing else**.\

                  That is a Marxist lie about history, consciously intended to deceive those what you intend to murder and enslave. Lenin implicitly admits it to be a lie, in that he argues that the story is useful, rather than arguing that it is true.

                  There never was such a thing as guild socialism. There was guild capitalism: Guilds were not workers unions, but capitalist cartels.

                  The son of a baker could do anything he felt he was good at – but only the son of a man who owned a London bakery could own and invest in a London bakery, could take apprentices and hire employees to bake. But any man could get a job as a baker, and the son of a man who owned a bakery and employed apprentices to work for him could build a bakery and hire any man as an employee or apprentice to bake for him.

                  The right of some people to build and own bakeries, to hire employees to bake, and to direct them as they please, was sacred back then in ways that are no longer sacred, and in this respect, guild capitalism was not less capitalist than today, but rather substantially more capitalist. The baking guild of each little town had rights that the sovereign was not supposed to interfere with, just has he was not supposed to interfere with a vassal’s use of his fief.

                  And the man who had a feudal hereditary right to build a bakery, had a feudal hereditary right to bake in any fashion he damn well felt like. To attack the right of the baker to bake has he wished would be to attack the right of the Lord to rule his fief, and the husband to rule his family. Were a monarch to do that, he would, by attacking the hereditary right of the baker, be sawing off the limb on which he sat. If the baker’s cartel could not bake as the owners pleased, could the husband rule his wife, or the King his Kingdom?

                  The right of the bakers guild in each little town to bake as it pleased was a privilege and an honor, and the King was supposed to uphold such hereditary privileges and honors, and should he fail to do so, was apt to lose the support of such people, often with fatal consequences. Kingly power ends when the king screws the wives of aristocrats, or takes away the privileges he is supposed to uphold. Attacking the rights of owners, as King Louis XVI attacked the grain merchants, is apt to result in that King losing his head. King Louis interfered with the grain market, and his socialism, predictably, led to shortages, in France as in Venezuela. To redirect the wrath of the public from himself to butchers and bakers, he turned a blind eye to the mob attacking butchers and makers, as in today’s Venezuela, which mobs in due course removed his head. Socialism destroyed the power of Kings in France, as sleeping with the wives of aristocrats destroyed the power of Kings in England.

                  Guilds were cartelized capitalism, not guild socialism.

                  This system, cartelized capitalism, faded away in Britain some time about anno Domini 1400, and on the continent of Europe, faded away some time about anno Domini 1600.

                  Mercantalist capitalism lasted somewhat longer, and was one of the legitimate grievances of the American colonists, though most of their grievances were foolish or contrived. Bastiat was arguing against Mercantalist capitalism in favor of sovereigns making it easy for merchants to transfer goods from the protection of one sovereign, to the protection of another, but he takes free market capitalism within the area where private ownership is upheld by a single sovereign for granted as ancient, and the opponents of free market capitalism within a single sovereignty as at best nuts, and at worst terrorists.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  “Next on Communist Revolutionary’s agenda is banning airplanes to Hawaii”

                  For pleasure trips? You bet! Private planes will need to pay hefty taxes for existing and for travelling each time.
                  In no other context is it legitimate for people to just randomly go to Hawaii just because they wanna.

                  That shit has to stop, 100%.

                  How would you like to take a short course in aerodynamics 5000 feet above the Pacific in a private family autogyro, such as every affluent father will own come the Restoration? That’s my idea of a pleasure trip.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The guilds basically arose because local lords and local chartered towns had the right to sell monopolies and many did sell monopolies.

                  I disagree with you on one point… monarchs tended to EXTREMELY hostile to these localized fiefdom rights (and they tended to be very bad for the economy… Spain was the one Western country where this kind of thing lasted well into the 19th century and it killed their economy) and tended to abolish them whenever they had the power to do so (this is distinct from the monarchs themselves selling national monopolies which they sometimes did and that went on much later).

                • Eli says:

                  I think CR’s understanding of guilds is explicitly Marxist, but Marx can be somewhat forgiven, as the term “guild” had evolved by his time. The term already lost its pure capitalist meaning and already had statist connotations. Such understanding has roots that precede Marx.

                  Consider Russian merchant guilds. The Russian czarist government (certainly, beginning with the Romanovs) had been very centrist, top-down oriented in their rule of Russia. Something of a geopolitical inevitability on the Northern European plane, after the Mongols united Russia and introduced their institutions.

                  Russian merchant guilds started out as individual cartels, but it became very convenient for the central bureaucracy to organize merchants as de facto classes, in the late 18th century, for tax collection purposes.

                  Compare that to, for example, medieval Western Euro trade guilds or the merchant guilds in decentralized old India. They were obvious capitalist cartels.

                  Yet, whether nominally “guilds” meant a tax class or an actual cartel, members of said guilds were allowed virtually complete freedom in their operation, as it pertained to making money within their zone of operation.

                  It is preposterous to assume that a merchant or a baker would be limited (especially, by a third party, even if a sovereign) to only trading or baking in a way that his father and grandfather did. Although, for the reason that life changed so slowly, they often did so — but only on their own free volition.

                • jim says:

                  By the fourteenth century, guilds in England were dying, by the fifteenth century dead, by the sixteenth century dead or dying world wide. So yes, eighteenth century guilds were either obsolete honors or socialism dressed in the stolen robes of ancient tradition. But it is still an anachronism to project recent socialism back to the past.

                  Socialism in our era started with absolute monarchs attempting to exercise absolutism routinely. Royal absolutism should be a rare exception, and the monarch is absolute in that he gets to decide when the situation warrants that rare exception. He is absolute every minute in that every minute he might decide to make that exception, but should make that exception very rarely, for when he does so, there are no end of unintended consequences. Hence De Maistre could quite consistently advocate absolute power for the King and simultaneously advocate absolute power for the Pope. Attempting to exercise absolutism routinely is invariably fatal for Kings, leading to loss of power and to their own death or the death of their children or grandchildren. Sleeping with the wives of aristocrats is less deadly to their lives, but more deadly to their power.

                • alf says:

                  If you’re Tom the son of the local baker, you will be a baker. You will bake according to guild standards, you will not ‘innovate’ and you will not lace your food with ridiculous amounts of fat, sugar or salt: good, plain, natural, healthy food as has existed since the time of Charlemagne **and nothing else**.

                  So now the baker gets state-applied rules too. Top of my head, what are you going to change?
                  – no more flying
                  – no more pizza
                  – no more fastfood
                  – no more swimming pools
                  – no more innovation in bakeries

                  Pretty your wish list of state law would even make Pol Pot say ‘damn son.’

                  It wouldn’t even be that stupid if you weren’t pretending to be one of us. God man you’re the most stereotypical commie I’ve ever met.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Alf you wouldn’t be worrying about these holiday type activities under the government of Cambodian Rogueianist it would be a holiday in Cambodia for all.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KTsXHXMkJA

                  Brother No. 1 knows how to deal with you capitalist roaders.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for presupposing that Alf agrees that the origin of degeneracy is popular demand by consumers. Every rock music video and every camgirl demonstrates that degeneracy is imposed from above.

                  We intend to suppress degeneracy (by forbidding some forms outright and making all forms of degeneracy low status). However what you think of as degeneracy (pizza and international travel) is the opposite of what I and Alf think of as degeneracy, hence the solutions that you propose to impose are the imposition, not the suppression, of degeneracy. You want to forbid international travel, we want to enable space travel.

                  I will allow arguments that argue that degeneracy is demanded from below, but you have to argue it, not presuppose a consensus on a supposedly obvious truth.

                  Nor will I allow repetitious arguments that ignore rebuttals. You have to respond to what your interlocutor actually said, not what he would have said had he agreed that Cultural Marxism, Marxist history, progressivism, and whig history is self evidently true.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Communist Revolutionary

                  Commie says, “I don’t think you understand the anti-consumerist/anti-capitalist form of reaction: we want to undo the Whig revolution – all of it.”

                  We don’t have a consumerist problem, who do you think is responsible for 80% of consumer spending?

                • Dave says:

                  “By the fourteenth century, guilds in England were dying…”

                  In the USA, most professions require a state license. In some states you only have to take a certain number of course hours and pass an exam; in others you must either buy an existing business or convince the state licensing board, which is staffed by people you hope to compete with, that the present number of licensed practitioners is inadequate. Good luck with that!

                  Did the guilds really die out, or were their functions merely folded into the state?

                • jim says:

                  > Did the guilds really die out, or were their functions merely folded into the state?

                  Guilds died out as capitalist cartels, surviving primarily as merely ceremonial honors, in the fourteenth century in England, two centuries later on the continent of Europe. State licensing got going late eighteenth century, after enforceable apprenticeship was smashed, and did not really take over the world until immediately after World War II. So that is a gap of about four or five centuries of free market capitalism – albeit capitalism in each separate country, with considerable obstacles for transactions that transferred goods from the protection of one sovereign to the protection of another (Mercantilism) and no real existence of international corporations, except for armed and dangerous corporations like the East India company.

                  State licensing was a priestly power grab – the power that capitalists formerly exercised through the apprenticeship system was grabbed by academics. Naturally regulatory capture ensued, but the regulatory capture involves businessmen paying tribute to academics.

                • Mike says:

                  Were the guilds in continental Europe really dead by 1600? Certainly I don’t doubt that they were dead in places like the Netherlands and probably Italy, but I thought guilds were still around in France at the time of the revolution. If I’m projecting on France, at the very least I thought they were still around in the Holy Roman Empire by 1800.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Early guilds were local crony capitalism, later French guilds were part of Colbert’S semi-command economy.

                • Ron says:

                  Jim you’ve made an important claim. That Louis the XVI was a failure bc of his attempt to implement socialist policies vis a vis the French grain merchants

                  Can you elaborate or st least direct to another source that can do so?

                • jim says:

                  I can give you sources that King Louis XVI intervened in the grain market, which intervention eventually became a complete takeover.

                  A major cause of the revolution was people complaining that they had no bread. I cannot give you any sources that say the reason they had no bread was the socialism of King Louis XVI, but the most characteristic symptom of socialism is breadlines, so I conjecture that his socialist intervention caused the crisis that it was supposed to be the cure for.

                  I cannot give you any sources that King Louis encouraged the mobs to attack the bakers and grain merchants, but mobs attacked the merchants and grain merchants without the government of King Louis XVI doing anything about it.

                  I can give your plenty of sources that the socialism of the revolutionary government caused shortages, and that they redirected the wrath of the mobs against the bakers and butchers. If the socialism of the Revolution did that, it is a plausible conjecture that the socialism of King Louis XVI also did that, but that is just my assumption, for which I have no sources.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Seems to me Louis suffered from an excess of compassion and a deficit of understanding. Aristocratic breeding worked, and produced a virtuous man, who was then hamstrung by aristocratic insulation.

                  When Lenin’s war didn’t work, he hired generals, and the obvious solution worked. When Louis’ intervention didn’t work, he should have shrugged and gone all “Let them eat cake, by which I mean grapeshot,” but was too compassionate to actually do so. A fatal mistake, as it turns out.

                  Louis at least can be forgiven for not knowing about phase I trials and double-blinding, Lenin really ought to have known.

                • The Cominator says:

                  What exactly inspired the Third Estate in Louis XVI reign to take the Tennis Court Oaths?

                  The revolution began with the Tennis Court Oaths and Louis probably could have stopped it if he sent in troops to shoot them all then… but afterwords it would have been harder because the French Revolution largely succeeded because the Royal Army defected to the rebels.

                • jim says:

                  King Louise XVI had dropped power into the street by allowing popular mobs to enforce his socialism. When power falls into the street, you will find no end of people eager to pick it up.

                  His father disempowered the nobility. He failed to protect the property owner. Everything was up for grabs, so people started grabbing.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “A major cause of the revolution was people complaining that they had no bread. I cannot give you any sources that say the reason they had no bread was the socialism of King Louis XVI, but the most characteristic symptom of socialism is breadlines, so I conjecture that his socialist intervention caused the crisis that it was supposed to be the cure for.”

                  Royal socialism in France (in a partial but not total form) started with Colbert under Louis XIV. So I would say yes socialism existed but Louis XVI didn’t start it and it didn’t end until Louis Philippe who was overthrown purely by leftists and intellectuals (though partially his fault because he paid lip service to egalitarian ideas even though his economics were sound).

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      Alrenous, where do you get your assertions re: China from? Old China’s state was way less strict in controlling breeding (and everything else) than the West was. The Ming couldn’t even get more than 30% of their population to pay taxes. There was no equivalent of the Catholic Church’s regulations on marriage, with marriage determined strictly by the clan patriarchs. East Asians are less creative but this can easily be explained by other factors like rice agriculture, clannishness and generally a much more competitive environment that penalizes risky mating strategies (betas were not guaranteed a wife if they couldn’t make enough since there was no rationing).

      • Alrenous says:

        China had even more severe Malthusian pressure than Europe. (Ref: Szabo, Clark.)
        China had the mandarin tests.
        Result: China is almost entirely populated by descendent of people who passed the mandarin test.

        What did the test select for? Today we have IQ 212 Chinamen who are satisfied with being a middle manager. If you want to build and run a chip fab, then a chink or jap is exactly the kind of person you want. However, the designs those fabs put out still has to be made by a European.

        To exaggerate, the Chinese can mock, but they cannot make. If you need not only the next chip design but the next [i]type[/i] of chip design, then you can pretty much write off Asia entirely. Satoshi is not from Japan.

        It’s also possible they started out hilariously conformist, but I rather doubt it.

        • Koanic says:

          Why do you doubt it? People come from apes, many of which are conformist.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          “Result: China is almost entirely populated by descendent of people who passed the mandarin test.”

          The gentry accepted ~100 graduates a year, maybe 130 if you count people who paid their way in. There is no way they even consist of 5% of the population genetically, especially if you consider the dilution from low status wives. There are very few people who can credibly claim descent from them despite how much Chinese like status and how bad the records have been since 1949.

          “Today we have IQ 212 Chinamen who are satisfied with being a middle manager.”

          Literally all major Chinese private businesses were started at a time where they were basically illegal and you could get arrested (Alibaba did not have a IPO until 2014, etc). There is also far more small businesses in the Sinosphere than Anglo countries (street food, etc). You are likely right about Japan, but I’ve met far more Chinese people with their own businesses than Anglos and I grew up in the Anglosphere. There is a creativity gap, but there is also a lot of venture capital / hardware innovation flying around in Shenzhen.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            Should read “Alibaba did no have a bank license until IPO in 2014”.

  8. Orthodox says:

    The Shining City on the Hill, our Natural Rights endowed by our Creator, protected by His lieges on Earth. Service grants Citizenship.

    • A.B. Prosper says:

      Service to who? Gnon? The Social Justice State .

      The military, an organization whose functional structure is entirely Marxist “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” and in the service of Trotskyites and Neo Cons ?

      Starship Troopers ia a good read but its conceptually stupid

  9. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Deleted for enthusiastically, but incorrectly, using our memes and our shibboleths.

      For the rectification of names, I have to insist on correct use of memes and shibboleths. Incorrect use of memes and shibboleths damages our ability to communicate. Do your homework.

      • Alrenous says:

        The goal and viability of consumption restriction has already been thoroughly demonstrated by the Amish. Anyone calling for consumption restriction in non-Amish ways has something other than consumption restriction as their goal.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            Deleted for the same old reasons. Stop doing that. Tired of it. I have been lecturing you on what you need to do for your comments to be allowed. Do it.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*deleted*]

              • jim says:

                If you want your comments to get through, present argument and evidence, rather than presupposing consensus on issues where reactionaries violently disagree with Cultural Marxists and progressives, and then deducing things from that presupposed consensus.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*deleted*]

  10. eternal anglo says:

    The text that the revolutionist is writing while interrupted by Burke says “On the benefits of atheism and anarchism”.

    And regicide.

    The other book on the floor is Sermon preached Nov 4 1789 by Dr R Price before the Revolution Society, in which Dr Price reveals to us that Christianity, properly understood, is Revolution, and expresses his horror, disgust and shock that Mr Burke could be such an outdated, redneck, horrendously extreme right wing Nazi as to oppose this.

    • eternal anglo says:

      >Redefines real patriotism is loving the whole world
      >Invokes Good Samaritan, “Love thy Enemies”
      >Even says It’s the Current Year!!!!! at one point

      It’s unbelievable. These people just never change.

      • jim says:

        Loving your enemies, as interpreted by the armed and armored bishops appointed by Charles the Hammer, includes saving their souls by breaking their skulls with a very big hammer.

        I mean, if you truly loved your enemies, you would bring them the benefits of the King’s order and the true faith.

  11. humpty dumpty says:

    “There is a wonderful sympathy and freemasonry among horsey men. Be one of them, and you will know all that there is to know.” — Sherlock Holmes

    “My dear Holmes,” said I, “this is too much. You would certainly have been burned, had you lived a few centuries ago.” — Dr. Watson

  12. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Great and very thought-provoking post Jim. Given you’re talking about the late 18th century, I have some thoughts I wanted to discuss regarding the NRx view of history and my (minor) dissent from it.

    Would it not be better for the Enlightenment to have occurred in a way that simply replaced Christianity (quite a poor state religion given its ancestral leftism and hatred for hierarchy) with liberalism without demotism? I think classical liberalism had a strong royalist branch before the late 1700s (e.g. see Physiocrats, Turgot, Voltaire; check out https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/candide/section4/, I highly doubt Voltaire was a blue pilled demotist). If certain events had been different, e.g. Louis XVI not being a 90 IQ retard who fired Turgot, libertarianism and royalism would have never been disassociated. Given that it would be very unlikely for people with modern technology to still believe in the religion of Charles I, which denies evolution and teaches a virgin birth, I think old-line Christianity would be doomed in any case, the only question being what its replaced by, with the most likely outcome being neo christianity (what actually happened).

    As a result, I don’t think you can blame the downfall of royal authority on the Enlightenment given that with gene cultural coevolution, it is only a matter of time before a christian people will put their teachings into practice. If anything, I think classical liberalism slowed the slide into leftism, since it at least ensured there were severe checks to demotism when it started. I’m not defending what happened since my view of post 1840 or so is exactly the same as yours and moldbug, but I also think it’s a stretch to say that given the Christian background leftism would have never triumphed without there being a radical change in the prevailing religion.

    Another thing I want to question you is the military viability of anarcho-capitalism. I think in the past you had a different view, but now you keep mentioning past cases where a synthetic tribe defeated a roughly libertarian society, yet you also mention that in modern times (20th century / after) a small group of highly equipped troops can easily defeat a massive horde of conscripts. Don’t you think the latter demonstrates the (potential) viability of anarcho-capitalism? I highly suspect a re-run of the Pinkerton-Union conflict today would have a similar outcome to the Occupy-Rentacop conflict you talked about before. In addition, the presence of nuclear weapons would seem to heavily even the odds between a small, libertarian organization and a state with a powerful state religion.

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      forgot to include the link regarding Turgot to provide background regarding my assertions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Robert_Jacques_Turgot#As_minister,_1774%E2%80%931776

    • humpty dumpty says:

      Occupy sang Unionist songs but wasn’t fighting for freemasonry, they were just there to express frustration about the nothing that happened in 2007 that John McCain used as an excuse to suspend his campaign over, and the college tards used the opportunity to experiment with pronouns.

      Did rentacops have more freemasonry than Pinkertons of yore?

      If the conservatives writing the Constitution hadn’t banned titled of nobility, could the Pinkertons have had more freemasonry?

    • jim says:

      > Would it not be better for the Enlightenment to have occurred in a way that simply replaced Christianity

      It did completely replace Christianity. Remember the “Church of Reason”, the war in the Vendee, and the War in Spain. When Napoleon was defeated, Christianity was restored, and the enlightenment temporarily repressed.

      Obviously not repressed hard enough. We are looking at the enlightenment through rose colored glasses, erasing its connection with the Red Terror of the Committee for Public Safety, with the mass murder of monks, priests, and nuns, and with the disastrous socialism of the French Revolution, which socialism was much the same as, and had much the same consequences as, today’s Venezuelan socialism. Napoleon was to the Enlightenment as Stalin was to communism.

      Today’s glorification of the Enlightenment is similar to the rewrite of history that set in after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

      > I think classical liberalism slowed the slide into leftism

      Classical liberalism was a short lived and entirely one sided alliance between the faction of liberty and the left, in which the faction of liberty swiftly abandoned all their principles and objectives for a tiny sliver of power, and in due course the shriveled husk of the faction of liberty was expelled from power, once it had ceased to be useful to the left. The history of classical liberalism was much the same history as the history of the Berkeley free speech movement and every popular front movement. You are invited to jump into the mouth of power, you find that you are required to speak your master’s words, and then the jaws close down upon you. Trying to find common ground with leftists always fails horribly. It is like apologizing to social justice warriors.

      > I highly suspect a re-run of the Pinkerton-Union conflict today would have a similar outcome to the Occupy-Rentacop conflict you talked about before.

      The Union was not an occupy mob. The Union had cannons and all that, without which the conflict would have been completely one sided. A synthetic religion can obtain and use highly trained warriors and advanced equipment also, surrounding their core of highly trained well equipped warriors with an expendable mob of the faithful to give the appearance of a victory by the masses. Visualize an occupy mob providing cover for people with light artillery, helicopter gunships, and rocket launchers.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        “Classical liberalism was a short lived and entirely one sided alliance between the faction of liberty and the left, in which the faction of liberty swiftly abandoned all their principles and objectives for a tiny sliver of power, and in due course the shriveled husk of the faction of liberty was expelled from power, once it had ceased to be useful to the left.”

        Wait what?

        You’ll be censoring yourself soon and replying “Marxist”.

        This is exactly right: liberalism sided with the left in order to destroy those parts of legitimate power that liberalism found inconvenient, such as but not limited to the right of a master to command his servant in matters not related to a narrow view of ’employment’ based on the mutual, consensual exchange of goods.

        As soon as those aspects of legitimate power were thoroughly expunged from society, the left threw liberalism under the bus because the left wanted to destroy those aspects of legitimate power which were peculiar to liberalism, such as private property rights, freedom of association and so on.

        Whenever I’ve made this case you’ve called it Marxist History. It’s not: it’s Reactionary History.

        Perhaps if I use the term ‘manifest classical liberalism’ rather than ‘capitalism’, you won’t see Leon Trotsky behind every rock. Manifest classical liberalism needs to be reversed: the left approved of it for a reason – it was the erosion of legitimate power.

        • jim says:

          The trouble with your history is that you make capitalism a leftist innovation, which is insane, and pure Marxism.

          The abolition of enforceable apprenticeship and enforceable marriage was not capitalism, but an attack on capitalism, and was accompanied by flaming anticapitalist rhetoric about chimney sweeps and such, and the attack on marriage was accompanied by welfare for bastards and single mothers. This was obvious in England, and even more obvious in France where the Popular Society and the Committee of Public Safety enforced Venezuelan style socialism with flaming anticapitalist rhetoric and Venezuelan style results.

          The classic liberals abandoned all their principles, joined the crusade blaming capitalism for the sea of bastards that ensued when State and Church abandoned the enforcement of marriage, and in return for the abandonment of all of their principles, got a reduction in the tariff on imported corn. Big Deal.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              I will not allow discussion of the origins of capitalism that does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge the writings of King Solomon, Shakespeare, and William Bradford and the actions of Queen Elizabeth and Charles the Second, just as I will not allow discussion of consciousness that does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge Moravec’s paradox.

              I will not allow discussions of Marxist history that confidently presuppose that past writers agreed with it.

              Marxist history is obviously insane, no one believes such silliness, least of all Marxists. It is, as Lenin implicitly admitted, a hostile lie intended to deceive those that you intend to rob, enslave, and murder, and further confident assertions that it is obviously true and past writers all totally agreed on its obvious truth will be silently deleted.

              If you want to debate it, start with evidence and argument, instead of presupposing consensus on a history that is absurd and unsupported.

              Let us discuss discuss the good woman depicted by King Solomon, who by working hard at menial tasks creates a vineyard for her family, Jesus’ parable of the vineyard depicting wage labor, Jesus’s parable of the talents depicting use of money to obtain profit, Shakespeare ridiculing socialism in his portrayal of Jack Cade, and William Bradford in 1624 dismissing socialists as “Wiser than God” – which sarcasm presupposes that God ordained private property in the means of production from the beginning.

              Explain to me that Shakespeare is not ridiculing Chavism, Maoism, and Pol Pot, and William Bradford is not ridiculing you.

              If you want to argue that capitalism is a seizure of power from Kings by capital, let’s start with the section of the Book of Proverbs written by King Solomon and then move on to Naboth’s vineyard.

              The bible depicts capitalism as ordained by God at the beginning, and socialism as social decay and rebellion against God. William Bradford depicts it as pride and covetousness.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                [*Deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive.

                  If you want to argue Marxist history, you are going to have to respond to evidence that contradicts it.

                  Whether or not Capitalism was divinely ordained, that Solomon believed it to be be divinely ordained is an indication that it is ancient beyond prehistory. So, if you are not going to debate the Book of Proverbs and Naboth’s vineyard, not going to allow claims that capitalism is recent, even when supported by what passes for evidence and argument among Marxists.

                  Capitalism is ordained by Gnon, as demonstrated not by the book of Proverbs, but by the disastrous results of every experiment with socialism. Capitalism is ancient, as demonstrated by ancient discussions of capitalism such as the book of Proverbs. Socialism is new, as demonstrated by Shakespeare and William Bradford pissing on it, and if you want to argue for Marxism, going to have to acknowledge and respond to Naboth’s Vineyard, the Book of Proverbs, Shakespeare and William Bradford.

      • The Cominator says:

        “When Napoleon was defeated, Christianity was restored, and the enlightenment temporarily repressed.”

        Jim it is my impression that Napoleon repressed most of the insane leftist features of the enlightenment himself, he retained some elements of a command economy in order to keep taxes above the Laffer maximum to sustain the Grande Armee (and Napoleon had zero sympathy for leftists on the woman question… despite being extremely forgiving of Josephine being a very bad wife personally) but in general he had zero sympathy with it.

        • jim says:

          Yes, Napoleon repressed most of the madness, but full restoration of normality, sanity, and the market economy did not happen till he was defeated. Better than a Stalin, but not as good as a Cromwell. The command economy was still justified by the supposed wickedness of capitalism and capitalists.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          he retained some elements of a command economy in order to keep taxes above the Laffer maximum to sustain the Grande Armee

          The point of a Laffer maximum is that it maximizes revenue so if a government taxes above it it’s demonstrating that its got aims other than revenue.

    • Alrenous says:

      There’s a rather large difference between executing ancap by accident and intentionally leading an Exit-based society.

  13. Halion says:

    Tell me Jim, if a dictator of LATAM called you to be the priesthood, would you accept? would you learn Spanish?
    I suspect that restoration will triumph first in some corner of the global south

    • jim says:

      The Turkish empire became the anti Turkish empire, and the Turks, not the provinces, revolted. The American empire has become the anti American empire, and revolt is far more likely in America than in its subject nations.

      • Halion says:

        Well, in the case of Argentina, the country is on the verge of collapse and practically does not have armed forces worthy of that name … it seems to be an interesting opportunity.

    • Ron says:

      The debates between CR and Jim are extremely important. This includes the deletions and the explanations for the deletions.

  14. Great article as always Jim, but your conclusion is an error. The age of religion is over, and what dawns now is the age of philosophy. But the masses are incapable of philosophy, ergo the masses must go. The solution therefore is the final solution: armies of killer drones ridding the earth of billions of subhumans, until only a few hundred thousand Overmen are left to take on the aliens in the universe’s final stage. Most Homo sapiens create nothing anyway so they are useless for the final stage. There’s absolutely no reason for the earth to hold billions of them any more, and the drones will fix this issue. All we need then is for the drone owners—i.e. the techies—to understand this, and that’s what my philosophy is for, and it’s well on the way to achieving that since the only modern philosophy being seriously discussed in 4chan is mine (and 4chan is where the techies of the future will get their links from, as you said).

    In summa, your political commentary is second to none, but we are fast approaching the end of politics, and just like the end of religion, and it’s philosophy that follows after that to take us to the endgame… and the next cycle.

    • jim says:

      Nuts

      The future belongs to those that show up.

      • What I think is nuts is trying to solve present problems with past solutions, which is what the reactionary program does. Mankind will NEVER accept a religion again, which is the pillar of your program. We are too smart for religions today unless the religion is philosophy. And philosophy says: killer drones.

        • eternal anglo says:

          Go read Bronze Age Pervert until your understanding of le epic esoteric Nietzscheanism bears some relation to concrete reality, schizo.

          • Concidentally, have just read BAM. Dunno. The only worthwhile idea I find in it is that freedom isn’t something that comes from this or that law or kind of government, but rather the life of the city is inherently unfree, life on the steppe is inherently free, and the Western city is better than the Eastern city because it tries to preserve as much freedom of the steppe as possible. Other than that, it is full of ideas of the kinds that people come up with when they get high, and there is this aesthetical superhero-thing, the highest kind of life, which apparently equals the steppe or something. Dunno. Not really impressed. Maybe because I got over Nietzsche and aesthetical superhero lives at around 16. It was cool for a period, but not a very practical way to look at things.

            • jim says:

              Bap is intellectually incoherent. He is plugging an aesthetic, not idea system. He is not interested in being intellectually coherent.

              • The Cominator says:

                No I’ve conversed with the guy online (he used to be a part of a forum I was on) I’ll tell you his actual ideas.

                BAPs basic idea is that the rights victory will come at least partially through tons of individual victories… but instead of saying “clean your room” (which I agree is woman’s work) he says become strong and impose your will on the enviroment around you.

                Now of course that doctrine is not sufficient because right wingers eventually must cooperate it takes a synthetic tribe to kill another synthetic tribe but there is nothing wrong with individual victories either.

              • eternal anglo says:

                Bap is intellectually incoherent. He is plugging an aesthetic, not idea system. He is not interested in being intellectually coherent.

                True – but the point of the barbarianposting and #handsomethursdays is to make thinkable what was previously unthinkable in morality and aesthetics: to meme people from thinking ‘hey, what’s wrong with whites having own homeland?’ to thinking ‘hey, what’s wrong with looting and burning, killing our enemies and taking their women?’ He’s trying to resuscitate the manly paganism of ancient times, of which you’ve written favourably. It’s an absolute blast, even if he doesn’t succeed.

              • BAP is quite a bit deeper than he lets on, and he intentionally doesn’t let it on.

                He wants to make masculinity and violence central virtues, so he pushes whatever aesthetics he can get his hands on that portray male cooperation and violence as high status. He knows full well that a group of violent men will create their own internal culture; trying to get a bunch of anons to cohere around a rigorous intellectual system is a lost cause.

                Inspiring men to be masculine, violent, and contemptuous of leftist society is the first step on the path to power. You need Men before you can have a mannerbund that cooperates, and most of the online Right are not Men, they’re LARPing.

                Most of the Right that are real Men are also older, settled patriarchs with wife and kids, the wrong demographic for a band of hungry, reckless warriors.

                • The Cominator says:

                  He also recognizes that being “warriors” is not for everyone.

                  Hes both more coherent and more complex then most think (unfortunate that hes a homosexual) but it would take very long to explain his philosophy.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Are you sure he’s a homosexual?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Pretty sure. He rejects the gay identity but the forum I was on he was suspended long term (he can come back now but hasn’t) because he sent gay porn in a private message to someone he didn’t like.

                  Straight men don’t tend to do that sort of thing.

        • Outside the Overton Window; Inside the Autistic Spectrum says:

          Anti-social spergs always come up with bizarre rationalizations to kill lots of people. There’s something to be said in favor of the treatment that kookoos used to receive in the 18th and 19th centuries. In particular, lobotomy and electroconvulsive therapy would have set you straight.

          • The Cominator says:

            Spergs don’t generally or probably ever (maybe there are exceptions but I don’t know) get into political power.

            I favor a Final Solution to the Leftist Problem should the left push things to civil war but I think leftist deserve it and are a threat as long as they are alive. Orgyofthewill (who I’m sure comes from a white knightionalist background) proposal is marxists in its evil though, if innocent people need to go for eugenic reasons… best to just sterilize and not murder them.

            • Ron says:

              You are talking about making war on entropy. Because that is what this really is.

              You can no more exterminate all leftists than you can exterminate all criminals. Both are a result of human beings going off the rails.

              The best way to deal with criminals is three pronged approach of arming the males of the populace, encouraging healthy religious teachings, and a healthy political environment.

              Similarly the best way to deal with flu season, is to eat right/exercise, read the good book, and avoid situations which will weaken your body or emotional state.

              The universities have to be defunded. That’s a given.

              But something better needs to exist to replace it.

              The Universities were given power bc they promised the young men social advancement with the increased probability of acquiring a mate.

              The ability to acquire a mate was replaced with “free sex”. Based on Jims insight, what really happened is that ownership of those females was effectively transferred from the fathers to the university administrators.

              Women must be owned, they will import savage rapists who will beat and enslave them if necessary but they demand to be owned. When we take away ownership of the fathers, the women then cast about desperately trying to find some authority to command them. That became the universities and all its horrific chaos.

              Whereas before the owners of the university system had to please the young males, specifically the young highly competitive and capable males who demanded results, now they only have to tell the fertile females how to act in order to compel the males to continue transferring resources.

              Which is why logic, reason, facts and anything else we expect from universities has been discarded. For the modern university, logic is actually a detriment for the purpose of acquiring POWER. Rhetoric and arrogance are far more useful when dealing with either women or weak males. That includes the weak males who allow their daughters to go to university.

              This stops when eventually like locusts they run out of families to destroy in order to acquire more females, or more likely the remaining families will be immune to the bullshit used to convince the weaker families to hand over their daughters.

              But as they run out of people to cannibilize, they will step up their efforts, especially as they acquire the power to overtly use violence. Imagine a con man who has managed to acquire vast wealth from the foolish townspeople. Eventually he runs out of suckers to con. Either his victims grow wise or grow too impoverished to steal from.

              At that point the con man will either move on to new pastures or he will used his ill acquired power to stomp on the townspeople who were wise enough to avoid him

              I think That’s the stage we are in now. The Left is running out of dupes, bc their policies effectively cause poverty and sterility. So they are importing savages and using their power to physically coerce the population to submit.

        • Koanic says:

          Killer bipedal drones running Koranic software on obsolete 3 lb wetware processors and self-replicating 6x per generation in a stone huts beat low-birthrate atheist tech spergs sipping soy in Silicon Valley designing social media apps for Zogbux. The only thing going extinct is you.

        • Koanic says:

          How stupid do you have to be to claim that atheist tech nerds will never believe a religion again when they currently believe sub-Saharans are equal to humans, something so ludicrously false that “blind faith” doesn’t even begin to describe it?

          • Jim disappointed me but the replies of the readers are at least hilarious lol

          • Not every techie is a retard. The non-retard techies will beat the retards because… they aren’t retards. And at any rate, it will be some Elon Musk type characters who’ll end up with the buttons. All that Musk needs is to read some real philosophy, and that will happen very soon. Once the 1% gets a hold of my site it’ll all be over.

            • Koanic says:

              You need to stick around so people will start regarding me as sane and humble.

              • The Cominator says:

                You Andre Glos orgy and communist revolutionary should form a club…

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  FOUL, SIR. I made that joke, like, 4 posts back. They really are quite the funky bunch.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          >present problems with past solutions

          Please name at least one, but as many as you can muster, “present” problems that are wholly unique to this era.

          >mankind will never accept an [x] again

          Hidebound and ignorance borne of a caudled upbringing, a privileged life, and limited real world experience. Mankind as a concept is an abstraction based on neo-Protestantism that has no basis in either social or biological reality. It is a fantasy used to sell ideas and widgets. Further, what any given society will accept is bound be external parameters, not internal capacities. Seal off NYC completely and watch how quickly cannibalism starts up. Isolate a population from explanation of technology and watch how quickly tech savvy individuals become witch doctors. You don’t even need to use macro examples; you can look at families or relationships that have been shorn of traditional structures that turn incredibly primitive incredibly rapidly.

          You are either a troll, or some weaboo faggot that wandered down the wrong internet tube. Put slightly differently, if you aren’t raising children, your words are wind and your beliefs are worthless.

    • Why stop at a few hundred thousand? Obviously the guy with the biggest drone army is the true perfect specimen of humanity; why shouldn’t he liquidate all of his fellow ubermenschen and use the entire planet as his personal backyard?

      • That’s pretty much the endgame. Play the videogame Planetary Annihilation for an early preview: https://culture.vg/reviews/videogame-art/planetary-annihilation.html

        • alf says:

          So you’re a leftist techno weeb. Fair enough. Dream on.

          Technology is never as fancy pancy as techno weebs make it out to be. Need an army of engineers to maintain an army of drones. You don’t strike me as the kind of guy who knows what it takes to maintain an army of engineers. Hint: it is surprisingly human.

          Also, religion is never as outdated as post-religious leftists make it out to be, but feel free to establish your own drone religion.

          • Gotta read up on nanomachines and stuff. Your idea of tech doesn’t seem to extend beyond a decade or two. Need vision to grasp philosophy. Need a mind that can encompass millennia, not a pea size skull that thinks throwing the word engineer out to an aerospace engineer (University of Washington, 2001) somehow negates all philosophy from Heraclitus to today.

            • alf says:

              Need a mind that can encompass millennia, not a pea size skull

              Well Im sure you and Koanic will get along swimmingly.

            • jim says:

              Nuts.

              Due to social decay, science has ended, and technological advance has halted in one field after another, continuing only in an ever narrowing set of fields. How is Google’s self driving car coming along?

              The leftist political singularity ate the technological singularity.

              • Karl says:

                It is rather telling that the self-driving car is hyped, while we do not even have self-driving trains.

                A seld-driving train is much more easy to do than a self-driving car. Train drivers cost a lot of maney, so there must be a market for self-driving trains. That fact that we do not have self-driving trains, indicates that even the problem of a self-driving train is too hard.

                • Roland says:

                  There are self driving trains – the big mines in Australia use them – until they derail and cost millions of dollars.

            • jim says:

              > nanomachines and stuff

              Ah, a singulatarian.

              The technolgical singularity is the rapture of the nerds. Not going to happen. Science and the scientific method died when Harvard got the upper hand on the Royal society as a result of World War II. Technological advance slowed in 1972 and ended in field after field. You will have better luck expecting the return of Christ.

              Science happened in large part because Charles the Second made the invisible college into the Royal Society, making the scientific method high status. Puritans sent thugs to break up their meetings, in order to make the scientific method low status. Charles the Second sent men at arms to defend their meetings, thus securing the status of the scientific method.

              Today, the scientific method is low status. If you try it, will not get published, will lose tenure. If you insist on engaging in the scientific method while at a university, a group of black polsci professors with base ball bats and room temperature IQ will pay you a visit. If you flee the university and put up a website, search engines will derank your website, and governments will block it, as they block the pirate science websites.

              • Alrenous says:

                governments will block it, as they block the pirate science websites.

                The major reason I haven’t already founded an alternative university. The first step to successfully doing such a thing is armoured divisions in Harvard Yard and on the White House lawn.

              • Koanic says:

                Technology has declined due to a religious failure making coordination impossible. Technological decline is thus generally true of everything except that which can be done by one guy in his parent’s basement, which includes a lot of software. Codes of conduct have pozzed much of open source, but some projects can still be driven by individuals. Also, AFAICT from reading Gwern AI is still advancing, mainly because computation is becoming cheaper. The IT singularity is hard to stop, it tends to snowball.

                • Ron says:

                  It stops the moment the lack of integrity in society leads to a necessary component breaking down due to a lack of any skilled technician willing to fix it.

                  The concept of AI running amok always struck me as a sort of perpetual motion machine. All systems contain errors, all errors build on themselves over time until the system collapses. True for machines, true for societies, and true for code.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @orgyofthewill.net

              Gamma detected…

              • The Cominator says:

                To be fair I’m not sure if gammas as Vox Day defines them really exist. I think there are Alphas, Betas and Outcast/Omega males.

                Supposedly gammas are pathologically dishonest, yet gammas also display spergish traits and spergs tend to be far more honest then most men.

                Vox also displays a lot of gamma traits himself.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Cominator

                  The Secret King response of “I’m an aerospace engineer, Washington University 2001 !!!1!1!11!” Was the giveaway.

                • Koanic says:

                  He’s not the secret king, he’s the drone king! Beware his deadly sound effects.

                  Orgy’s embarrassing monomania is one of the dysfunctions my cognitive transhumanism technology corrects. It’s a symptom of the inability of the human brain to process modern information loads, leading to cognition-conserving fudges and folds that eventually coalesce into castles in the sky, suspended from nothing, made from pure error. It is impossible to secure ideological agreement without coercion when everyone is committing such travesties just to get through the day.

                  The solution is mind augmentation via exomind, using idiot-savant computers to expand mental capacity infinitely, by ergonomic low-latency immersive textual database operations, as automatic as driving a car. Putting a human mind that has previously been confined to its biological brain into a brain+exomind environment is like planting a tree sapling grown in a plastic cup into the ground. The roots start stretching out in all directions and eventually the cramped central cluster becomes irrelevant.

                  The sort of people who claim Vox Day exhibits gamma traits either suffer from envious delusions or lack the ability to hold multiple perspectives simultaneously. Probably both. “Gamma” is not a synonym for “flawed” or “unlikeable”. It is as dumb as claiming Trump is driven by male insecurity. If Vox had a gamma phase, it was a brief one while he figured out how to fit into his ?high school soccer team. But I rather suspect he just went straight from omega to delta, due to disdain for the gamma valley of shame. Imagine yourself a mestizo in Minnesota…

              • The Cominator says:

                Voxs insecurity and status hierarchy anxiety is palpable hence why I think his obsessing over his self created category of “gammas” is in part projection. This becomes clear when he starts attacking “nerds” when with his interest in science fiction and comics he is clearly somewhat of a nerd himself. Insecurity is the opposite of an Alpha trait (and I certainly don’t claim to be Alpha myself I’m a sperg with no game and no ability to read people).

                His obsessive hatred of Jordan Peterson (who I dissent from many but I think despite his flaws JP is a useful fellow in giving shitlibs an alternative religion even if hes somewhat leftists himself) I also think is strange.

                Vox has done many good things in trying to setup alternative cultural institutions and that is where his talent lay but hes not an alpha male expert on game or status hierarchies. Hes an omega who overachieved.

                • jim says:

                  Vox Day is right about Jordan Peterson and the Dark Web. They are controlled opposition.

                • Koanic says:

                  > I’m a sperg with no game and no ability to read people

                  Then you really shouldn’t try to judge people objectively at the top of the social hierarchy, any more than kids with Down’s syndrome should try to major in physics.

                • jim says:

                  > Hes an omega who overachieved.

                  Indeed Vox Day is at best a high achieving, high functioning beta. And he is not nearly as smart as he so frequently claims. People who are actually smart don’t feel inclined to mention it at frequent intervals.

                  But his achievements are impressive.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The IDW in general is controlled op. Certainly I have nothing good to say about Shapiro or Harris…

                  Jordanetics lets agree to disagree. I think any alternative religion that isn’t Islam preached within the Cathedral is for the best.

                • jim says:

                  The trouble with Jordanetics is that it is not actually an alternative religion – it is merely progressivism that flirts with some truths dangerous to progressivism, but does not actually make contact with truths that would piss of progressives.

                  Cleaning up your room and standing up straight is non toxic masculinity. It is not the masculinity that frightens progressives. Jordan Peterson will not help you get laid, nor stabilize your marriage. When he talks about masculinity, it kind of sounds as if he dissenting from progressivism, but he is not. People are hungry for unspeakable truths, and Jordan Peterson sounds as if he is speaking them, but he is not.

                • Koanic says:

                  Jim> Indeed Vox Day is at best a high achieving, high functioning beta. And he is not nearly as smart as he so frequently claims.

                  “Smart” is an ambiguous word that can mean anything from “high IQ” to “wise”. If you are claiming Vox exaggerates his IQ, that is objectively false.

                  What “beta” behavior patterns does Vox Day exhibit? He certainly does not act like the Bravo in his version of the socio-sexual hierarchy.

                  Jim> People who are actually smart don’t feel inclined to mention it at frequent intervals.

                  This is a statement of ethos preference, not a scientific observation. The ultra-high IQ are split into the functional and dysfunctional. The dysfunctional do all kinds of bizarre things. The functional do what works, which rarely involves directly challenging the equalitarian ethos of the age in a way that provokes hatred, which IQ realism does.

                • jim says:

                  Vox Day’s books have heroes that are one hundred percent beta. And I can tell who is smart and who is not. Vox is a lot smarter than average, but not in the league that he so frequently claims.

                  Indiana Jones was alpha. Han Solo in the first star wars movie was alpha. James Bond in the early James Bond movies was alpha. Most of the characters played by Errol Flynn were alpha. Heroes should be alpha, or should grow into alpha. Not so Vox Day’s heroes. Pretty sure that the hero of Summa Elvetica is a projection of Vox Day, and he is a nerd. Starts off as a nerd, ends as a nerd.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “The trouble with Jordanetics is that it is not actually an alternative religion – it is merely progressivism that flirts with some truths dangerous to progressivism, but does not actually make contact with truths that would piss of progressives.”

                  Ah you are getting to the crux of the matter.

                  The false god of the progressives is a jealous God and narrow is the path of nonsense required to keep the faith. A progressives faith cannot survive any concessions to reality… Jordanetics is a seed of poison that any who accept will destroy the faith.

                  JP in his actual lectures talks about ev. psych even if its not pure redpill ev. psych the shitlib worldview cannot stand any thinking along these lines without becoming poisoned.

                  So it might be a progressivism heresy rather then a truly alternative religion… but accepting it will destroy a shitlibs faith completely given time. It does retain some of the progressives hostility to nationalism and that alone might survive in a weakened form… belief in Marxism or female equality otoh will not survive at all.

                  Hence why I think Jordan Peterson despite his flaws has tremendous value to us still.

                • jim says:

                  Evolutionary Psychology leads to truths that will sink progressivism. But Peter Jordan stops short of those truths.

                • pdimov says:

                  >His obsessive hatred of Jordan Peterson

                  Public feuds with prominent figures is how VD stays relevant and visible.

                • Koanic says:

                  I do not believe that your intuitive evaluation of Vox Day’s intelligence from his writeprint is more reliable than the actual IQ test he took.

                  Nor do I believe that Vox Day writes self-projections into his fiction.

                  The Christian Vox Day has adopted a lot of beta civilizing ethos, which he promotes through his art. That is his goal. Remember that he is not white. When John C. Wright talks about self-restraint, and Vox Day talks about self-restraint, there is a vast racial divide in the type of impulses that they are restraining.

                  An author’s earliest fiction provides the most naked glimpse of his sociosexuality. If one reads Vox’s earliest fiction, you find that it regresses towards an uncomplicated sigma-esque attitude towards life.

                  You are right that Vox is purple-pilled, but this is not due to his low sociosexual rank.

                  Challenging false shepherds is a legitimate Christian and alpha activity.

                • jim says:

                  > I do not believe that your intuitive evaluation of Vox Day’s intelligence from his writeprint is more reliable than the actual IQ test he took

                  And the actual test result was?

                • pdimov says:

                  >than the actual IQ test he took

                  The exact result of which he never published, if I’m not mistaken.

                • Koanic says:

                  Neither is the test result a secret. He took it with some of his longtime friends, who still stop by at the blog, and has repeatedly reminisced on how his friend mocked his visuospatial performance. Vox does not lie about things in public.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Neither is the test result a secret.

                  I’m not saying that it’s a secret, but I still don’t know what it is.

                  I’m also not accusing Vox of overstating his intelligence – he claims high IQ for rhetorical reasons in response to leftists, because in leftist reality, conservatives are stupid. (Also, while his observations about VHIQ/UHIQ people are accurate as far as I can tell, he was careful to not claim to be one of them, IIRC.)

                  But again, if you’re going to use his actual IQ test score as an argument, you have to say what it is.

                • Koanic says:

                  Pdimov> But again, if you’re going to use his actual IQ test score as an argument, you have to say what it is.

                  No, I don’t. Both Jim and I are familiar with Vox’s claims regarding his IQ. Those claims are based on that IQ test, among other things. Jim’s claim is based on writeprint analysis. I do not believe Jim is that good at estimating IQ from writeprint.

                  Jim’s claim that Vox is beta is based on Summa Elvetica’s protagonist, whom Jim assumes to be an authorial insert. Actually, I suspect this was in imitation of Vox’s favorite author Umberto Eco, who also has written a realistically-naive church lad as a main character in at least one of his books. Having grown up as one of those, I have no quarrel with the accuracy of the portrayal by either author.

                • Koanic says:

                  IIRC he says he’s 3 SD, it’s been a while though.

                • jim says:

                  Assuming your recollection is accurate, a suspiciously broad result – which could mean above three SD or exactly three SD, which seems way too high, or could mean above two SD, which sounds plausible.

                • pdimov says:

                  Above 2SD is certain because that’s the Mensa threshold.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, from his non fiction books, obviously above 2SD. But I estimate, not very much above 2SD.

                • pdimov says:

                  Vox claims 151 here: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-definitive-iq-list.html

                  He also states, in another post:

                  “I was a member of Mensa, so obviously my IQ is above 132. More importantly, I was also a National Merit Finalist prior to the 1993 renorming of the PSAT, so it is equally apparent that my IQ must also be above 140.”

                • jim says:

                  Mensa is accurate and reasonably reliable.

                  PSAT was already corrupt before 1993. He could be above 140, but I would find that a little surprising. Trouble is that since around 1870, 1900, or so, universities have wanted to enroll stupid people because they want to enroll members of underrepresented groups (also members of certain highly overrepresented groups) and also wanted to deny that they are enrolling stupid people, so the corruption of everything connected to university entrance goes way back.

                • info says:

                  His book Jordarnetics shows all that is wrong with JP.

                • Koanic says:

                  Once again you are inferring something about Vox from a biased writeprint sample. His nonfiction books are intended to be accessible to a general audience, and are therefore written with a simpler writeprint than his default mode. Just as his fantasy books are intended to be accessible to the population of nerds that reads fantasy books.

                  For a more representative sample of his nonfiction writing, try his earliest columns for WND or better yet his game reviews. Both of those are also aimed at a general audience, but I suspect his ability to write simply was not as well-developed then.

                  Actually, I think the best sample would be his earliest blog, since that is not filtered through an editor.

                • Koanic says:

                  IIRC Vox has claimed he is visuospatially retarded. Whereas Jim is a heavyweight nonverbal thinker, by dint of long engineering practice, early reading of Feynman, and natural ability to observe phenomena that is for others masked by the fog of Progressive words.

                  It is perfectly understandable for visuospatial heavyweights to evaluate Vox’s intelligence and conclude it’s lacking. Just as verbal thinkers often fail to grasp the visuospatial mode, so also the reverse. However, typically a non-visuospatial thinker will at least be aware that he is terrible at math. The reverse is not necessarily true. Verbal thinkers cannot think about visuospatial topics at all, whereas visuospatial thinkers can think about symbolic topics by engaging with the content “below” the symbols. Therefore some visuospatial thinkers exhibit chauvinism towards symbol-centric thought.

                  Both modes have their weaknesses and strengths.

                • chedolf says:

                  Vox does not lie about things in public.

                  Yes, Vox lies. https://i.imgur.com/1SyNujY.jpg

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes Vox does lie and does project. His gamma male category is not real but Vox is capable of displaying the kind of behaviours he attributes to “gammas” when he feels his fake alpha status is being threatened. Projecting aggression and supreme confidence (even if not genuine) is exactly right for dealing with SJW attack… but its alienating when hes insisting on his own infallibility to other people on the right.

                  I’m not denying the good things hes done, but he’d do a lot better if he admitted his character flaws and stopped projecting to cover up for them. He might actually move from purple pill to actual redpill…

                • jim says:

                  My faults (gluttony, lust, and wrath) are entirely compatible with alpha.

                  Vox Day’s faults, not so much. His categorization the male sociosexual hierarchy is projection. His alpha frame is fragile and brittle, and he knows it, and if you follow his advice, you will fail to project alpha in a way that women will recognize. You will, however, be effective at dealing with social justice warriors.

            • St. Mandela II says:

              >gets a degree in the least innovative field of engineering
              >calls himself a man of engineering vision

              Pick one and only one, bucko.

              Also,

              >naming his alma mater and year of graduation on a pseudonymous Karen ceremonial dress sewing blog comments section

              • jim says:

                He is an engineer in a field of engineering that is visibly regressing to a lower technological level, making silly prophesies of the technological singularity.

                In his field, the technological decline is obvious.

                AI is in my field of expertise. I always predicted that the Google self driving car would fail, and that launching the project was an indication that Google is no longer run by smart people. All the progress he prophesies is well outside his field of expertise – because in any area that is in one’s own field of expertise, one is apt to notice that technological progress has slowed or stopped, and in many cases reversed, as in the decline of the highest level of technology, the air superiority fighter.

                The requirements for a ground support battle aircraft are the opposite of those for an air superiority fighter, and building a plane to attempt do both roles is just an excuse to cover the fact that we can build neither the ground support battle aircraft nor the air superiority fighters that we used to. And no one remains in the US who can build nukes or maintain our existing nukes. They were never designed to be stored for long periods without maintenance or checkups, and chances are that that our nukes do not work any more.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @jim

                  There’s definitely a decline in airplane tech.

                  To clear things up, “aerospace” refers to both airplanes and reusable orbital boosters… two completely different vehicles. Spaceplane boosters are as nonsensical as flying submarines and flying main battle tanks. One’s ideal proportion is that of a feather, the other is a lightweight bottle filled with heavy liquid. Hence the failure of shuttle and the X-33… and the success of DC-X and Falcon 9.

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  Soem argue that AI are possessed by NKISI demons. Your take?

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  Technologically, aviation isn’t declining, it’s just not improving very much. Boeing’s organizational QA may be declining.

                  The space of air-o-space, the rockets of Beezos and Musk, are improving at a remarkable clip.

                  The self-driving car is 98% of the way there. The last 2% is going to be very difficult, but there’s no essential obstacle to fully autonomous vehicles. It will happen, just not imminently. I predicted 15 years 5 years ago and I predict 10 years now.

                  VTOL craft resembling scaled-up quadcopters will also appear within the next decade. The FAA, in a remarkable stroke of competence, has been hard at work reworking flight rules and air traffic management to handle the coming drone swarms. The hard problems of the so-called “flying cars” will be noise pollution, graceful automatic failsafety complicated by very high disk loading, and type certification.

                  Social tech has been declining since 1913. None dare call it conspiracy.

                • jim says:

                  > Technologically, aviation isn’t declining

                  Civil aviation is not declining, but it is not improving significantly. Military Aviation is in clear and obvious decline.

                  Rockets were in decline since the moonshot, leading to the humiliating situation where NASA had to hitch rides from the Russians. Musk advanced rocketry by using carbon fiber for lightweight rocket bodies, and built a booster that lands as a rocket should land, but the eye of Soros fell upon him, and it was discovered that his rocketry workforce was toxically male, and he now seems to have abandoned plans for a reusable earth to space rocket. The booster is all we are going to get.

                  > The self-driving car is 98% of the way there.

                  The self driving car was never 98% of the way there. It relies on a map annotated by humans in excruciating detail, rather than looking at things and knowing what they mean. This was always going to only work 99% of the time – its basic fundamental underlying technology was always going to run into the limits that it is now running into.

                  Big data provides the illusion of consciousness, but animals don’t need big data. At the core of AI is a gigantic lookup table generated from an enormous database.

                  Drones represent a real advance in technology, but they inherently have short range, low speed, and low lifting capacity.

                  Yes, some areas are still advancing. A lot of areas, such as civilian aviation, are stable, improving in ever tinier increments. And some areas, notably art, tall buildings, bridges and such like, are, in the west, at the center of empire, in obvious and major decline.

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  Some argue that AI are possessed by NKISI demons. Your take?

                  Consciousness is an intrinsic property of the Universe, so yes.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  St.Ungabunga writes:

                  “Consciousness is an intrinsic property of the Universe”

                  No it most certainly is not.

                  Are you happy with the idea that your inner life is indistinguishable in any way that matters from that of a monkey?
                  The whole point of inquiry into the nature of consciousness is to explain HOW and WHY we differ so much from all of the non-human animals.

                  Consciousness is that part of HUMAN BEHAVIOUR that needs to be explained in that way.

                  Simply dismissing it as some epiphenomenon of matter, with no work to do, means you’re explaining precisely nothing, because your conscious rock and your conscious gerbil are still very different from your conscious self.

                  Daniel Dennett’s account of consciousness is about as good as it gets, and while I’m not at all doing it justice to try to condense it into a soundbite (after all if that were possible, he’d have already done it himself), it amounts to something roughly like this:

                  “Consciousness is the story produced, in bits and open to continual revision, by the only person capable of producing it: the person that controls your body. That person is the one people address when they address YOU.” (impression, not quotation)

                  If you’re inclined to object that this sounds like LANGUAGE is terribly important in that view, and that focusing on language misses some important point, you should reflect further! Most of the parts of your inner life that can be adequately conceived of without reference to any form of language aren’t finally part of your conscious experience – they’re merely ‘sensual’, and again if you’re going to say that it’s precisely that ineffable ‘aboutness’ of the sensual that needs to be explained, then you’re answering a different question to “what distinguishes us from our gerbils”.

                • jim says:

                  Daniel Dennett’s progressive cultural Marxist account of consciousness is considerably crazier than the proposition that rocks are conscious. At least it is impossible to prove that rocks are not conscious, while his account of consciousness is plainly insane and violently contrary to my everyday experience of myself.

                  It seems improbable that the universe is conscious, but you then immediately segue from such issues to delivering your usual progressive payload – that conscious thought is language. No it is not, which is fortunate for progressives have systematically destroyed language in an effort to make politically incorrect thought unthinkable.

                  I generally don’t verbalize my stream of consciousness in language, except when I am trying to write a blog post or a comment, and I am painfully aware that often, as when discussing framing, game, and long term relationship game, that language is poor fit to what I am trying to communicate. When interacting with women, the most important things are pre-verbal and non verbal.

                  PUA and reaction creates vocabulary, concepts, memes, and shibboleths to communicate what is at present often very difficult to communicate and to verbalize, and I spend a great deal of thought and energy trying to make things of which I am very much conscious verbalizable – which necessarily involves a great deal of non verbal thought.

                  This is part of the rectification of names. Most of your comments that I suppress are damaging to the rectification of names, because you use our shibboleths in ways consistent with progressive thought, when the whole point of our terminology is to render speakable what progressives attempt to render unspeakable.

                  Engineering also involves a tremendous amount of thought for which human language is a poor fit, and expressing the ideas in computer code and suchlike, which is often the only way they can be expressed, involves a tremendous amount of conscious thought inexpressible in human language. So engineers, like pickup artists, experience conscious non verbal thought most of the time, pickup artists when they are thinking about their interaction with women, engineers when they are thinking about engineering.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  Musk has switched to stainless steel from carbon fiber.

                  Because at cryogenic temperatures, SS is almost as great in strength to weight ratio as carbon fiber. And can be used directly as a heatshield with transpiration cooling in places.

                  It’s vastly cheaper and can be built out in a field instead of a clean room or factory. The idea of a shipyard style building of very large rockets was proposed in the 1970’s. Now SpaceX is doing it. Both a Starhopper to test that idea out and wring out vtvl control is being tested while a full size orbital upper stage is being built… all outside.

                  https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=47729.520

                  https://mobile.twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1114390314565787648

                  He is definitely ignoring the Eye of Soros due to the fact that the Eye of Soros’s sword and shield – the disparate impact bureaucracy and FBI management – are currently being dismantled or cornered by President Trump. I expect the Eye of Soros to get its sword and shield back after 2024, assuming the Trump Family doesn’t follow the example of the Julio-Claudian Family.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Mereological nihilism is true, so if consciousness isn’t an intrinsic property of the universe, it does not exist. In fact it’s even more intrinsic than mass. Objective physics can be constructed out of a purely subjective existence, but not vice-versa.

                  Are you happy with the idea that your inner life is indistinguishable in any way that matters from that of a monkey?

                  In shocking news, CR believes that what you’re happy with has any bearing whatsoever against what is and is not true. The whole point of inquiry…no, that’s your ill-informed guess. The point of studying consciousness is to find out what consciousness is. If that’s not the point, Reality will not bless you with understanding, for She is a jealous bitch.

                  As Jim has also established, there’s nothing uniquely human about the elements of consciousness; just as it is not impossible to make carbon compounds without elan vital. Perhaps you would like to join us in the 21st century?

                  your conscious rock and your conscious gerbil are still very different from your conscious self.

                  “The mass of a rock and the mass of a gerbil are very different from the mass of a person.” That’s not a kind of difference that matters. Though it is certainly impressive to the monkey thinker, so it’s hardly difficult to work out why you think it matters.

                  Dennett is probably an NPC. If there is any mind there when he was born, it vanished many years ago. He is useful in the archeological sense.

                  It’s not difficult to describe what humans have that other animals don’t. It is not the following thing, though it is called that: free will. More accurately, the ability to sign and follow a contract. The ability to obey something other than your immediate impulses. E.g. you can control a pig but you have to be able to intimidate it at the instant it’s about to do anything you don’t like, or inflict learned helplessness on it via conditioning.

                  Language is obviously a necessary part of this ability. To form a contract, the second party must be able to communicate which actions the signee is supposed to perform. However, language is not sufficient. While simple, chimps do have a language, as do many birds.

                  I discovered this while investigating whether veganism has any legs to stand on. Since animals can’t sign contracts, they don’t.

                  The thing which isn’t morality but is called morality is based on the contract thing and reciprocity. If you deviate against a human, they will at the very least not cooperate with you again. The pig, by contrast, cannot cooperate even if it wanted to. As a result, deviating against a pig carries no cost. There is no reason to do anything to a pig except whatever happens to benefit you most at the time.

                  Contracts are required for proper technology. Proof by inspection.

                  Computers have the opposite problem: they can’t do anything except what they’re contracted to do. Any unexpected actions are due to glitches or due to humans not understanding their own contracts. Without consciousness, computers cannot value things and thus cannot be traded with.

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  Karlylean Restorationist,

                  St.Ungabunga writes:
                  “Consciousness is an intrinsic property of the Universe”
                  No it most certainly is not.
                  Are you happy with the idea that your inner life is indistinguishable in any way that matters from that of a monkey?

                  Yes, it most certainly is. Consciousness is a matter of degree, not of kind.

                  And it isn’t about my “happiness”, it’s about the truth. The truth, which exists everywhere at all times in all places.

                  It takes a very special person to deny the consciousness of his dog. Did you know that you can teach your dog to sit, stay, come, roll over, or shake on command? Not only is that evidence of consciousness, it’s evidence of shared consciousness. Your mushy skull-jelly produces a meaning, massages that meaning into “meaningless” vibrations of air, and your dog’s slightly less mushy skull-jelly massages those “meaningless” vibrations of air back into meaning — your meaning, the same meaning.

                  And chimps are, on the whole, smarter than dogs.

                  As you read these words, (yes, I’m breaking the fourth wall), you’re sharing a small fraction of my consciousness: the same approximate fraction as you might share with your dog, the meaningful difference being its vastly higher resolution.

                  I have a residual sympathy for creationists, having been soulfully committed creationists just a handful of generations ago. But, I mean, fuck, man. We now know that dolphins and elephants recognize themselves in mirrors and mourn their dead. A surprising fraction of Africans don’t do the former and may not do the latter.

                  Language is probably the highest form of human experience in that it’s the most abstract and general. But when you have the opportunity to talk to a dolphin through a babelfish supersoniclicky translator, are you really going to try to tell me after that you shared consciousness with neither the dolphin nor the babelfish?

                  All organisms with finite lives have a sense of where they’ve been and where they’re going. The difference between you and a gerbil is that you’re marginally smarter, not that the gerbil doesn’t exist.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Motte and Bailey argument.

                  Any discussion of consciousness, to be relevant to this blog, has to show awareness of Moravec’s paradox – which is the Pons Asinorum for any discussion of consciousness.

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for shear insanity. That simply is not what happened, and if you want to argue that is what happened, make some concrete references to concrete events.

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  this message was deleted for shear insanity

                  I would have liked to judge for myself.

                  Motte and Bailey argument.

                  If this is a reply to me, yes. It’s much easier to argue for the consciousness of a dog than the consciousness of a rock.

                  I don’t know if I want to argue for the consciousness of a rock. I’ll admit an open question as to whether or not rocks are conscious.

                  But at least according to my latest thoughts on consciousness, I would lean towards no, at least at the supraatomic level, in the sense that rocks have, to my knowledge, no self-regulating feedback loops and no capacity for self-regulating feedback loops.

                  A self-regulating feedback loop, you will notice, is self-referential in exactly the same way as we perceive consciousness to be self-referential.

                  But then there is the implication that to take a static, unchanging form, rocks must be highly resilient to outside forces, and any resiliency would imply, somewhere in the universal code, a self-regulating feedback loop.

                  And while there is an entire universe of possibility space for the spontaneous self-organization of self-regulating feedback loops, there are probably only a few specific architectures of molecules and particles within which meaningful computational capacity might reasonably lurk.

                  Single-celled organisms and plants have hormonal computational capacity likely mediated entirely by ordinary molecules.

                  Animals have much greater computational capacity mediated by cascading chains of minutely separated electrically charged cells, a hybrid electric system some orders of magnitude faster than the purely hormonal variety.

                  Computers have electronic computational capacity mediated by ludicrously fast silicon, the speed of one impulse being limited more by the speed of light than by the epic voyage of a hormone across an intracellular gap.

                  And then there’s the interesting possibility of Rupert Sheldrake’s morphic resonance.

                  I have little doubt that the rate-limiting factor of computer consciousness is our own frustrating incapacity at adequately instantiating our own sub-verbal computation into either, or both, language and Turing-compliant algorithm. I would argue that we’re building from the top down for no other reason that the top is the part that we can formalize, and that to recreate sub-verbal consciousness into computers, we must successfully construct a virtual environment in which competent AI can evolve.

                  You look at an elegans and you see algorithms irreproducible by any known algorithm and you assume magic. I assume that the form of the worm has access to 4 BILLION years of precomputation that you’re not seeing.

                  I seriously doubt that a system of pure electrons cannot fully replicate cell function inside their own simulated universe. The “state” of the system would then be two: internal and external.

                  Does your inarticulable thought resemble high dimension motion?

                • jim says:

                  > > this message was deleted for shear insanity

                  > I would have liked to judge for myself.

                  You have already seen it two dozen times, and seen my reply two dozen times.

                  Carlylean Restorationist is a profilic NPC poster, and all his messages are composed by mixing together two or three items from half a dozen or so repetitious and formulaic scripts. He has more names that he has different scripts.

                  That was another “capitalism appeared last week” remix of scripts consisting of citing all the people we admire and all the people libertarians admire supposedly agreeing that capitalism appeared last week. Everyone knows, everyone agrees, that capitalism appeared last week. “Why were the leading lights of the Enlightenment calling for the introduction of capitalism, if it already existed?” he asks.

                  The science is settled, and, since the science is settled, no need to provide any actual evidence, and anyone who presents any actual evidence is being unscientific and anti intellectual. Albeit since everyone already knows that reactionaries are stupid, unscientific, anti scientific, anti intellectual, and proud of it, and since reactionaries supposedly totally agree that we are stupid, unscientific, anti scientific, and proud of it, he instead tells us that presenting actual evidence is Jewish.

                  I am trying to get him to deviate from script, in the hope of turning him into a double agent, but I suspect he has a supervisor watching his output to make sure he adheres to script.

                  At least he has stopped telling us that the French Revolution consisted of Capital seizing power from Aristocrats, which I suppose is a deviation from script.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I just noticed an important ‘strategic delete-then-respond’ and need to set the record straight.

                  The ‘motte and bailey argument’ was this: “you are happy” means “you are intellectually satisfied”.

                  The guy who said I was turning it into an emotional debate was lying. What I said was “are you happy with a theory of consciousness that makes no distinction between your consciousness and that of a dog?”.

                  It’s perfectly obvious that ‘happy’ does not mean ‘in an emotional state of contentment’: it means ‘in a cognitive state of satisfaction’.

                  I am ‘happy’ with Pythagoras’ ways of turning angle+height into distance, for example. It doesn’t mean I bounce up and down.

                  This is the level of intellectual discourse of children: haha you said “happy”, you cultural Marxist!

                  This was strategically censored because the host prefers the ‘misunderstanding’ to remain unchallenged.

                • jim says:

                  You want a definition of consciousness that makes the priestly classes conscious, and your enemy classes unconscious.

                  The difference between my consciousness and that of a cat is, as Darwin argued, merely a difference of degree, and not a very large difference of degree. The difference between me and a computer is a difference of kind.

                  So pretty sure that the position attributed to you is accurate: That you are pushing a definition of consciousness that is flatly contrary to my lived experience, with utter disregard for intellectual coherence or common sense to make you and your class high status, and me and my class low status.

                  You are arguing from irrational and incoherent emotional desire, and projecting onto enemy classes the same argument from desire. Social Justice Warriors always project.

                  All your arguments are the same argument: We should agree with you because your position is high status, and disagreeing with you is low status.

                  Due to open entry into the priesthood, and the ensuing oversupply of the priestly classes, the claim of the priesthood that their ideas are high status has diminishing credibility.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for denying, without evidence or argument, that the Jacobins were anticapitalist, and ignoring their attack on private property in the means of production.

                  You can argue for Marxism, but I will not allow comments that presuppose Marxism.

                  Lets talk about what happened during the French Revolution – and not presuppose that everyone agrees with the Marxist account of history. Let us debate what the Jacobins did to smash capitalism.

                  Let us debate the flaming anticapitalist rhetoric and state sponsored attacks on capitalism by the Popular Society and the Committee of Public Safety.

                  Lets argue about what actually did happen, instead of presupposing that we are all Marxists here.

                  What happened in the French revolution prefigured the Russian Revolution. King Louis XVI, like Alexander the Liberator, attacked private property in the means of production, by taking control of grain, as Alexander the liberator took control of land. Grain shortages predictably ensued, whereupon the king deflected outrage from himself onto butchers and bakers, turning a blind eye to mobs sacking butchers and bakers, with the predictable result that in due course the mobs sacked the palace, and the anticapitalist rhetoric started by the King escalated to Jacobinism and the enlightenment.

                  Adam Smith was pro capitalism, and the physiocrats favored the free market in land and agricultural products, which was most of the market and most of the capital in the days when the primary source of energy was muscle power, but the enlightenment was an anticapitalist movement: the Church of Reason, the War in the Vendee, and the war in Spain prefigured the communism of the twentieth century. The Red Terror of the Committee of Public Safety and the Paris Commune was a rerun of Jack Cade’s anticapitalist terror parodied by Shakespeare, and prefigured the Red Terror of the Russian, Chinese, and Cambodian Revolutions. The enlightenment gave us the first two red terrors, prefiguring the red terrors of communism, the same causes predictably giving the same results. The enlightenment failed catastrophically, and Marxism is just leftists disowning the past disasters of leftism and attributing them to insufficient leftism. Your Marxism is just the enlightenment all over again, as today’s leftists blame Stalin for failing to take leftism far enough and seriously enough.

                  You can disagree with this and argue for Marxist history, but I will censor any comment by you that presupposes consensus on Marxist history, much as I censor any comment the presupposes consensus that World Trade Center building seven abruptly and mysteriously went into free fall. It went into free fall after initially and predictably falling sideways like a tree, as foreseen by people looking at the fire and the damage, until it was above the square beside it, and no longer above its foundations. And when it was no longer above its own foundations, then it unmysteriously and entirely predictably went into free fall.

                  We reject the enlightenment because it was leftism knocking over the apple cart to grab the apples, and you reject the enlightenment as you reject Stalinism, because it did not knock over the apple cart hard enough, nor hunt down with sufficient vigor the witches causing the mysterious ensuing shortage of apples.

                  Stalin was the good guy in the Russian Revolution, or rather the less bad guy, because like Napoleon and Cromwell, he stopped the madness. Trouble is he did not stop it hard enough – probably could not have stopped it hard enough. If Stalin had been as sane as Lavrentiy Beria, probably would have been murdered like Beria. Had Beria succeeded, Beria would likely have been Deng Xiaoping or General Monck. Beria was murdered not for his crimes, but for his sanity.

                  That is our version of history. I will allow argument against it, but I will not allow comments that presuppose consensus on Marxist and whig history. The whigs rewrite the disasters of the enlightenment out of history, and you rewrite capitalism and the disastrous results of anticapitalist movements out of history.

                  You can debate history, but comments that presuppose consensus on official history and Marxist history will be deleted. You can argue against our version, you can argue for Marxist history and whig history, but you have to acknowledge that we don’t agree with your version, and address the evidence that we produce for our version. If you don’t acknowledge our disagreement nor attempt to refute our evidence, your comments will be deleted.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for refusal to present evidence or argument.

                  But at least you acknowledge that we deviate from Marxist doctrine, if only to ridicule deviation from Marxism as self evidently absurd, so self evidently absurd that no evidence is required. That is a first.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  *Deleted*

                • jim says:

                  As I said, I will censor any discussion of consciousness that does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge Moravec’s paradox. What cats do, what a spider does, but a computer cannot do, is hard. What humans can do but cats cannot do is frequently trivial and easily automated, and at best a minor difference (but therefore impossible to automate) and confident announcements without evidence or explanation that there is a huge difference will be silently deleted. The hardest human task to automate is stuff like sorting and folding a laundry basket, and anything a cat does and humans also do is usually harder than that.

                  And I am also going to censor any definition of consciousness that implies that most of my engineering work is trivial and does not involve consciousness, that what the priestly classes do involves consciousness, while what lesser classes do is robotic, and can be trivially automated. Engineering has more in common with sorting a laundry basket – therefore hard, while most of your comments could be issued by simple NPC script, and therefore do not require or involve consciousness.

                  Your only argument is that the science is settled, that your view is high status and lesser views cannot possibly be discussed, that is simply laughable to discuss non Marxist and non progressive worldviews. To demonstrate that you are a conscious being, and not merely yet another spambot, try discussing Moravec’s paradox, the French Maximum, and King Solomon’s good woman. That would require consciousness.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Stalin was the good guy in the Russian Revolution, or rather the less bad guy, because like Napoleon and Cromwell, he stopped the madness. Trouble is he did not stop it hard enough – probably could not have stopped it hard enough. If Stalin had been as sane as Lavrentiy Beria, probably would have been murdered like Beria. Had Beria succeeded, Beria would likely have been Deng Xiaoping or General Monck. Beria was murdered not for his crimes, but for his sanity.”

                  Beria actually also was never a communist (NEVER at ANY point believed in it) was slated to be executed when the communists won but the communists of course immediately started killing each other and he was able to join one group of communists arguing that he was with them because the other group wanted him dead.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  I just silently deleted a bunch of your comments for discussing consciousness while denying Moravec’s paradox, and a few more for doubling down on Marxist history without argument or evidence. Let’s start by discussing the French Maximum, and the good woman depicted by King Solomon.

                  If you want to argue Marxist history, going to have to produce evidence for it and against our history, and present refutations of the evidence for our history, rather than telling us that evidence is low status.

                  Which no Marxist has ever done, revealing that you know that Marxist history is a lie. The French Revolution was an anticapitalist revolution: King veered left, got eaten by a holiness spiral he did much to start, as the descendants of Alexander the Liberator got eaten by a holiness spiral Alexander did much to start.

                  The method of argument that you and every tenured academic uses on this issue reveals guilty knowledge that Marxism is a lie, as the refusal of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists to show their evidence despite ancient academic rules and traditions and Freedom of Information requests reveals guilty knowledge that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a lie.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  If you want your comments about the French Revolution to go through, you are going to have to discuss the French Maximum and attempt to rebut the reactionary take on The Maximum, rather than telling us that the science is settled.

                  No, the science is not settled. Let’s discuss the French Maximum and King Solomon’s good woman.

                • Dave says:

                  “Beria would likely have been Deng Xiaoping or General Monck”

                  Did Deng or Monck abduct and rape hundreds of teenage girls, and strangle them if they put up a fight?

                • The Cominator says:

                  The extent to which Beria did this for real is not known.

                  Beria is interesting to me and Jim because he was politically an anticommunist and reactionary who never at any point ever really pretended to have any sympathy for communism… yet kept getting promoted in the secret police (after joining them to escape execution) because the communist were more then anything interested in killing each other and almost ended up being head of state and dismantling the whole thing.

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  Alrenous,

                  He is useful in the archeological sense.

                  lol/10

                  As for the rest of your comment … decent, but Man didn’t spring forth completely armed from the armpit of a clockwork Universe.

                  Voluntary contracts are not the defining feature of humans: you didn’t choose your “social contract”, you were born into its bondage. In fact, most of your bindings are not voluntary. That’s why the libertarian saw “voluntary community” is now a pejorative.

                  Atlas was a god of steadfast integrity until the Rand Clan, having abandoned its native homeworld of Krypton in order to incubate its young in the American Midwest, had yet completed its long march of must-go’ing Greco-Christian civilization into its stunned and stupified successor, “Judeo-Christian” “civilization”.

                  Short pigs are far smarter than you give them credit for. I honestly feel bad when I eat them.

                  Lots of other animals plan ahead for the future, whether motivated by overriding instinct or by an erudite philosophy of life independently and spontaneously produced from the infinite wellspring, cool and crisp, of “pure reason”. Whatever that is.

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  Jim,

                  You have already seen it two dozen times, and seen my reply two dozen times.

                  And what of everything else? That, in accordance with Darwinian law, the definition of consciousness is a subset of the definition of life, namely, resilience to external perturbation.

                  Thus, your cat is as conscious as it needs to be in the necessary ways so as to maximize its fitness as a cat-like physical manifestation in a terra-like world.

                  An amoeba is as conscious as it needs to be… etc.

                  Computers have self-regulating, self-referential feedback loops. What if we manage to imbue one of them with a self-configuring, self-processing language?

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  Jim,

                  [Building Seven] went into free fall after initially and predictably falling sideways like a tree

                  lol, wut?

                • jim says:

                  Everyone who saw it from the square on the south side expected it to fall sideways into the square, due to the fire and the massive terrorist damage to the south face of the building, and concluded that they should get the hell out of that square.

                  In due course, that is what it did. Most of the rubble wound up in the square to the south of it, and did not land on the foundations. Videos show it starting its fall by tilting southwards like a tree, and photos from the air show the rubble pile centered in the square.

                  Similarly the Pentagon had a Wily Coyote style hole, the size and shape of a commercial airliner where the airliner went it except for the wing tips, and a few smaller holes on the other side where the larger fragments of the airliner exited, the largest hole being made by the landing gear, which exited higher than the airliner entered.

                  Troofers, like Marxists, simply lie loudly and repeatedly. When one of their lies is rebutted, they ignore the rebuttal, and instead of responding, issue a dozen new lies, then return to the old lie, assuming not only that it was never rebutted, but that everyone, including the person who rebutted it, agrees that it is the obvious, unquestioned, and unquestionable truth – a style of debate that reveals that they know they are lying.

                  If Marxists genuinely believed that capitalism was recent, or that the French Revolution was a capitalist revolution rather than an anti capitalist revolution, they would respond to evidence and argument with evidence and argument. And similarly, troofers on building seven and the hole in the Pentagon.

                  That they knowingly lie reveals that they intend harm to their audience. The method of argument used by troofers, Marxists, Human biodiversity deniers, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists, and sexual difference deniers, reveals that they know the truth, or that they believe their is no truth, only power. Watch the sexual difference deniers method of debate. And if you find yourself debating with someone who believes there is no truth, only power, he regards all other people merely as obstacles and raw materials, and will wind up using the power he seeks to murder people. He will announce he is seizing the bakery for the people, and burn it down to steal a bottle of Coke Zero.

                • Alrenous says:

                  @Mandela

                  This has nothing to do with social contracts. You’re reading things into it that I didn’t say. I never said anything about a ‘defining’ connoting ‘primary’ feature. It’s a discriminator. A gator can completely hide its teeth, while a croc can’t, so this discriminates between them, but is hardly a defining trait.

                  Animals generally don’t plan for the future. You can tell because if you present them the discriminators of a likely alternate future, their plan doesn’t change. They do things with long-term benefits without any awareness of those benefits.

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Commie liar

                  If you believed a word that you said, you would be willing to debate the French Revolutionary Maximum, the parables of Jesus concerning wage labor and investment, King Solomon on investment and entrepreneurship, and the laws of Moses on wage labor.

                  If you believed a word that you said, if you genuinely believed in Marxist history, whig history, and Troofer history, you would be willing to discuss the evidence. You lie, you know you lie, you intend to harm those that you succeed in deceiving.

                  No one gets to argue Marxist history on this blog unless they are willing to discuss Moses on wage labor, King Solomon on entrepeneurship and capital formation, Jesus on the employment contract, Shakespeare on socialist revolution, and the French Revolutionary Maximum.

                  Your going to have to discuss the evidence for Marxism. Telling us that everyone agrees that it is true, that even we agree that it is true, is not going to be allowed.

                  If Marxists, Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists, and Troofers actually believed your own story, you would not use the methods of debate that you use. You would discuss the evidence, instead of telling us that we already agree with their story, instead of telling us that the science is settled, so no need to discuss any inconvenient empirical data.

                  Your refusal to discuss the evidence, to respond to evidence presented by other people, reveals that you know you lie. You lie about Marxism, you lie about Marxist history, you lie about whig history, and you lie about Bulding seven of the World Trade Center.

                  And when someone lies, he intends harm to those he deceives. You intend to murder me, come the glorious revolution, and the people who pay you will murder you should you accomplish their mission for them. Nazis kill their enemies, but commies kill their friends. And sometimes they kill their friends before the glorious revolution has actually arrived.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Let’s look to the reactionary literature.

                  Gertrud von le Fort wrote about the martyrdom of the Carmelite nuns of Compiegne, which is an historical fact.

                  Why, do you think, did the “”””anti-capitalist”””” French revolutionaries persecute Carmelites whose lives were defined by embracing the sins of others?

                  Seems very counter-intuitive if I may say so.

                  Isn’t it more parsimonious to view the revolutionaries as radical individualists who hated the very idea of “living for others” and wanted to defend the individual human rights of particular people in the face of such ‘collectivism’?

                  Walk us through it

                • jim says:

                  > Why, do you think, did the “”””anti-capitalist”””” French revolutionaries persecute Carmelite nuns

                  Commies murder nuns, because they murder adherents of any competing religion. The murder of nuns in the Spanish civil war was done in the name of communism and anarcho communism.

                  The murder of nuns in Revolutionary France was done in the name of the “Church of Reason”, the enlightenment, which Church later got renamed “communism” after the Paris Commune. The Paris communards proclaimed themselves the true heirs of the Church of Reason which murdered nuns, the Church of Reason proclaimed itself the true heirs of the enlightenment, and the Spanish communists that murdered nuns in Spain proclaimed themselves the true heirs of the Paris Commune.

                  The enlightenment became the Church of Reason which became communism as Brownism became Puritanism which became Evangelicalism which became Congregationalism, Unitarianism, and progressivism.

                  So the French predecessors of the communists of the Spanish Civil War murdered the French predecessors of the Spanish nuns. Of course they did.

                  The enlightenment was early communism, communism murders nuns, capitalists, kulaks, and each other, the enlightenment murdered nuns, capitalists, kulaks, and each other.

                  Communism is the bastard offspring of Judaism and the Church of Reason via the Paris commune.

                  Progressivism descends from Brownism, via puritanism and evangelicalism, communism from the false Popes of Avignon via the enlightenment, the Church of Reason, and the Paris commune. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Progressivism and Marxism have married, the marriage being cultural Marxism, and its horrifying offspring being what Spandrel calls bioleninism, the stupid brown lesbian Democratic party and the stupid brown lesbian Harvard.

                  It simply absurd to suggest that capitalists would murder nuns. Capitalism is not a competing religion, not a competing state order, not a competing tribe. Why would they care?

                  Your question presupposes that capitalism is a competing religion, is a competing state order, is a competing tribe and that your interlocutor agrees that it is a competing religion, a competing state order, a competing tribe.

                  “Dialectical materialism” is just the Enlightenment’s “Reason” renamed, renamed because “Reason” had started to stink of unreason and stink of murderous opposition to reason, as “Dialectical Materialism” now stinks of the worship of Moloch and stinks of murderous opposition to the evidence of the senses. The “History” of Marxists is not history, but a supernatural being, the demon Moloch, hence the Marxist lack of interest in discussing actual history, just as Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmists have no interest in discussing actual climate, or actual ice.

                  Is Moloch real? I doubt it, but I don’t know and I don’t care. He is real inside people’s heads. Moloch worship is real. Human sacrifice does not seem to be very effective in propitiating the gods, but it is wonderfully effective in convincing doubters of the faith.

                • Jim, riddle me this:

                  What is the logical connection between Building 7 and Marxism?

                  Why would you bring an irrelevant ideology to an engineering debate?

                  I ache to know.

                • jim says:

                  Troofers are apt to be Marxists, Marxists are apt to be troofers.

                  Both use the same method of argument – they assume a consensus on facts that are not true and vehemently rejected with argument and evidence.

                  Thus a Marxist and a Troofer confidently deduces X from Y, and refuses to notice that his interlocutor has repeatedly rejected the claim X with great vehemence, and has also asserted that anyone who claims to believe X is plotting mass murder.

                  Example: When we say that women love negs, love coercion, love domestic discipline, and love rape, and that their purported resistance to these things is merely a shit test, a shit test that if passed results in them loving the men that pass it, A marxist will totally “agree” that due to capitalism, or the Jews, or the Masons, or some such, women are behaving very badly and he totally feels that he wants to denigrate and beat women just as we want to denigrate and beat women.

                  Which is to say, will not acknowledge that we vehemently dispute his claims about the nature of women.

                  Similarly Troofers on the fall of building seven. No matter how often we point out that witnesses in the square to the south of World Trade Center building seven saw terrorist damage and fire on the south side, anticipated that the tower would fall into the square where they were standing, and got the hell out of that square, and in due course it did fall into the square where they had been standing, a troofer will with great confidence announce that he has compelling evidence of no damage to building seven – which evidence is in fact irrelevant nonsense, and will fail to acknowledge that anyone has presented evidence of terrorist damage.

                  Similarly, if we complain about morons being graduated summa cum laud from Havard on the basis of skin color and political affiliation, a Marxist will totally “agree” that the trouble with affirmative action is that it permits able people of the wrong skin color to achieve what they are capable of, and this should not be permitted.

                  And the other resemblance is that Troofers and Marxists will tell you they are your friend, when they are your enemy, and in the case of Marxists, plotting to murder you.

    • Doug Smythe says:

      @orgyofthewill: The age of philosophy has been with us for several centuries. And its organic philosophy is Leftism. Your typically Leftist programme for exterminating millions of people in order to attain an egalitarian social order of new men goes to show it all too clearly. At least normal Leftists get power and profit for themselves right now for talking this kind of nonsense.

    • Alrenous says:

      Philosophy is of course the correct answer. Although philosophy is itself a religion. Quick check: philosophy reliably contradicts central points of religious doctrine.

      However, it is also possible that the last race capable of executing philosophy will erase itself from the global gene pool exactly the same way the ancient Greek and Roman races erased themselves.

      If so, most likely the world will be dominated by Arab style inbreeding, quite incapable of IQ reinforcement, until the Sun burns out.

      • You are saying it as if there was only one philosophy but multiple religions, hence the former a subset of the later. But there are lots of philosophies. Philosophies and religions deal with matters that cannot be decided empirically, hence the overlap. Non-falsifiable things. Philosophy does it by arguing, religion does it originally by authority, but very often sophisticated theology becomes indistinguishable from philosophies, thinking Aquinas.

        • Alrenous says:

          If your philosophy is non-falsifiable you’re doing it wrong.

          The belief that philosophy deals with such things is part of the con.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          ‘Love of wisdom’ was just a compound word Socrates mashed together and he left it a deliberately vague general case.

          It’s literally an applause light yet people keep trying to impute some special meaning into it.

  15. The problem with Jim’s commentary is that it seems oblivious to the existence of technology. You get all these asides and references to centuries old political events, at ages when technology barely existed, all the while pretty much 100% of the issues we face today have been CAUSED by technology, and therefore… will have to be ultimately solved by it too. Of course the alt-retards believe we can and should go back to the 1950s so they can get laid again (and that them getting laid will solve everything), but that’s where the drones come in once again.

    • jim says:

      > The problem with Jim’s commentary is that it seems oblivious to the existence of technology

      We have been losing social technology since the restoration.

      The advances in other forms of technology are more favorable to older forms of organization. Thus for example William the Conqueror instituted “forms of action” in order to keep judges under control, which system lasted to the early nineteenth century. “Forms of action” were in effect database remote procedure calls implemented on slates covered in beeswax, a slate being a thin slab of stone.

      The Australian government was faced with the problem that judges somehow found that no illegal immigrant could ever be deported, so they in effect re-implemented William the Conqueror’s “forms of action” but using modern database remote procedure calls instead of slates covered in beeswax. Works great. If you overstay your visa, or enter Australia illegally, you will be imprisoned or deported without ever seeing a judge or a lawyer. You get carded at a strip club, it triggers a central database, and the next thing you know you are on your way to Villawood detention center.

      Similarly, feudalism was based on the fact that knight in armor was a highly trained highly skilled athlete, who could move a long and heavy sword so swiftly that human reflexes could not react in time, mounted on a similarly highly trained highly athletic highly expensive war horse, the knight and the warhorse both being products of highly selective breeding and intense training, the knights equipment and training being incredibly expensive, which was based on a military technology such that handful highly trained and very well equipped warriors could deal with a great big pile of conscript cannon fodder. One hero could, and routinely did, be the deciding factor in a major battle with a major impact on political events. William the Marshal took two castles and arguably personally decided the outcome of a civil war over who would be King. Modern technology has recreated the situation that gave rise to feudalism. Mass armies of conscript cannon fodder were decisive from the Napoleonic wars to World War II. Today, they get effortlessly slaughtered, and the trend is back to a handful of well trained high quality well equipped heroes being decisive.

      Similarly, serfdom, old style apprenticeship, etc, marriage as it existed from the restoration to the early nineteenth century, could be far more effectively implemented with modern databases.

      Similarly, it is far easier to implement Robert Boyle’s rules for right conduct of science and debate using webs and blogs, than paper journals. Science and the scientific method is another lost social technology, which modern technology makes a lot easier to re-implement than when it was first implemented. The illegal science databases are in substantial part an attempt to re-implement the scientific method using modern technology, but are meeting state opposition, while the Royal Society, implementing it with paper journals, got royal backing.

      • Koanic says:

        Now that’s some exciting technology!

      • St. Mandela II says:

        Australia is so great. In Australia, the government was faced with the problem that judges somehow found that no illegal immigrant could ever be deported, so they in effect re-implemented William the Conqueror’s “forms of action” but using modern database remote procedure calls instead of slates covered in beeswax. Works great. If you overstay your visa, or enter Australia illegally, you will be imprisoned or deported without ever seeing a judge or a lawyer. You get carded at a strip club, it triggers a central database, and the next thing you know you are on your way to Villawood detention center.

        Jim,

        At the 2016 census, 47.3% of people had both parents born in Australia and 34.4% of people had both parents born overseas.[48]
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Melbourne

        I rest my case.

        • jim says:

          Australian Illegal immigration is precisely zero. Visa overstays are as near zero as makes no difference.

          Yes, that does not solve the problem of race replacement, but it stopped the high speed race replacement.

          • St. Mandela II says:

            Immigration doesn’t exist. The concept is a fake concept. The mass transfer of meatbags from one place to another follows conquest by some combination of war, disease, pestilence, or draught.

            Mass transfer not following such conquest has no historical precedent. Drawing the obvious conclusion, another kind of conquest has taken place.

            With the coming robotic armies, your remnant people’s latent military potential will be rendered irrelevant and your total physical extinguishment will follow shortly thereafter.

            Accelerationism is your only hope. Do not go gently into that good night.

            Thanks, Boomers.

            • jim says:

              Robot armies are not coming. Google’s self driving car is not coming. Robot fruit pickers destroy the fruit, and a robot cannot sort and fold a laundry basket.

              When a robot can pick fruit and fold laundry, then maybe robots can fight.

              Science died in 1945, technological advance radically slowed down in 1972, and continues to get slower and slower, with major technological decline happening at the leading edge: tall buildings, air superiority fighters, nuclear batteries, and nuclear weapons.

              The left singularity ate science in 1945, and is devouring technology. Every time an open source project signs up to a politically correct code of conduct, it stops improving and eventually succumbs to bitrot, bugs, and misfeatures.

              Now that Linus has been purged from the linux kernel, we are going to eventually need a new open source operating system kernel.

              • St. Mandela II says:

                Those whizz-bang intertubes won’t amount to anything, young whippersnapper. Want tah know what’s going tah be thah burning hot new thing? Plastics!

                Amazon won’t have any warehouse employees by 2030.

                • jim says:

                  Internet got started in 1970. Progress since then has stagnated.

                  Science ended in 1945, when the scientific method was banned from universities. With the global warming issue, they are moving towards criminalizing it on the internet. Technological progress slowed substantially in 1972, and in leading edge fields we have had technological decline since about 2000 or 2010.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “Science ended in 1945, when the scientific method was banned from universities. With the global warming issue, they are moving towards criminalizing it on the internet”

                  It’s interesting to observe when there are real recent technical achievements, horror is expressed in the media. For example the recent baby gene edit in China. Also commercial companies that have perfected, and offer pet cloning (for a high fee). They are often denounced as decadent. Now I don’t give a flying f*ck about cloning pets per se, but if commercial pet cloning advances the underlying technology I’m all for it.

    • eternal anglo says:

      Your site has some pretty (dare I say it) based and redpilled stuff, but the Tech Question is a sticky point. I hope Jim does a Reaction 101 post on it some day. I don’t think you can blame Progressivism’s conquest of the world on technology, and I don’t think we’re on the verge of some civilizational phase transition due to drones anytime soon. And talk of the ‘end of religion’, let alone politics, is either trivial semantics or nonsense – at least until we get some real eugenics going, and even then I don’t know.

    • Anon says:

      >Of course the alt-retards believe we can and should go back to the 1950s so they can get laid again (and that them getting laid will solve everything)

      Pssst.

      https://rgif.is/threads/a-great-psy-op-idea-involving-terrorism.1910/

      • Genius idea, I posted there.

        • Anon says:

          Isn’t your manifesto a work-in-progress, though? Seems that you’ve written 899 points, and they still keep accumulating; probably better to attribute your work to random mass murderers after it’s finished.

          • Won’t be long buddy. A year tops. Then I am switching gears from writing to disseminating it, which will mostly involve the creation of a secret society/cult (called the Human Empire, using the Darth Vader track as anthem), but which effort can be bolstered by cool ideas like the one you linked.

            • Anon says:

              Well, acquaint yourself with “Project Septuagint”: the creation of 70 fake internet profiles for the purpose of infiltration and entryism, each with its own unique idiosyncrasies, that will be activated when the time is ripe to disseminate specific content.

              (Is it a real project? Or is it a meme intended to stress out the GITDs? Let’s keep them in suspense)

            • St. Mandela II says:

              If you want to hijack the American civilization, I recommend immigrating from Central Europe and convincing Congrefs to pass you an infinity charter for a Third Bank.

              There may be other ways, but I wouldn’t bet on them.

    • None of our problems have been caused by technology. Technology has no causal power whatsoever. Problems are caused and solved by people.

      • By people through technology. You are just confused by semantics and taking advantage of this confusion to dismiss philosophy, which is again a problem that drones can solve.

        “TECHNOLOGY HAS NO CAUSAL BLAH BLAH BLAH”

        Drones fly in, rat-ta-ta, stench of burning flesh…

        And suddenly there’s one fewer worthless autist fagot on the planet.

        • jim says:

          Social decay is leading to technological decline. Our navy keeps running into things, in large part due to women and nonwhites being affirmative actioned into jobs for which they are incapable. Obama could not get the Obmacare website up for much the same reason as NASA could not get a rocket into space. Freedom tower is shorter and smaller than the two towers.

        • Alrenous says:

          Specifically, greater wealth due to retro-regressions* of property rights result in the ability to afford more degeneracy. Nobody gets fired if a couple battleships run into each other and sink, because whatever we can build six more.
          Naturally the six further ships are even more worthless than zero ships because they’re still piloted by pilots that can’t steer clear of other ships, but it appears to be affordable.

          *They can’t be safely called ‘advancements’ since it was normal to be able to buy and sell political privileges in 1300s England. Their property rights system was simply better than ours.

        • It’s not a semantic distinction, bitch boy. You said tech changed the rules of the game and history no longer applies. And that’s wrong. Who has high fertility today? People who ban birth control. It’s really as simple as that.

          The tech that nerds make always ends up in the hands of warriors, even if you try to inculcate nerds with a religion (sorry, “philosophy”) that they’re the Ubermensch. So it was, so it shall ever be.

          Go ahead and build your drone armies. My boys and I will take em just like your shiny new toys on the playground.

          • eternal anglo says:

            Putting near before far, men of one’s own race, religion and culture before distant foreigners, acquaintances before strangers and so on, does not extend simplistically all the way to putting oneself before one’s family, or oneself before one’s mannerbund. In the former you’re cucking yourself. In the latter you’re being a nigger. (Which is the reason why stuff like the Nyadzonya raid can happen.)

            War is the highest form of manly cooperation, which with intelligence is our species’ specialty. Cooperation cannot happen, and the fight is thus already lost, if every man believes every other is a traitor or a coward who will drop his comrades at the first sign of danger. The more credibly loyalty is signaled, the more powerful the cooperation – and the most credible possible signal is to actual loyalty, to actually be prepared to lay down your life for your comrades, for your King. Like a game of chicken: the genuinely insane player beats the actor. And over millions of years and millions of genocides, that is what we of the higher races have evolved to do.

            100 warriors could round up 10 000 egoists like cattle. Maybe clever egoists, especially right wing ones, have some torturous way of defining egoism so that mannerbunds are allowed. But egoism taken at face value is the exact opposite of the path to power, as long as cooperative violence is victorious over individual violence – which is forever, barring flukes. When robots, cyborgs and AIs exist and vanilla humanity is long gone, if they want to destroy their enemies, they will have to be manly, courageous, and comradely robots, cyborgs and AI – that is to say, will possess some equivalent of the self-sacrificial insanity which allows a loyal man in a group of loyal men to kill his enemies, drive them before him, and hear the lamentations of their women.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            @Aidan MacLear

            It’s more like people who keep women in their place that have high fertility.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Deleted because Motte and Bailey

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            I won’t be connected to the internet for a week.

            This is a very good opportunity to finally break the annoying habit of defending myself against your spiteful propaganda machine.
            You’ll have to find some other target for your deflection tactics.

            I think at this point it’s pretty easy for a reader to see that I’ve been advocating a reactionary vision of the world based on hierarchy and governance, in opposition to equality and anarchy….. not redistributive, regulatory progressive Marxism.

            That’s a good basis on which to simply leave, and I should have done so by now. This is the opportunity to break the habit of trying to reason with boomer classical liberals.

            • jim says:

              Paraphrasing: “Hail fellow stupid evil white male. Can’t you see I am genuinely one of the bad guys also?”

              You presuppose that the defining characteristic of communism is equality: As exemplified by the wonderful equality of every actual communist society.

              What makes you a Marxist is Marxist history and Marxist economics, which sees the social order as just stuff to be grabbed, as a chimp sees the jungle as just stuff to be grabbed, and interprets capitalists as just the guys who most recently grabbed it, hence capitalism is recent by definition, as the chimp figures that after grabbing something, there will always be more jungle to grab stuff from.

              When communists say the proletariat will rule, they mean the vanguard of the proletariat will rule. Bastiat told us long ago that communists seek a world of brutal extremes of power and powerlessness, and Shakespeare’s Jack Cade simultaneously promised equality and absolute power, simultaneously promised that no one would own anything, and that Jack Cade would own everything. Shakespeare’s Jack Cade could have quite truthfully told us what you quite truthfully tell us, that he and you pursue a world of hierarchy and governance in opposition to equality and anarchy.

              Commies never cared about equality. When I was in Cuba passing as a commie, my fellow American commies were entirely untroubled by the difference in lifestyles between the masses and their communist overlords, provided that we got to enjoy the lifestyle of the communist overlords. When commies say the proletariat will rule, they mean the vanguard of the proletariat will rule.

              The defining characteristic of Marxism is not pursuit of equality, but pursuit of priestly power through superior holiness, without regard for the telos of priestly power to make society function – that they just see society as stuff that is simply there for the grabbing, and they want priests to be the ones doing the grabbing. You don’t understand, or don’t care, that wealth comes from somewhere, that peace and order comes from somewhere, that society needs structure to get things done and keep people from killing each other. You will destroy the Domino’s pizza franchise and kill the cows of the peasant with two cows so that you can confiscate the Coke Zero from the owner’s fridge.

              You guys wind up killing each other because the society that you intend and create is completely dysfunctional. When you argue Marxist history and Marxist economics it reveals that you don’t understand or don’t care that order exists so that men can peacefully work together, rather than that some men can grab stuff, that society is a system for enabling cooperation and for subdividing large problems into smaller problems so that those problems can be solved, so that particular men can solve particular problems. You guys look at society as a chimp looks at the jungle. You see things you want and you figure when you get what they want, there will always be more jungle. You consume the order of society as forest fire consumes wood.

              Shakespeare’s Jack Cade was as much in favor of hierarchy as you are – but his hierarchy was just to grab stuff, not to make society function.

              The communist sees the order of society, its organization, its structure, as mere obstacles and raw materials. You burn down the supermarket to grab a case of beer.

              Hence I keep telling you “Let’s discuss the French Maximum and its opposite, King Solomon’s depiction of the good woman”.

              Lets discuss society as an instrument for enabling people to get stuff done and avoid killing each other too often.

              Which you, being a Marxist, refuse to discuss. And that is what makes you a Marxist: that you interpret history and economics as just people grabbing stuff, and figure that there will always be stuff to be grabbed. You don’t care about society as an instrument for peacefully getting stuff done, getting very complicated and difficult things done.

              And this also shows up in your definition of consciousness, which definition makes a spambot script conscious, and me unconscious. You define consciousness as performing a low level priestly role that can be easily automated. Look at any church service or any Occupy meeting. If we had an animatronic priest, would make no difference.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Whenever you tell us what someone is really saying, it is always the direct opposite of what he said. Therefore any comments that explain what someone else is saying will be reflexively deleted.

                  Let’s discuss the French Maximum and its opposite, King Solomon’s depiction of the good woman, rather than explaining to me that I already agree with Marxism.

                  Lets discuss society as an instrument for enabling people to get stuff done and avoid killing each other too often.

                  I am now silently deleting your numerous posts explaining what my position really is.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Let’s discuss the French Maximum and its opposite, King Solomon’s depiction of the good woman, rather than explaining to me that I already agree with Marxism.

                  Lets discuss society as an instrument for enabling people to get stuff done and avoid killing each other too often.”

                  He can’t go too much off script his shareblue handlers will stop paying him his 2 cents a post.

                  http://i63.tinypic.com/dmclep.png

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Any comment about consciousness that fails to acknowledge or implicitly denies Moravec’s paradox will be deleted.

                  Any discussion of consciousness that defines the Moravec type tasks as unconscious is stupid, ignorant, and crazy.

    • Almost none of the issues we are facing are caused by technology. I used to think once we had gunpowder and peasants could shoot knights we just had to have democracy, but then someone wiser reminded me of China and the Ottomans.

      Before The Pill, there were all kinds of contraceptive, abortifacient herbs. In fact Napoleon’s soldiers taught them to girls all over Europe. What do you think medieval prostitutes did, got pregnant all the time? Hence our problem with women are not of The Pill.

      Industry in the sense of soulless but efficient jobs existed before modern technology, in the Arsenal of Venice, for example.

      The kind of determinism I might be willing to consider is that all these world wars required new social technologies, in the sense that women just had to work while men fought, for example. But even this is tedious.

  16. We have been losing social technology since Christianity killed paganism. But what we gained in return was advanced civilization that NEEDS armies of soyboy techies sipping lattes in Silicon Valley, because that’s what specialization=civilization leads to: the fagotization/feminization of society.

    Obviously, this situation—which has been highly profitable for culture—will not last forever, and what will succeed it is a new thing. And this new thing is Zarathustra’s 1000-year empire. Only the details remain to be hashed out, but one thing is certain: subhumans will have no place there because all their (low-level) functions will have been replaced by machines. So the question is how to get rid of subhumans. I say drones because that is the tech du jour, but I am not a wizard so it could be anything: bio-agent, or even Facebook by simply switching off of chipped brains.

    In summa, stories of knights’ exploits are cool and we all love them but the future will have more in common with cyberpunk fiction than Ivanhoe.

    • Anon says:

      You should join this forum:

      https://www.vintologi.com

    • jim says:

      > advanced civilization that NEEDS armies of soyboy techies sipping lattes in Silicon Valley,

      In my youth, engineers were the manliest of men, and engineering the manliest profession. We are being emasculated by progressivism, not progress.

      We are being emasculated because most men cannot get laid. Most men cannot get laid because of uncontrolled hypergamy – which reflects the decline of social technology, not the advance of physical technology.

      Notice that technology has been stagnating and is advancing ever slower, while emasculation proceeds ever faster. Sign up with a code of conduct, you will not get laid.

      • Engineers are fags compared to warriors, or even to say hunters. If your memory only extends to “your youth” you’ve lost the philosophy game because MY memory extends all the way back to the fucking Spartans, compared to whom your manly engineers were, as I said, fags. It was those manly engineers of yours that allowed progressivism to become increasingly unhinged, as it has been doing since the dawn of civilization, because that’s what civilization does to people: it feminizes them. You think the cause is progressivism whereas that’s merely an effect, a symptom, and the cause is civilization itself. Nietzsche says it somewhere, although he doesn’t explain it in detail, so that will be my job.

        In any case, your program is hopeless. In short, you want to take mankind back to the Middle Ages… but with databases. And even more religion lol. That’s the essence of your program. You talk about marriage and apprenticeships as if that stuff will have much meaning in a world of sex robots, artificial wombs and cloning. There’s not a single word in your philosophy of quantum mechanics or relativity. Not a single word about the end of sexuated procreation, the end of politics, the end of thought even. I know that my philosophy won’t attract the idiots, but at least it will attract the intelligent, and those will be sufficient for my program. But your program won’t even attract the intelligent since no decent man today would be pursuaded to believe in a religion (unless it be philosophy, which is the religion of the future, but which won’t work on the masses that your program requires). And anyway I bet you won’t even get that far since you’ve been writing for a decade and all you have is a bunch of blog posts. Where is your manifesto, let alone your new religion? Will the acolytes need to comb through giant comment threads to put it all together?

        You are out of your depth when you leave the field of politics. Where is your psychology even? With all your talk of happy marriages and pussy you sound like an Anglo-Saxon who thinks man’s goal is happiness, a naivety that on the continent we did away with over a century ago now.

        Anyway, feel free to reply “Nuts” while ignoring what I am saying and proceeding to launch into an unrelated tangent about trivialities. Even if science is slowing down, and the solution to that is your program, and we enact your program, and it succeeds, and we speed science up again, we’ll still arrive to the point where the earth must be rid of several billion useless Homo sapiens to make space for our nanomachine factories to fight the aliens with, so the drones will still need to be used lol.

        But I am sure you’ll say “nuts” again because you think there are no aliens and mankind will never have to fight them and there won’t be a Big Crunch or a Recurrence because you’ve never studied astrophysics or cosmology or even physics or philosophy and you entire mental horizon barely extends beyond the Middle Ages, apprenticeships, progressivism, sex, marriage and so on. So I will keep reading your analysis of what Trump does and if current events because it’s second to none, but when you veer into our sci-fi future and philosophy I will keep laughing, because you’re so out of your depth in these fields that it’s laughable man.

        • jim says:

          > Engineers are fags compared to warriors, or even to say hunters

          Everyone is fag compared to the warriors of old, but pretty sure now that sodomy is permitted on the front line, and is near to being required, and now that we have women and transvestites on the front lines, today’s soldiers are mighty gay compared to the engineers of not very long ago.

          There are no hunters any more except recreational hunters, so I doubt that today’s hunters are all that manly.

          And as for engineers today, if you submit to signing on to a gay code of conduct, then indeed that makes you gay, but I was talking about how engineers used to be back in the days when we had real and substantial technological innovation. Linus is not gay – which is why he was purged from linux, and linux now has a code of conduct that will result in bitrot.

          > In short, you want to take mankind back to the Middle Ages… but with databases

          The highest level of social technology in history was The Restoration and the following one hundred and fifty years, 1660 to 1810. The Restoration gave us the scientific method (Which King Charles the Second made high status and socially enforced in 1663) and venture capitalism (which he made high status and financially rewarding immediately on assuming power) without which we would never have created databases. I want to return to The Restoration, in substantial part because I want the restoration of the scientific method and the resumption of technological progress. As an engineer I find technological stagnation and decline immensely frustrating. We need to return to the Restoration in order to conquer space.

          I want the Holy American Space Empire under the Holy American Emperor.

          • BC says:

            >I want the Holy American Space Empire.

            Amen.

          • Well, okay, now we are getting somewhere. I am still unclear about your claims as to the Restoration, but I haven’t read enough of your blog so you might have explained it in detail somewhere. As long as you want technological progress and empire, and in space no less, I can get behind that.

            As a philosopher, I tend to be focused on the long-term, chiefly. The medium-term might well play out the way you envision it. I’ll keep reading.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            Peace Be Upon the Holy American Space Emperor.

          • vxxc says:

            “As an engineer I find technological stagnation and decline immensely frustrating. We need to return to the Restoration in order to conquer space.

            I want the Holy American Space Empire under the Holy American Emperor.”

            AMEN

            I don’t care if we make it the Holy American Presidency BTW and neither should you. It was Holy many times before, may be renewing its holiness right now and will again in some form.
            Jim – you have some wild ideas about the American warriors.
            We’re about as gay as the Teamsters or Iron workers local.
            We just have HR like everyone else.
            Think: we’re not losing fights.
            We lose the battle to make Diversity into white suburbanites after total and complete military victory many times over.
            That’s us “losing”.
            Well none have ever won that battle.
            That battle has been lost in every American city.
            In fact it’s a battle known to have been unwinnable since King Philips war. Every generation of Puritans must learn this it seems.

            Some day the remaining niggers will be running casinos or the equivalent. Some day the worlds remaining Jews will have turned Israel into a tourist trap just as the former Empires of Greece and Rome are…. and Europe.

            But if America goes to Space we will endure eternal.
            In some form. (That might actually get you the Holy American Empire / Galactic Version).

            You know Trump is headed the right direction with that with Space Force. The next big move I’d (humbly) advise is to tell the Pentagon to conquer Space or get Englands defense budget.

            See our Generals do know and do strategy – its just not what people think. Our Generals don’t do a damn thing- unless there’s money it it.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              I suspect that President Trump is fully aware that airplanes and orbital boosters / spacecraft are different vehicles. For an officer to get promoted in the Air Force you had to be a fighter jock to increase his chances. As a result the leadership in the Air Force and the leadership in NASA were past fighter plane pilots. They insisted on impossible spaceplane boosters instead of vtvl (the vtvl concept didn’t originate with SpaceX and Blue Origin, it was proposed in the 1970’s but the fighter jocks opposed it. Building huge rockets out of steel in the open was also proposed in the 1970’s as well).

              Before Air Forces became separate branches of the militaries, they were once part of the army and in World War I some of these militaries made their pilots wear cavalry sabers and wore spurs on their boots as the young climbed into the airplane.

              • R7 Rocket says:

                Hence Trump’s proposal for the Space Force by taking a part of the Air Force and turning it into a separate branch so that promotion fits the different nature of spaceships and orbital launch vehicles

              • R7 Rocket says:

                As they climbed into the airplane not “younger clients into the airplane ”

                Jim is completely right about AI! LOL

          • Zach says:

            Working with old engineers (should be retired by now) and young engineers (fresh out of school) the old guys stomp the living shit out of these new manginas. Similarly, the old guys are ridiculously more manly, and have loads more common sense. Further, I can joke all day with the old bastards. The mangina group are frequently horrified by my jokes.

      • Koanic says:

        I thought you were making a more exaggerated and absolute case for technological decline and AI in particular. On closer reading, it makes sense. Google’s self driving car doesn’t sound very likely to me either.

        • He is not making a case for tech decline at all. None of us can make it, only leading specialists in every field can, and certainly not a guy who seems oblivious to the existence of science and technology at all. “Google’s car failed” and “Linus was removed” are not arguments. That he thinks they are is laughable. Is “nuts”, to put it in his language. Hard data from leading scientists or GTFO. The issue is too important and his allegations too extreme to take his word for it. The rewards for science and tech progress are simply too immense in the modern world for scientists to give up. The Chinese certainly aren’t giving up, for one, and they are but one example. It is ridiculous to take the word of some blogger dude who seems incapable of even scribbling a thing as simple as a goddamn BOOK on such a serious matter. Evidence or GTFO. Book or GTFO. Otherwise enjoy spending the rest of your life debating a handful of readers in giant comment threads that no one will ever get to read. And if you think you can ever lead a movement via the internet and a blog that doesn’t even have your picture, you know less about leadership than you do about science and technology and all the rest buddy (psychology and philosophy and all the rest of it).

          • Koanic says:

            The only one blathering about something he knows nothing about here is you.

          • pdimov says:

            >The rewards for science […] are simply too immense…

            Do you happen to have a recent example of the immense rewards of science?

          • The Cominator says:

            There has been some progress in biology and still some in computer tech but most fields have been in decline at least since Bell Labs closed and most advances since that time have been miniturization and engineering improvements on things that were discovered in the 1960s at the latest.

            Japan (not being infected with the progressive mind disease and being a clever group of people) continues making some real advances but they are hampered by their racial lack of creativity.

            As for you lecturing Jim neoreactionary ideas have been gradually taking over and displacing the cuck right for years. What do you advocate bluepilled white knightionalism?

            • jim says:

              > As for you lecturing Jim neoreactionary ideas have been gradually taking over and displacing the cuck right for years. What do you advocate bluepilled white knightionalism?

              Huh? Rephrase.

              • The Cominator says:

                Orgy claimed you were ineffectual.

                I said that your ideas and Moldbugs ideas have been gradually penetrating the mainstream right.

                • jim says:

                  As exemplified by the parade in Italy. Trump for God Emperor – well, we want to preserve two millenia of Christian social technology, the wisdom of the communion of saints, so the correct reactionary position is not Trump for God Emperor, but that we need a Holy American Emperor with warrior credibility, while Trump is the great negotiator, a businessman and a showman, not a warrior, but when the Meme Warriors distill our ideas down to simple and compelling essence, such subtleties are necessarily discarded.

          • jim says:

            I am in the area of supposedly hot progress, and you are not.

            The prophecies of the singularitarians started failing when the Concord was quietly abandoned, and have been falling further short ever since. My desktop was supposed to be smarter than me before you were born. The prophecies of the singularitarians, like the prophecies of the Climate Change Doomsters and the prophecies that the second coming is imminent, keep being recycled with a small change in the date.

            Google has quietly realized its self driving car is not going anywhere, Linus was purged, and Musk, foreseeing and already implementing the required purge, has quietly abandoned his plans for a re-usable earth to space rocket. Today’s Ivy League graduates are dumb as posts, and they are who Musk is going to be hiring from now on. They may not know much about rockets, but they know the really important stuff like how many genders there are.

            • simplyconnected says:

              I still have trouble getting across to colleagues the points expressed in:
              https://blog.piekniewski.info/2018/05/28/ai-winter-is-well-on-its-way/
              Colleagues don’t buy it, but don’t refute it either, probably because there is money to be made.

              • jim says:

                As Musk said in your link, AI is brittle:

                “We could have done the coast-to-coast drive, but it would have required too much specialized code to effectively game it or make it somewhat brittle and that it would work for one particular route, but not the general solution. So I think we would be able to repeat it, but if it’s just not any other route, which is not really a true solution.”

                “Progress” consists not of actually accomplishing the Turing test in some Moravec domain, but of gaming the Turing test.

                It as if we wanted to fly, and had no idea how birds managed it, and set about building shoes with springs in them, and wound up building bigger and bigger springs.

                My interpretation of the problem is that intelligence is easy, but consciousness is hard, in part because we have no idea what consciousness is or what it does.

                “(10k+ dimensional) image space has plenty enough spurious patterns in it, that they actually generalize across many images and make the impression like our classifiers actually understand what they are seeing. Nothing could be further from the truth,”

                Somehow consciousness distills 10K dimensional image space down to something that is in effect eight or so dimensional data space, and does so mighty fast.

                We can do some very interesting things with dimension reduction. Maybe there is some obvious trick to it that we are not using – I would guess that the trick involves throwing very large numbers of random dimension reduction tactics at the data, a process that takes living creatures days to years, and somehow recognizing the ones that correspond to understanding the data. And then doing the same trick recursively, so that we have high level understandings of low level understandings, rather than doing dimension reduction in one big step. And once the living creature has learned the correct data reduction, it can do this in about three hundred milliseconds.

                But, having understood the data, if we could do knowing and awareness, we would then need to do wanting, desiring, and intending. We need a car that knows there is an obstacle, and wants to not hit the obstacle and chooses a path that intends to avoid the obstacle.

                Which does not remotely resemble current AI methods, which are not even a step in the direction of doing that sort of thing. Rather existing AI is brute forcing ten thousand plus dimensions, which is clearly not what the descendants of the urbilatarian are doing.

                Various illusions demonstrate that living creatures are doing full prediction of all perceptual input, and doing it fast, which current AI is not doing. When doing dimension reduction on the input, living creatures decide what the input should have been.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > I would guess that the trick involves throwing very large numbers of random dimension reduction tactics at the data… And then doing the same trick recursively.

                  That is effectively done now. It’s unclear a change of basis (keeping all the data), plus some non-linearity wouldn’t work fine, since the next layer could “learn” to use only the important dimensions from the previous layer anyway. Some of the limited theoretical knowledge works this way (e.g. scattering transform).

                  A lot of people missed that Hinton called to scrap backprop and restart AI from scratch:
                  https://www.axios.com/artificial-intelligence-pioneer-says-we-need-to-start-over-1513305524-f619efbd-9db0-4947-a9b2-7a4c310a28fe.html
                  But current techniques have now specialized hardware, and NVidia is pushing their AI hardware to avoid having the GPU be integrated into the CPU. There is a lot of momentum.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Consciousness is semantics. Physics is encoding.

                  Encoding is arbitrary; physics can only exchange one cypher for another. Since physics sees only cyphers, it can only identify one thing with another when the cyphers themselves are identical. (Or slightly perturbed according to simple rules, which is why deep learning identification will always be hackable using patterns invisible to humans.)

                  In physics, there is no such thing as a tiger. There is only patterns of black, white, and orange. (Actually no such thing as orange either.) The two-dimensional pattern is completely different, in physics, to the three-dimensional pattern. In a computer, each individual 2D pattern has to be painstakingly projected from the 3D pattern, and then back-addressed, as expanding a 3D pattern from a 2D one is NP complete.

                  In consciousness, a tiger (in 2D) is a tiger (from the front) is a tiger (from the side). Because if what you’ve passed to consciousness through Descarte’s pineal gland is not a tiger, it will see something else. (A norange, perhaps.) To pass it to consciousness at all means converting it into semantic form.

                  You can see this in the fact that Boston Dynamics robots work really well if they QR code everything. As long as a human has done the decoding-into-semantics work for it, the robot can function just fine. “If you see a cypher identical to [this] then it’s a door, so perform [door routines].” Similarly, computers can already outperform human eyes. Eyes take perfectly normal digital bits and perform some Fourier transforms on them, and that’s about it. This has not helped computers to see, because to them it’s still bits, but the brain converts it into meaning.

                  Because consciousness is semantics, it gets similarity comparisons basically for free. A thing being similar to another thing is part of each things’ inherent nature, and consciousness deals directly with inherent natures. The trick is to make sure the pineal gland is passed the correct idea. And thus consciousness can see a tiger as a tiger – or, technically, as sufficiently similar to a tiger archetype. It can see that a white tiger is tigerish enough the first time it sees one, and not simply get confused. It deals with meaning directly and can decompose the tiger into its component ideas, and recognize that the ‘colour’ idea is not necessary for the function of the ‘claws’ idea. Perhaps you have experienced this decomposition for yourself. By contrast, cyphers are nonlinear and extracting the function of ‘claw’ from an image of ‘tiger’ is, shall we say, nontrivial.

                  For a pineal gland to exist, there must be something which is both an encoding and semantic. Thus physics merely has to pass the correct encoding to the gland, and the semantics will appear.

                  We can make some educated guesses about how this is done from the nature of the-thing-called-free-will.

                  Free will is not determinism. It is also not stochasticism. Not unrelatedly, you can forge a robot which can mimic any action I perform. Or indeed any sequence of actions I can perform. However, robots cannot prospectively generate the same sequence of actions as I can. The issue is not one of actions, but of decisions and distributions.

                  Therefore, we’re looking for a theory and a device that breaks classical probability.

                  The fundamental law of probability is that individual events are independent. Thus we find that intuitions that consciousness has something to do with recursion are probably correct. If we make a device where every event is fully dependent on all previous events, then it turns out not to have a probability at all in the usual sense, and we have a candidate for what Descarte’s pineal gland looks like in practice.

                  Subsequently there is the matter of working out what each physical encoding means, when put into an example of this device, in semantic space.

                  Naturally all this first requires acknowledging that physics is the wrong kind of thing to be conscious and vice-versa.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > From Alrenous:
                  > Similarly, computers can already outperform human eyes.

                  You mean low level vision (ventral stream)?

                  Even that is questionable. Better performance on imageNet than human just means that humans don’t know the 30 types of birds that the computer was trained on.
                  So the computer beats humans because humans haven’t had time to study all the categories in the imageNet database.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > Therefore, we’re looking for a theory and a device that breaks classical probability.

                  > The fundamental law of probability is that individual events are independent. Thus we find that intuitions that consciousness has something to do with recursion are probably correct. If we make a device where every event is fully dependent on all previous events, then it turns out not to have a probability at all in the usual sense, and we have a candidate for what Descarte’s pineal gland looks like in practice.

                  We may be out of our depth when it comes to consciousness.
                  We may not currently have the analytical tools to understand it. The modern computer may just be the wrong model for the brain, the way the steam engine was before.

                • Alrenous says:

                  You can build a camera with higher resolution and better framerate than a human eye. It can then reduce the image size in the same way as the optic nerve tree. I think this is even affordable. Costs something like $2000?

                  Von Neumann machines have L1 cache and L2 cache. So do human brains. Von Neumann machines have a clear distinction between RAM and hard drive while the brain doesn’t, but the brain still has a gradient between recent memory and long-term storage.

                  You can build a steam valve computer if you like. It’s more expensive than silicon transistors, that’s all.

                • jim says:

                  Even the cheapest camera has enormously more pixels and higher frame rate than the eye of an eagle, but the eagle knows what it sees, while the camera knows nothing at all.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > Von Neumann machines have L1 cache and L2 cache. So do human brains. Von Neumann machines have a clear distinction between RAM and hard drive while the brain doesn’t, but the brain still has a gradient between recent memory and long-term storage.

                  Long and short term memory may be a good metaphor, but it’s not clear at all it’s a good model for how the brain works with memories.

                  As for current AI: David Donoho (a genuinely smart guy) had a course at Stanford on theoretical foundations of deep learning.
                  His personal opinion is that DL is a brute force approach. Once you have huge parallel computation capacity (+ tons of data), there are lots of things you can solve with brute force function approximators (DL), which you previously had a hard time solving with traditional (more “hand tuned”) techniques.

                  You can add reinforcement learning on top, but then your data requirements increase even more. You have to run your autonomously driven truck off a cliff 10,000 times to learn how to take a turn properly.
                  You’ll notice that the big success in go and chess are games where you can simulate a full games in parallel effectively thousands of times per second. It’s still pretty much brute force. There’s no intelligence happening inside, as you and I understand it.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > From Alrenous:
                  > Similarly, computers can already outperform human eyes.

                  For a nice explanation on how this is very dubious, see a nice talk by David Forsyth on why imageNet results are not a good measure of human-level vision:
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZZivNnZBpk

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > go and chess are games where you can simulate a full games in parallel effectively thousands of times per second

                  Note the full game tree is of course not simulated. There is a brute-force function approximator (DL) being trained to evaluate the position, used to prune the search space. Run in parallel on dedicated ASICs. It’s very sophisiticated, but fundamentally a brute-force approach.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > Von Neumann machines have L1 cache and L2 cache. So do human brains. Von Neumann machines have a clear distinction between RAM and hard drive while the brain doesn’t, but the brain still has a gradient between recent memory and long-term storage.

                  > Long and short term memory may be a good metaphor, but it’s not clear at all it’s a good model for how the brain works with memories.

                  Apologies. I meant to say “human brains have L1 and L2 cache” is not clearly a good model for how the brain works with memories.

                • Alrenous says:

                  The mind has no access to L1 and L2 cache in the brain, unless you have savantism.

                • jim says:

                  Probably because the brain does not have an L1 and L2 cache. Brains do not work that way.

                • Alrenous says:

                  @Jim

                  The eye doesn’t know anything. The eye, and its nerve tree, is a machine to turn photons into bioelectric signals.

                  The visual cortex might have known things, but provably can’t: all it can do is turn some electric signals into others. If physics can tell the difference between some electric signals knowing things and other not, then literal magic is real.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  The transformations that the retina performs before transmitting stuff to the optic nerve are high level transformations, which our computers are unable to emulate. We can isolate a patch of a frogs retina, control the inputs and read the outputs, but cannot reproduce them by any known computer algorithms.

                  Not only are we a very long way from doing an emulation of a human, not only are we are a very long way from doing an emulation of Caenorhabditis Elegans, even though we have mapped every neuron and every synapse in Caenorhabditis Elegans (all three hundred or so neurons) we are a very long way from doing a emulation of a patch of the frog’s retina, even though we have mapped every neuron and every synapse in a frog’s retina.

                  Obviously my retina does not know stuff in the sense that I know stuff, but it does know stuff that computers are incapable of knowing, and may well be architecturally incapable of knowing.

                  Moravec’s paradox is more extreme than Moravec was prepared to state. Not only is it hard to program a computer to do what a four year old child does, it is hard to program a computer to do what Caenorhabditis Elegans does, it is hard to program a computer to do what a patch of a frog’s retina does.

                • Koanic says:

                  Agreed, and it is even worse than that. All the complexity on the physical side still does not generate a human consciousness, which is a spirit not composed of or generated by physical things in c-space at all, only connected to them. Engineers trying to build a human emulator are like Minecraft avatars trying to build a Minecraft avatar.

                • jim says:

                  Maybe consciousness is something beyond known physics.

                  Or maybe it is just an algorithm that will be obvious once it occurs to someone, just as it was obvious after the Wright brothers that planes needed three axis control, but strangely unobvious before the Wright brothers.

                  Maybe consciousness is just a recursive dimensional reduction algorithm with full data prediction and the high levels and the low levels somehow looped around, so that over short time scales the algorithm is hierarchical, but over longer time scales it recurses with arbitrarily deep looping from high level to low and from low to high again. Maybe we are having trouble noticing the algorithm not because it is hard, but because we are inside, and cannot see it as fish cannot see water.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  As I said, I will censor any discussion of consciousness that does not implicitly or explicitly acknowledge Moravec’s paradox. Which includes any discussion of consciousness predicated on the left progressive priestly definition of consciousness, which is designed to define only talmudism as conscious – and what I call talmudism, you probably call dialectics, because your priesthood wants to piously declare itself scientific, having destroyed science, while wearing its stolen labcoats, and therefore disowns its puritan and jewish ancestry, renaming the priestly institutions and methods with twenty first century names. We are discussing what the eagle sees, while you are discussing the tricks of rhetoric.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  From Vinge’s 1993 essay on the singularity. His projection if it DOESN’T happen soon. Seems rather prescient.

                  —————-

                  If this is true (or for that matter, if the Penrose or Searle critique is valid), we might never see a Singularity. Instead, in the early ’00s we would find our hardware performance curves beginning to level off — because of our inability to automate the design work needed to support further hardware improvements. We’d end up with some very powerful hardware, but without the ability to push it further. Commercial digital signal processing might be awesome, giving an analog appearance even to digital operations, but nothing would ever “wake up” and there would never be the intellectual runaway that is the essence of the Singularity. It would likely be seen as a golden age . . . and it would also be an end of progress. This is very like the future predicted by Gunther Stent,6 who explicitly cites the development of transhuman intelligence as a sufficient condition to break his projections.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > From Jim:

                  > The transformations that the retina performs before transmitting stuff to the optic nerve are high level transformations, which our computers are unable to emulate.

                  Since some time ago, there was excitement that measured low-level vision neurons’ output is Gabor filter-like (localized in frequency and space). And DL models can produce Gabor filter-like output in their first layer. There was a lot of discussion of what the output of the “second layer” (whatever that exactly means in humans) should look like.

                  Given that the level of discussion, in comparing brains and DL, it’s pretty safe to say that at the moment we have no idea how the brain does what it does.

                  Similarly with the connectome.. mapping all connections was somehow sold as providing insight. Maybe some information, but no insight as far as I am aware.

                • jim says:

                  We mapped all the connections in the retina and in Caenorhabditis elegans. Which turned out to predict a great deal – but something terribly important turned out to be missing from our ability to predict the outputs.

                • Koanic says:

                  Jim> Or maybe [consciousness] is just an algorithm that will be obvious once it occurs to someone

                  The proof to the contrary is fundamentally verbal, and conceptually relates to the reason that one cannot construct an abstract number such as “2” out of c-space physics either, no matter how many computers one makes that operate in binary. But I have no illusions about explaining such a thing to this visuo-spatially tilted audience. The inductive approach gets only at the physical side, which loses track of consciousness past the quantum epistemological veil, long before reaching a subject.

                  The atheist will mock this as the final retreat of the “God of the Gaps,” but Biblical miracles are characteristically power-efficient, as if the natural order were difficult for angels and even mortal Jesus to alter. For Jehovah it is of course possible, but often accompanied by severe side effects, and in any case it is something He is rarely willing to do. Which suggests that the continuous supernatural interference of a man’s spirit with his natural body and vice versa must be extremely refined and undetectable indeed, since we are nowhere near those power levels. It is the signature of the God of Order, GNON.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Obviously if you have a wiring diagram of a nematode worm’s brain, but can’t figure out what the wiring does, you don’t actually have a wiring diagram. You’re missing functional components.

                  Most likely the retina exploits these components, and is not particularly conscious. As a stupid example, neurons are both analogue and digital. The axon transmits digitally, but the neuron can also release non-targeted neurotransmitters, the signals of which vary by serum concentration.

                  Of course one of these components is the metaphorical pineal gland itself, so there’s that.

                  Though honestly I find it difficult to believe there really isn’t a known algorithm. It produces a simplified image. I find it more likely that scientists lack imagination, especially regarding computer codes.

                  Or maybe it is just an algorithm that will be obvious once it occurs to someone

                  If this is true, then literal magic is true. If consciousness is merely some special algorithm, then the algorithm does regular math things, has regular math results, and then also as a side effect produces qualia, which functionally do nothing. There’s a literal magic formula which, when invoked, summons consciousness, exactly like drawing a pentagram specifically for the unpredictable effects of its shape.

                  Unless you are proposing something like addition+, which is a special function or operator that happens to produce, in addition to transformed numbers, consciousness? This doesn’t help, but explaining why is more complicated.

            • lalit says:

              Jim, any insight into Google’s claim about achieving Quantum supremacy any time now?

              • jim says:

                Quantum computers are a long way off, and if they were near, which they are not, Google has lost the capacity for technological innovation, and is reacting to loss of capability by escalating vaporware promises.

                Quantum radar is feasible. We have known in principle how to do it since the 1970s, and with the development of stealth aircraft, there is an urgent military need for quantum radar. (Since the stealthing that hides them from regular radar makes them even more visible to quantum radar.)

                We know, in principle, how to build quantum radar. We don’t actually know even in principle how to build quantum computers with a useful number of qubits. Trouble is that more quibits, the bigger the decoherence and scaling problems.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “Trouble is that more quibits, the bigger the decoherence and scaling problems.”

                  Indeed. Let’s take the factoring problem. Say you want to factor a 1024 bit number. Create two 1024 bit qubit registers. Combinatorially multiply them together, preserving amplitude and phase through the whole network path, and compare the product with the composite number, again continuing to preserve phase and amplitude. Feed the result back in such a way that there is only one stable quantum state, the solution. If you’re lucky the system will “collapse” into that state. Good luck with that. I have a hunch that the stability/halflife of a multi-bit entangled state is inversely proportional to the negative exponent of the number of bits.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  You use something like Shor’s algorithm for factoring.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shor%27s_algorithm

                  And proponents are devising quantum error correction codes to deal with some of the issues. From what I’ve seen, they need quite a lot of error correction qubits. Quite a lot.

                  Personally, I do agree that quantum computing seems like a long shot for many reasons. For instance, same year as Shor published his work, we also quickly got this:

                  https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9406058

                  Yet there also are companies claiming to build and run QCs. I wonder to what extent this is real vs scam?

                • Alrenous says:

                  Trying to build a better computer via excluding decoherence is a fool’s game.

                  The way to do it is to deliberately exploit decoherence. Figure out how to set up superpositions and measure their collapse as rapidly as possible.

                  Isolating one qubit is pretty okay. As soon as you have two or more interact, so you can process data with more than one bit, they will destabilize each other. Most likely the destabilization rate increases with the cube of the number of qubits or some similarly absurd exponent.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            It’s completely absurd to believe that the state of technology today is something to praise or admire.
            Most modern devices work – SOME of the time.
            How easy do you find your smart television to actually use? Don’t you find yourself waiting for it to ‘warm up’ when you first turn it on as it downloads its ten million updates every day? Don’t you notice that factory default settings are restored after a large update, or certain options you’ve always fought hard to turn off always seem to be turned on again periodically?

            Consider that “Jet Set Willy II” crammed hundreds of unique puzzle rooms into 48k while a modern computer can’t keep the lights on with physical RAM of less than about 8GB and Facebook Games (that are in most regards simpler and less interesting than those old 80s titles) require top-of-the-range processors and graphics cards!

            Consider that Office 2000 fits into 200MB or disk space and loads instantly, while the newer suites require multiple DVD disks and take forever to do anything.

            Consider that it’s almost impossible to send anything through email anymore without the risk of it being helpfully deleted in transit.

            Sure, some developments in high res monitors have produced genuinely prettier things to look at….. but is that really better than the golden age of programming environments when you could make your computer work for you?

            What about the reality of AI, voice commands, etc. etc.? It’s awful. Your devices are very good at spying on your tastes and interests, but issue a direct request and you can forget about it.

            Then consider our ability at a societal level to do basic infrastructure work: where a road could be built from scratch in the 1970s in a month, a set of traffic lights on a junction now takes six months to a year.

            As the quality of the people declines, the quality of the innovation declines. We operate in a ‘bloatware’ environment because our IT professionals operate in a ‘high level’ environment. Show me the modern computer nut that can write you a device driver from scratch in assembly language and fit it on a floppy disk!

            Even the super-realistic video games for your console are glorified art projects written to fit on an ‘engine’ based loosely on a prior model of the same……..

            No, we’re in a leaden age of innovation in most areas, but technology most of all. We’re not even the javascript generation: we’re the playing-at-‘coding’ generation, configuring pre-determined options to mesh with the progressive ideology engine.

            The time’s rapidly approaching when bright people just go entirely offline.

            Again don’t get me wrong, I’m not belittling the genuine benefits of the internet and modern computing: there are classical music videos on YouTube in which the score’s tracked to the music. These are an enormous resource. The same for old books scanned and downloadable.

            These need to be cherished, because the day is fast approaching when they’ll be banned and this will be the only way to access them at all.
            Then you’ll want your disconnected Windows XP / Linux-Mint computer to play/read the files on.

            As for this blogger posting his picture, etc.

            A) I don’t want to see the hook-nosed wanker in his silly hat
            and
            B) Even a milquetoast boomer free market conservative like ‘Jim’ stands to be doxxed and executed as a Nazi in this environment so keeping a low profile is very sensible and YOU, snarky know-it-all, should do the same: after all, your palpable ‘white privilege’ is a fast ticket to the gulag no matter how good you are at configuring an ‘app’ for Android.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            @orgyoftheqill

            Here’s some hard data about AI development. I think Jim is totally right on HI and the hard data is me right now using voice to text to make this post on. Ard doesn’t know it could solve problems but he doesn’t know what it sees just as Jim talked about how the Eagles I can see but the camera cannot. I spent a large amount of time correcting AutoCorrect and correcting voice to text because the AI doesn’t know a damn thing what it saying it is not conches as Jim has said, he is right .

            • simplyconnected says:

              > From R7 Rocket:
              > I spent a large amount of time correcting AutoCorrect and correcting voice to text because the AI doesn’t know a damn thing.

              According to David Donoho, the big surprise of DL is that a brute-force approach could take us that far.

              Therefore the surprise is that the problems (rough translation, rough voice to text transcription, etc..) were in a certain sense easier than we thought.

              The sense in which those problems turned out to be easier is that no particular insight into the specific problem was required. Pretty much the same brute-force approach would provide useful rough solutions, given enough computation capacity and training data.

              (Perhaps a little dubious to claim that DL uses no particular insight into the problem it tries to solve, at least in supervised learning, since insight may be used indirectly through the training data.)

              Note the difference between the people claiming that intelligence is “high competence by the same algorithm at multiple, unrelated tasks”, calling DL “general artificial intelligence” (Deep Mind), and those, like Donoho, for whom the surprise is that an obviously unintelligent brute-force method could perform “competently” at many tasks, with the conclusion that the tasks themselves were not as difficult as thought. Or as the saying in AI goes: once a problem in AI is solved, it is no longer an AI problem.

              • jim says:

                > Or as the saying in AI goes: once a problem in AI is solved, it is no longer an AI problem.

                That is because the solution is always in some sense Eliza – a cheat – superficially faking the Turing test.

                As if we wanted to fly like a bird, and started building shoes on springs.

                We are trying to emulate high level human abilities, when we cannot emulate a small patch of frog retina, or Caenorhabditis elegans. We really should ask ourselves why we cannot emulate Caenorhabditis elegans. And we end up producing clever superficial fakes of human abilities. “AI” is Eliza. And that is why when AI solves a problem, it is no longer AI: Because the solution is always merely Eliza with a bigger database. We have merely been building bigger and bigger Elizas, as if we wanted to fly, and built shoes with bigger and bigger springs.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  >> simplyconnected said:
                  >> Or as the saying in AI goes: once a problem in AI is solved, it is no longer an AI problem.

                  > Jim said:
                  > That is because the solution is always in some sense Eliza – a cheat – superficially faking the Turing test.

                  Or perhaps because the AI problems that were pursued were not in fact the kind of problems that truly require intelligence (like loading the laundry).

                  It was first thought that chess required intelligence, even creativity. Then it was found that a dumb as rocks algorithm could surpass any human. Now no one thinks chess is an AI problem, just an algorithmic one.

                  As you point out, we were attacking the wrong problems (those that cannot be solved without intelligence), and still are.

                  But who can blame them. It’s effectively low hanging fruit (e.g. going from trying to solve chess to trying to solve go), and the public still believes that the next slightly more complex rules-based problem requires intelligence.
                  The reason for this belief seems to be that people indeed use their intelligence to play chess or go. They may not be aware that intelligence is not actually required for the computer to play chess or go expertly.

                • jim says:

                  Pretty sure that sorting and folding the laundry does truly require something.

                  If what it requires is not intelligence, so much the worse for intelligence.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  I should mention Jerry Kaplan talks extensively about the fact that current “AI problems” are those that humans solve using intelligence, but don’t actually strictly *require* intelligence.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > As you point out, we were attacking the wrong problems (those that cannot be solved without intelligence), and still are.

                  I meant to say “[…] those that *can* be solved without intelligence […]”.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > Pretty sure that sorting and folding the laundry does truly require something.

                  Yes, intelligence. Maybe consciousness.

                  > Or perhaps because the AI problems that were pursued were not in fact the kind of problems that truly require intelligence (like loading the laundry).

                  Loading laundry was an example of a problem that likely cannot be solved without actual intelligence.
                  Chess was an example of a game that can be played well both with, and without intelligence.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > Pretty sure that sorting and folding the laundry does truly require something.

                  I wasn’t disagreeing with you.

                  You’ll see academics talking about “common sense”, or modeling “common sense knowledge”. But I don’t hear people talk about the need to understand or model “consciousness”, my guess is it’s too esoteric and they would be considered a bit crazy if they brought it up.

                  A good example in robotics of what we are discussing:

                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXEtfGcF6hs&t=10m9s
                  [Punchline arrives a minute and a half later at at 11m40s.]

                • simplyconnected says:

                  > But I don’t hear people talk about the need to understand or model “consciousness”

                  There’s a journal dedicated to consciousness, finding neural correlates of consciousness etc.. But among AI/machine learning, even theoretical neuroscience, I don’t hear anyone mention consciousness. (Unlike “common sense”, which they do talk about)

  17. John Henry Eden says:

    Quit calling it the “Cathedral”, it’s the Synagogue and everyone knows it

    • jim says:

      Not the Zionist Occupation Government.

      Read the voice of the Cathedral on the stoning of Alexander Levlolich.

      You can tell who has the power, from whom Angelo bribed, just as you can tell who had the power, from whom Margaret Mead had sex with.

      • St. Mandela II says:

        Yes, yes, the moral arc of history, &c.

        I think there was once a guy named Butterfield who had a thing or two to say about that.

        “The raconteur knows too well that, if he investigates the truth of the matter, he is only too likely to lose his good story.”

    • The Cominator says:

      That is what bluepilled white knightionalists who haven’t done their due diligence think.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      [*deleted*]

      • jim says:

        Don’t tell us what we are saying. I am tired of repeating myself and am apt to silently delete any comment that helpfully explains that the position of some reactionary is the direct opposite of his plainly expressed position.

    • Alrenous says:

      British: conquered entire world. Twice.

      Jews: homeland created by British whim.

      Or we could go all Sailer and be afraid of Africans. Because, you see, Africa is pretty big.

  18. ERTZ says:

    What if humanity’s future social tech will look vastly different from things you discuss (mostly restricted to existing, already tried or merely extrapolated social tech)?
    I wonder how a perfect, endgame social system might look like – optimized yet still roughly based on human nature because it evolved from it:
    If future understanding of genetic engineering and our brain structure – not necessarily all of it, only how to shape, or program, the human reward center – then we could create humans that are only driven by a single pleasure, while deleting distracting rewards like overeating, sex, social status – or perhaps just tone them done quite a bit.
    If we would not try to engineer a social system optimal for wildly varying humans, but engineer humans to fit a social system – that might be something completely different and vastly superior.

    Imagine humans biologically made into classes, or functions – merely by reshaping their reward center. There could be scientists that only feel joy when they do real science, and feel not too much reward in doing anything else.
    Likewise, there could be workers, not as an inferior class, but as humans who only feel reward for striving for and being masterful workers.
    And there could be warriors, not brutes without brains or self-preservation instinct, just humans who are only capable of feeling any pleasure for building their skills for being the best warriors they can possibly be.

    Today’s humans are already purely reward-center-driven creatures;
    it’s just that the specific rewards in humans vary much in scope and degree,
    producing unstable individuals and unstable societies (because of inappropriate or conflicting reward-center-driven aims in individuals themselves and individuals in society – conflicts of work/lazy, eat/diet, sex/restraint etc. – and their society-wide effects of producing social classes, conflicts of politics/ideology (who gets what, when, how much etc.)).

    Besides their function-specific reward center programming, those future humans would also receive programming to only feel pleasure when obeying an “emperor”, and feel pain, intense disgust by the mere thought of not wanting to obey and please him.

    Besides that programming of only the reward center, there would still be mutations, diversity in character, recombination of genes, evolution – but only in terms of functionality as scientist, worker or warrior.
    Those future humans would not be programmed slaves – they would still be free, but would just see no point of not being scientist/worker/warrior to their max. potential and effort, and just would not see a point in not obeying and wanting to please the emperor.
    Today’s humans are also slaves to their reward center programming – people can’t escape obesity, sex/masturbation, laziness etc. – people see themselves as “free” today, but this obviously does not include their reward center programming, which defines what they want, and we are clearly not free at all to change what we want – we can only do or not do what we want, and if we choose not to do it, then this takes willpower, which is of limited supply, so sooner or later we end up doing what “we” want to do, that is, what our reward center programming defined as our life’s objectives.
    The future humans with artificially created reward centers would be just as “free”, only have different priorities.

    It might be that the first organization, or individual, which produces this technology and can apply it, would soon rule over humanity (from the new humans’ programmed loyalty to the emperor as well as tremendous productivity from fanatical devotion to their social function, which they derive their life’s pleasure from (worker/warrior/scientist) nearly exclusively).

    I wonder if such a scenario is not much more likely than our always-imperfect squabbles over how to best run society – maybe the answer is not creating an utopia for all kinds of chaotically different and competing humans, but creating humans fit for a superior form of society.

    • jim says:

      I was obese, lost eighty pounds. Am now fit. I am unsympathetic to the doctrine that we are slaves of our desires. Used to be that just about everyone was fit, now just about everyone is fat. Weight loss is a solved problem, and the solution to the problem is widely known in the reactosphere, which is where I learned of it. I have a big problem with lust, gluttony, and wrath, and the first step to social and individual solution to these problems is to make sure that everyone identifies them as bad – today the only kind of wickedness that anyone acknowledges is caring insufficiently deeply about far away strangers in places one could not find on a map. Fat is a moral failure.

      Getting people to be prosocial is also a solved problem, but it is a collective solution that can only be implemented by family, society, state, and the state religion, while fitness is an individual problem with an individual solution. To get prosocial conduct, you make sure that warriors and taxpayers get higher status, the right to take serious offense to insult, the right to potentially deadly response to injury to their extended phenotype, can get faithful virginal wives, obedient children, and a home to keep them in. If the option to be a patriarch is available, most men will do whatever it takes. You make sure that what it takes is prosocial and works reliably and predictably if carried out with normal competence and diligence.

      And you make sure that anti social conduct, both the obvious forms like crime, and the more subtle forms like holiness signaling and collective organized lying (apostasy from the state religion and peer review) result in loss of status and vulnerability to insult, coercion, and assault.

      • Harcombian Dietationist says:

        Used to be that just about everyone was fit, now just about everyone is fat.

        This is because entryists in the US Department of Agriculture and US Department of Health, Education and Welfare rewrote policy to recommend carbohydrates over fats.

        Did you actually think that the Moldbuggian interpretation of history only applied to popular socialism? LOL.

        Remove stress or cut out carbs. It’s so easy that anyone could do it!

        https://www.amazon.com/Obesity-Epidemic-What-caused-stop/dp/1907797475

      • Karl says:

        Making sure that apostasy from the state religion results in loss of status and vulnerability to Insult, coercion and assault is something the cathedral has down pat.

  19. Adjudicator says:

    Seeing the debates on the comments section allows me to understand Jim’s position better.

    To summarise and to simplify as much as possible, I will use the analogy and metaphor of a computer and operating system which is so full of bugs and issues that nothing productive can be done (Stalled scientific progress, corruption, etc.), and the powers that be generally have no interest in fixing the problem because they are profiteering from excessive “service fees”, “maintenance contracts”, “corrective maintenance charges” etc.

    Jim’s reaction proposal, sounds very much like performing a “software rollback” to the “last stable productive version”, which Jim identified as 1660 to 1810 Charles the Second era, and to attempt to move forward from there, espousing more vigilance to prevent the same problems in history from recurring.

    The pros is that such a restoration would provide a “foundation” and a “safety net” of “what worked before”. A known “rally point” to fall back on and to gather strength.

    The cons would be that such a “reset” could make people too comfortable with the old version and the old days that it would lead to another kind of stagnation and complacency. Hopefully Jim’s proposals of a priesthood and warriors to instill discipline and loyalty to mitigate these issues would work, but given that history often repeats itself, and the notion raised that “Humans are too smart for that now” are real issues of returning to the past.

    orgyofthewill.net’s proposal, sounds like rushing out an alternative patch / build or a completely new, superior product to install over the current version.

    Pros: No time wasted “reinventing the wheel”, “performing a rollback”, “ensuring legacy compatibility”

    Cons: Need to remove “driver remnants”, “legacy bugged code” and “registry cleanup” of the still-running system as it transitions to the new build, to prevent the old software remnants from unduly interfering with the update and execution process. There is also no tangible “fallback rally point” that is visible and known to the “run of the mill” user. Either adapt to the changes or cease being productive and relevant.

    Still, the ultimate end goal of clearing the obstacles and the drag imposed by the current system in order to reignite scientific and technological progress is an ideal I can get behind on.

    • The Cominator says:

      “The cons would be that such a “reset” could make people too comfortable with the old version and the old days that it would lead to another kind of stagnation and complacency.”

      Why would it do that? Jims proposal would restore real science and technological progress and we’d probably reach space.

      I do think Jim is wrong about a couple of things and have argued with him about them but overall his system would be much better and much less stagnant.

      The removal of remnants will take the form of a Final Solution to the Leftist Problem.

    • jim says:

      > orgyofthewill.net’s proposal, sounds like rushing out an alternative patch / build or a completely new, superior product to install over the current version.

      Total rewrites, rewriting code from scratch, are always catastrophic, and usually result in the death of the business.

      • Adjudicator says:

        Or given that orgyofthewill.net has also read up on real history, he intends to keep updating the code of the current program while simultaneously debugging and excising problematic code in ever-faster iterations.

        The code is in fact being expanded upon, debugged and cleaned up so quickly that to the untrained and the weak-minded, it looks like a rewrite from scratch.

        I understand the sentiment of “tech created this problem, tech must solve it”. Given the current stalled progress of technology, it is very hard to have faith in technology to resolve the problem itself.

        Even implementing such a solution would be scary, as accelerating the rate of change would mean that there are people who will be unable to keep up, and are thus left behind.

        • jim says:

          Repeating: Major rewrites are always disastrous, and social tech, unlike software, requires centuries to test and debug. Hence we need the communion of saints.

          Refactoring works. You identify modules that can be rewritten without impact on the rest, the smaller and more localized the module the better, set up a test frame to detect any impact on the rest, and rewrite one module at a time with continuous monitoring to make sure the module rewrite does not impact the rest. The first goal of such a rewrite should be modularization to make further rewrites easier and module boundaries easier to recognize. This can in time get you a total rewrite without disaster. But because of the very long test cycle for social technology, a total rewrite will take a very long time. You will find your module rewrite surprisingly constrained by surprise impacts on other modules, but you don’t then cut loose and start rewriting them simultaneously.

          • Alrenous says:

            Software engineering is kind of difficult. Sociology is hilariously easy. Intended results occur on the first try with shocking frequency. Most ‘disasters’ in the sociology arena are in fact intended. E.g. Prussian school is supposed to make you stupid and childish. Civil rights is supposed to destroy the black family. Divorce law is supposed to destroy the white family. Etc.

            • jim says:

              > Intended results occur on the first try with shocking frequency.

              We are inherently better at people than we are at computers, but I am pretty sure that peer review was not consciously intended, or consciously expected, to destroy science and the scientific method, though in retrospect, its failure mode is obvious. Similarly it is not obvious, or even easy to explain, why open source projects die when they adopt a code of conduct – you can figure out in retrospect that it was going to kill the project, and how and why it was going to kill the project, when you see things like Linus being purged, but on the face of it, when a code of conduct is proposed, it is not obvious that it is going to lead to disaster.

              Similarly, the intended results of socialism always differ wildly from the actual results. One of the reasons Pol Potism worked out so badly was that Pol Pot was, in a sense, genuinely saintly, and this impressed everyone around him. Surely no bad results would ensue from saints in power.</sarcasm>

              • Alrenous says:

                Peer review was intended to bring science under State control, and they were indifferent to its effect on science quality. As per the control freak personality profile. And this has in fact occurred. Science the DNC likes continues to publish without any harassment at all.

                Have you personally experienced peer review? I’ve read some first hand. How it works is they issue a scalding indictment, and then it publishes anyway unless the editor feels it is Outgroup and needs an excuse.

                Codes of conduct are exactly the same. The point is to bring the project under the control of, specifically, someone who could never have made it themselves. (Or they would do so instead of seizing someone else’s. Similarly you can tell peer review was intended as State control because it immediately followed nationalization.) With no regard as to the continued quality of the project, as per the control freak personality profile.

                Codes of conduct are worded to target specific individuals: anyone who might challenge the new owner for control. Naturally these will be the most prestigious contributors, and due to the nature of pre-CoC open source, these will be the most prodigious contributors, and purging them has the obvious result. In medieval court intrigue, this behaviour is so well known it makes it into popular novels related to the period.

                Certainly this isn’t obvious to your rank-and-file programmer, because they are peasants. They have thought a great deal about bits, and are complete beginners at sociology. However, even for them, it feels weird and skeevy for random nobodies to propose a complete overhaul of the project’s governance. However, they’ve been taught to ignore their instincts by journalists, their school, and frequently their parents. On top of this, the CoC is very obviously what They say you’re supposed to agree with.

                In both cases, there is always the possibility of rolling back the change. Even if you can’t see what will happen (and they can, that’s why it happens) you can see after it’s happened and return to the last known working state, as software engineers do all the time. This never happens, because as far as the new masters are concerned, the current state IS working.

                Even if for some reason one project or another can’t roll back even though the new masters want to, they won’t try it on the next project. People give up on things that don’t work. CoCs continue to proliferate because they’re working as intended.

                Of course they would prefer for science and Linux to continue to work as they did previously, as long as it’s under State control, but since the two are incompatible, they prioritize the latter.

                Similarly, the intended results of socialism always differ wildly from the actual results.

                Can’t agree.
                Lenin thought communism would put Lenin in power. Stalin thought Communism would keep Stalin in power. They weren’t wrong.

                Pol Pot may have struck people around him as saintly, but that was obviously false. Monkeys are stupid, go figure. When regular folk find out they need to kill large numbers of people, they choose to find another way. Even if he were merely highly sadistic, gulags were already a thing. Could have used those.

                What Pol Pot most likely wanted was an excuse to kill large numbers of people. He was probably ecstatic to have found it.

                The Khmer Rouge leadership boasted over the state-controlled radio that only one or two million people were needed to build the new agrarian socialist utopia. As for the others, as their proverb put it: “To keep you is no benefit, to destroy you is no loss”

                Doesn’t this sound like icycalm/orgyofthewill to you? The difference being that icy frankly admits to his plan of slaughter, while Pol Pot still had the necessity of being (a little) discreet.

                You can tell it did work out for him, because he continued to pursue it.

                “Pol Pot ordered the execution of his lifelong right-hand man, Son Sen, on 10 June 1997 for attempting to make a settlement with the government. Eleven members of Son Sen’s family were also killed, although Pol Pot later denied that he had ordered this.”

                Pol Pot just liked the killin’. Revealed preferences and all that.

                Of course Pol Pot would have liked to have maintained power long enough to reduce Cambodia’s population by 3/4, but he wasn’t willing to give up the killin’ long enough to consolidate his power. You can also see his lust for killin’ in the war with Vietnam, although this comment is already far too long.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “Pol Pot just liked the killin’. Revealed preferences and all that.”

                  Well he appeared saintly. Never is the devil more evil then when he appears as an angel of light.

                • jim says:

                  > Lenin thought communism would put Lenin in power. Stalin thought Communism would keep Stalin in power. They weren’t wrong.

                  Lenin was genuinely confused and puzzled when the economy went belly up. He eventually, and reluctantly, discovered unexpected consequences, and took appropriate action – half assed and inadequate appropriate action, revealing poor understanding and reluctance to believe.

                  Pol Pot, on the other hand, refused to notice unintended consquences, and when, reluctantly and belatedly, they were forced to his attention, he blamed an evil conspiracy of capitalist roaders and CIA agents, and proceeded to murder the entire Khmer Rouge elite, sawing off the branch on which he sat.

                • jim says:

                  > What Pol Pot most likely wanted was an excuse to kill large numbers of people. He was probably ecstatic to have found it.

                  Nuts.

                  If he just liked killing, would have focused on killing powerless people whom he did not need, instead of torturing to death the Khmer Rouge elite on whom he depended, sawing off the branch on which he sat.

                  If he just liked power and killing, would have built a golden palace to house an enormous harem, and when he was physically unable to deflower any more virgins, would have tortured and snuffed a few – a comparatively harmless recreation, unlikely to have a large harmful impact on Cambodia.

                  Instead, he lived like a monk. His saintliness was in a sense genuine. His revealed preference was an unshakable faith that socialism would be wonderfully effective economically, and when it was disastrous economically, he concluded it was beset by enemies, and took ever more extreme measures, and ever more disastrous measures, to get rid of these enemies. His revealed preference was a desire to make socialism work as advertised.

                • Koanic says:

                  > would have tortured and snuffed a few

                  Pour encourager les autres! Harem + serial killer game, for the refined despot.

                • Alrenous says:

                  He sawed off the branch on which he sat when he started a war with Vietnam.

                  He killed the people near him precisely because he liked killin’. He would have had to resist the urge to kill them every day, because that’s who he saw every day. When he obtained an excuse, the urge became unendurable, and he didn’t endure it.

                  It’s like claiming the so-called sex addict would have confined themselves to prostitutes. They’re going to try to bang all their lieutenant’s wives, because that’s the pussy they see.

                  Just like the philanderer is aware their behaviour probably isn’t super prudent, Pol Pot was aware that killing everybody might not work out well for him. But as far as both are concerned, the short-term benefits are worth the long-term risk. Considering that he continued long after he had fallen from any significant power suggests that Pol Pot was correct: it was indeed the correct choice. Life just isn’t worth living, for Sâr, if you can’t kill people.

                  Whether Lenin understood economics or not, he wouldn’t have been able to wander far from Communism because his power rested on it. For example, significant deviance would form a Schelling point for his inner council to hinge a rebellion on.

                  Lenin obviously didn’t sincerely believe because one of the first people he would have had to condemn was bourgeois university graduates such as himself.

                  When Communist theory failed to explain military matters to Lenin, he turned over administration of war to career generals. When Communist theory failed to explain…well, whatever you’re referring to…he didn’t turn over administration of the economy to former nobles or to economists, but maintained his own grip. The war was important to him. Suffering kulaks were not important – more likely, it was a bonus to him.

                • jim says:

                  > He sawed off the branch on which he sat when he started a war with Vietnam.

                  Pol Pot did not start the war with Vietnam. That is history written by the winners. Vietnam invaded because of weakness, to remedy disaster, desire for a saner neighbor, and ethnic solidarity with ethnic Vietnamese in Cambodia.

                  Before Vietnam invaded, he had wiped out the entire leadership of the Khmer Rouge and almost all of the original Khmer Rouge.

                • alf says:

                  Pol Pot is a nice example because he seems like a very ‘pure’ leftist.

                  Leftism is knocking over the apple carts to steal apples. But, the leftist should not *really* know what he is doing, for if he did, how could he amass enough social capital for his plans? The leftist needs at some level to lie about his intentions, otherwise he is unpersuasive.

                  So, the leftist imitates a rightist: he pretends to work towards a better future, a glorious Cambodia, and he believes this is what motivates him. Of course his actions betray the opposite, betray that Pol Pot was very active in knocking over as many apple carts as possible, starting with the forced evacuation of the capital, ending with the mass execution of his entire party.

                  Humans are like machines in this way: programmed to do a certain thing, but likely completely unaware of the intent of their programming.

                • jim says:

                  > Leftism is knocking over the apple carts to steal apples. But, the leftist should not *really* know what he is doing, for if he did, how could he amass enough social capital for his plans?

                  Observed behavior: Smash anything standing upright in the expectation that some apples will start rolling.

                  Sincerely held belief: Build a glorious future. The more wicked and destructive the deeds, the nobler the objectives for which the deeds are carried out.

                  The more the deeds destroy, the greater the leftist’s belief that he is creating. Hence socialism.

                  American war socialism worked because they were aware that it was a short term smash and grab program to deal with a temporary emergency. British and German war socialism less successful, because of greater levels of delusion.

                • Alrenous says:

                  “In May 1975, a squad of Khmer Rouge soldiers raided and took the island of Phú Quốc.”

                  “On 30 April [1977], the Cambodian army, backed by artillery, crossed over into Vietnam. In attempting to explain Pol Pot’s behavior, one region-watcher suggested that Cambodia was attempting to intimidate Vietnam by irrational acts into respecting or at least fearing Cambodia to the point they would leave the country alone.”

                  You dispute these events?

                  (If not: since we know that Pol Pot killed people who did something he didn’t like, we can tell these are intentional because he didn’t apologize to Vietnam by sending them the heads of the offending platoons.)

                • jim says:

                  Vietnam had been engaging in probing incursions into Cambodia for some time. It was obvious that they were considering invasion, and likely to invade.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Leftism is knocking over the apple carts to steal apples. But, the leftist should not *really* know what he is doing, for if he did, how could he amass enough social capital for his plans? The leftist needs at some level to lie about his intentions, otherwise he is unpersuasive.”

                Mao very much understood the real nature of leftism he was just consciously evil if you will.

                • alf says:

                  Mao very much understood the real nature of leftism he was just consciously evil if you will.

                  Not my impression. In Li Zhisui’s book on Mao, Mao was interested in conversations with Li on Marxism and communism. Mao was genuinely interested in learning about leftism, it was not as if he had already made up his mind.

                  Mao was less a leftist than Pol Pot, but more than Stalin, in that Mao’s policies were more destructive than Stalin, but less so than Pol Pot. Unadulterated leftism inevitably leads to sawing off the branch upon which you sit, which Pol Pot did, but Mao had enough common sense as not to do that. Yes he knocked over the entire steel industry, but he did not knock over his own throne.

                  Again, was Mao aware of what he was doing? I say no, I say his neural wiring has vested interest in him NOT knowing what he is doing, for otherwise he would not have the moral conviction to sway those he needed to sway.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Stalin and the other top Russians when they met with Mao found out that he never read Das Kapital and had no real interested or knowledge of actual Marxist ideology. Supposedly Mao first became interested in the communists (after initially opposing them because he thought egalitarian ideals as farcical and stupid as we all do) when he learned that being a communist bandit er “revolutionary” leader basically meant killing raping pillaging and burning as you like while having a romanticized image.

                  I say that Mao knew all along… he was just https://i.imgur.com/U0F0vK4.jpg

                • Alrenous says:

                  The Chinese just aren’t as good at hypocrisy as Hajnal Europoids. Either they sincerely believe or their pretenses are paper thin.

                  I mean, prostitutes at weddings. Come on.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Jim’s reaction proposal, sounds very much like performing a “software rollback” to the “last stable productive version”, which Jim identified as 1660 to 1810 Charles the Second era, and to attempt to move forward from there, espousing more vigilance to prevent the same problems in history from recurring.

      Not vigilance but that the forces that dismantled the old order aren’t there any more.

      American power was rapidly growing and was in the hands of anti-monarchy ideological zealots. Mass conscription and industrial production took over the battlefield from a warrior elite. A particular king was weak in a particular way – which will be part of the curriculum of future kings (ok, that chance is always there so does have to guarded against).

      • vxxc says:

        I don’t know if we have a warrior elite but we do have a warrior class.
        Same families, same groups.
        Same families as cops.

        Volunteers only bought out the warriors.

        Before tactics vs strategy starts we don’t control strategy.
        Expert idiots do. Really.
        Look at the surge. That was AEI who blest it, not Petreaus.
        He just sold it as academic warfare and then we killed our way out of it.
        Then experts gave away the gains.
        Which had already happened twice BTW.
        We had won in 03 and expert Bremer blew it up.
        Then we had won again by 05.
        Held an election.
        Retreated to bases cuz democracy and so gave away gains, insurgents came back and it blew up again 06.
        07 surge.

        Wait a little it will return.
        They reset fast here.

        But thats expertise for you.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          This, to me, is the crux of the issue. The warfighter is pretty much a modular, thus swappable, piece of the machinery. To test this hypothesis, counterfactually, just put gooks in GI gear, or Nazis in Shermans. Does the outcome change? Maybe in certain situations, or even campaigns, but to a degree that doesn’t matter. The NLF (VC in boomerese) was utterly smashed between Tet (their Waterloo) and 1970. They “won” because Congress stopped the arms shipments and funding to The South. Likewise, it was the Command Decision to keep ~80,000 eightyeights in and around Berlin instead of sending them East where they were needed (German tanks had a total war averge of 1:12 per tank vs. Russia) because of the Command Decision to start bombing cities after the Blitz failed because of a Command Decision to fight an attritional air war because of the Command Decision to press the gain after the Glorious 8 week war that was a fluke due to regional commanders floughting Command Decisions. Worshipping superior technology has many benefits, but putting the warfighter on a pedestal serves only to salve grievous losses on the home front, as well as retroactively moralize a war.

          Command Decisions are the absolute key to winning wars.

          • vxxc says:

            I can’t really disagree that Command Decisions win or lose wars.

            I do disagree that warfighters are swappable, if that’s what you meant.
            The quality of the soldiers and units are vital.

            Now mind you can train a soldier in a few months to a year [longer is better] and build units in about the same time…if…IF you forget that it takes 16-18 years to ‘construct’ that soldier – and men are not unlimited.

            That Berlin lost the war for their armies is quite true.

            Mind you taking on the worlds 3 largest powers in manpower and industrial power – the UK, USSR and USA at the same time was quite the long shot to begin. Even if the Germans were taking out 12 tanks for every one they lost the Russians had more, the Americans had more, even England had more and not just tanks but everything.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              I used to feel the same about warfighters/soldiers, but of late i am skeptical. I have come to accept Jim’s assertion that countries who tolerate or endorse pride parades can’t win wars. This is a point in your favor; these countries are turning out dross in terms of raw recruits and there is only so much you can polish a turd. At the same time, we have yet to see a modern (post-1945) military get turned loose in a war zone, free from political or social constraints. Without evidence, we are stuck with conjecture. And in that world, i maintain that the warfighter is swappable, but i will add the caveat that SOF defies this assertion.

              On the topic of Special Operators, i feel that though they are immensely impressive in terms of capability in the short run, they are almost worthless in an actual war for a few reasons: the mortality rate is immense, the requisite training just to get a tier 3 operator rolling is long and hellishly expensive, and, most damning, they give politicians the illusion of a scalpel, as opposed to a hammer or a spear.

              The last one is critical. Anyone who has spent any time remotely near an actual military operation, and isn’t female, gay or low IQ, has experienced the “echelon.” Rearward lies immense amounts of logistical supply and personnel, forward is a relatively small amount of men and armor. Force projection in between the two scales proportional to distance and risk. Projecting force from a military base into hinterland is limited to about 150 miles (average range of a helo), and that is if everything goes swimmingly. FOBs and OPs can supplement this but the expand risk face, sometimes dramatically and with no tangible benefit (Korengal Valley is a pretty good example).

              I know you know all this, and probably better, but many people think SEALs hop on a C130, fly to Abottobad, and make tomahawks relevant again before flying home. The ass required to put 12 headhunters in the AO is immense and the chain can fail anywhere along the way. The links in that chain are fast becoming black single moms, illegal aliens, and Antwons who are only in the service to git gud so they can pop caps like the white man. I go to school with a fair amount of vets, active duty, reservists, and potentials. All the combat vets are white, bitter, and frankly cucked. All the reservists are foreigners and mostly female or effeminate. The active duties are dindus. The potentials are all Dreamers.

              The interesting experiment will be seeing battle hardened JR and SR grade officers commanding the societal dross + technological superiority against a highly motivated but ill equipped Han ethnostate.

              • jim says:

                The ratio of logistics to soldiers in unreasonable. Ten logistics men for every fighting man is plausible. Our current ratio is immensely higher than that. The problem is that following the Crimean war, the priesthood set about devaluing fighting men by giving logistics solder’s uniforms and military honors, which resulted in everyone finding reason for more logistics and fewer fighting men.

                Notice that our enemies do not have anything like the ratio that we have, and they do OK.

                The proposition that the Han ethnostate will be ill equipped is deluded. They are rapidly approaching technological parity, and I expect them soon to have technological superiority. They are working on quantum radar, which can see through stealth. We are not. They have built a network of islands, which function as unsinkable aircraft carriers, and it will be soon revealed that such of our aircraft carriers as avoid running into each due to incompetent affirmative action officers, and are not permanently laid up in port as Democrat brothels and vote banks, are entirely sinkable.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I think the HEs will be ill equipped in terms of quantity of quality, not quality in isolation. They just have so many men they have to kit out. What is more, they have an ocean to cross to put nails in our coffin. Nonetheless, quantity has a quality all its own.

                  Your point about aircraft carriers is sound from my perspective. If it comes to a shooting war between coequal belligerents it is going to be the equivalent of an ice bath for 5eyes forces.

                  Without going any further into detail, there are elements in the US working on quantum radar as well as a host of detection capabilities, but it isn’t the USG, that’s for sure.

                  US culture needs a wake up call, and the military is the only entity that can do that. US military needs a wake up call, and only a real shooting war can do that. Shooting Wars have been in hibernation since 1945, and only an ascendant nation with hegemonic potential could awaken that beast IMO.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                I used to feel the same about warfighters/soldiers, but of late i am skeptical. I have come to accept Jim’s assertion that countries who tolerate or endorse pride parades can’t win wars. This is a point in your favor; these countries are turning out dross in terms of raw recruits and there is only so much you can polish a turd.

                Men find gays disgusting on a instinctive level.

                If your country tolerates pride parades it means that it has virtual signaling priests with enough power to force men to put up with disgusting displays that aim to take control of public spaces. If priests have enough power to do that they have enough power to ensure that your military isn’t effective either.

                • Dave says:

                  “Men find gays disgusting on a instinctive level.”

                  Our male sexual instinct is extremelystrong, but our anti-homo instinct must be even stronger, or we’d all forget about women and fuck each other instead.

                  Straight men will always find gays disgusting because that’s the only thing keeping us straight.

  20. Zach says:

    Vox Day has given his IQ on his blog. Fact. I’ll look for it tomorrow. I think it was 151? It’s in the post giving IQs to famous people from old SAT scores. Rush Limbaugh was higher than Vox.

    • jim says:

      I will be impressed if he got 151 on a Mensa controlled IQ test. Considerably less impressed by results inferred from PSAT or somesuch. Tests related to university entrance are corrupt and have been getting more corrupt, and the higher the status of the connected academy, the more they are corrupt. Historically black academies are, strangely, less corrupt, though logically one would expect the reverse.

      • Hal says:

        Speaking of Vox, he just put up a post endorsing socialism as a way of stopping usury. That boy is going full national socialist.

      • Koanic says:

        It was not an inference, it was a real IQ test.

      • Zach says:

        Here:

        https://voxday.blogspot.com/2014/08/the-definitive-iq-list.html

        He claims it was 151. I claim it’s not 151, even though I don’t care. He probably crammed any and all IQ tests then grabbed the biggest number ever and made it official.

        • Zach says:

          Similarly, Jordan Peterson put his at 140-something. I’m pretty sure it was the low 140s going from memory. I got this from a podcast he did.

          IMO IQ tests do a horrible job of filtering genius after 130 or so. And I’m not talking about the technical definition of genius.

          • pdimov says:

            Normal IQ tests are accurate for normal people and noisy for over 2SD. Over 130, you have to take a test for gifted if you want a reliable result.

          • St. Mandela II says:

            Peterson claims verbal IQ of low 150s. I endorse this rating. There’s a lot going on there, even though it’s mostly talmudic bullshit.

            • ten says:

              Way more ready to believe Peterson has 150~ iq than vox day (but not really. I know a few very high iq people. They are consistently sharper and quicker than Peterson in all regards). Perhaps vox’s insecurity makes him seem stupid in his dorkstreams. Masturbatory unsubstantial droning.

              • St. Mandela II says:

                Peterson is elite jewish, so he probably has a 20 point verbal skew.

                I haven’t detected anything useful in Vox. If he has interesting ideas, he doesn’t put them on his blog. His videos suck. Jordanetics is accurate but written in toddler English. Fuck me if I’m going to probe any deeper.

                • pdimov says:

                  I harbor strong suspicions that the Jewish verbal IQ skew is a myth, as is the concept of verbal IQ itself.

                  What’s called “verbal IQ” was probably the low-hanging fruit explaining the Flynn effect.

        • alf says:

          Hillary at 140+, Feynman at 123, and the creator of the list puts himself at 151.

          Skeptical alf is skeptical.

      • aswaes says:

        It’s suspicious that Vox Day never clearly states
        (1) when he took the IQ test
        (2) which IQ test he took
        (3) what was his specific score measured by the specific IQ test

        I’ve seen him mention his Mensa membership (≥132 IQ). I’ve seen him brag about being a National Merit Finalist (top 15000 out of 1.5m as per la Wik, so 1 in 100, so ~≥IQ135). But I’ve never seen him clearly state a specific result from a specific IQ test. The fact that he feels the need to resort to his National Merit Finalist status indicates that he doesn’t have a better credential. Which makes intuitive sense to me. I’d peg him at around 135 IQ based on his writings.

        Also, in the same thread linked above, his discussion of Richard Feynman’s IQ demonstrates a lack of understanding as to what a ≥3 sigma entails. Note that Richard Feynman received the highest score by a large margin on the Putnam exam. I’ve hanged around IMO medalists, and Putnam participants. I enjoy attempting to solve IMO & Putnam type math problems. If you believe a 125IQ can achieve top rank in an IMO or Putnam type exam, you simply have no idea what actual ultra high intelligence entails.

        • pdimov says:

          This is his discussion of UHIQ: https://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-iq-delta.html

          As I said above, this rings true to me.

        • Koanic says:

          Vox is bad at visuospatial, which likely explains the Feynman failure. The rest of your analysis is garbage.

        • jim says:

          Yes, inability to understand actual high IQ people reveals a ceiling on Vox Day’s IQ.

          • Koanic says:

            False premise. People with high IQ scores due to verbal tilt are by definition actual high IQ people. Words mean things.

            #+begin_quote
            8. VD August 07, 2014 9:20 AM

            > That source must be screwed up because Feynman was a genius.

            It’s not. The source is his sister, who saw his IQ test results. You’re confusing IQ with genius. The latter is much more important. You will note that I have ALWAYS opposed the equation of IQ with genius. I have a high IQ. I am not a genius.

            9. VD August 07, 2014 9:21 AM

            > Never would have expected that, given his writing style.

            His success is not an accident. And he has a very inquisitive mind. It’s a little higher than I would have pegged him for, but not much. I figured he was right around the sub-Mensa 130 level.

            96. VD August 07, 2014 11:19 AM

            > Richard Feynman won the Putnam by the highest margin ever, and was the greatest American physicist of the 20th century. While he made a lot of jokes about his IQ, it was certainly north of 150 and more likely 170+.

            You’re absolutely wrong. We know for a fact what his IQ was. In fact, his sister’s IQ was only one point higher, at 124. Don’t fetishize IQ. Feynman is evidence of the fact that IQ is not genius.

            I have no doubt that he wasn’t actually all that smart, having read some of his books. He commits major logical howlers on page after page. I could absolutely demolish him in a debate about nearly anything but math and physics. But his mind was exceedingly well shaped for grasping those subjects, which is not the same thing as intelligence.

            Look, it’s no different than writing. There are some people who have a talent for prose. They write beautiful grocery lists. That doesn’t mean they are smart. And being smart doesn’t mean you can write in a beautiful manner. My writing is evidence of that.

            103. VD August 07, 2014 11:25 AM

            > Feynman 123? I don’t believe it sorry

            PROBING THE MIND OF RICHARD FEYNMAN: A CASE STUDY OF GENIUS

            One of the longest running experiments on intelligence, however, suggests that true giftedness may depend equally as much on other factors like creativity and motivation. Since 1921, psychologists have studied a group of approximately 1500 children with an average IQ score of about 150 that were originally selected by Lewis Terman. The members of this group, known as the Termites, all grew up to be highly successful and productive, but not one of them achieved genius-level contributions. Genius seems to elude the best efforts of psychologists to capture its essence in a standardized test. If intelligence quotient scores alone could predict genius, then Feynman would be a curious anomaly. Feynman’s younger sister Joan, also a physicist, once said that “[Richard] had a normal IQ. When I was a kid, I sneaked off and got into the files and looked up our IQ’s. Mine was 124, and his was 123. So I was actually smarter than he was!” Feynman himself refused to accept the notion that his success came from being smarter than other people, instead citing his habit of solving problems in his head. Feynman once told the wife of a friend who suggested that he apply to MENSA, an organization whose members must have IQ’s of 150 or more, that he could not join because his intelligence scores from high school were not high enough.

            How many times do I have to tell you? Don’t fetishize IQ. Genius is much more rare than high IQ.

            104. VD August 07, 2014 11:29 AM

            > I am just pointing out the limits of the system you are creating.

            It’s not even a system. It is a simple heuristic flawed by incomplete information. On the other hand, it does prevent the vast hordes of idiots from claiming that Bill Clinton had a 187 IQ and Obama has a 1200 IQ because both of them would have taken the SAT based on where they went to college and neither of them were National Merit.

            113. VD August 07, 2014 11:42 AM

            > Perhaps Feynman was a freak, but a childhood IQ test, reported by his sister, does not at all establish that his adult IQ was not extremely high, especially for a boy.

            It most certainly does. Your IQ doesn’t magically change.

            > Stephen Hsu’s analysis of scientific prize winners (STEM sciences) shows that a great majority are 3+SD above average, and quite a few 4+SD, which would be 160+.

            Totally irrelevant. Your argument does not testify well concerning your own intelligence. Look, I know four kids in a very elite math program. The top kid is off-the-charts in terms of IQ and performance. The second kid is very smart. Then there are two kids who are otherwise normally intelligent, but have what the professors call “math minds”. They outperform the second kid regularly, and even occasionally outperform the first kid… on the math tests. But they are very clearly not as smart as either of the two kids otherwise.

            Hell, if all IQ tested was spatial relations, I’d be retarded. Literally. Feynman had a unique mind, but he wasn’t across the spectrum brililant. All you have to do is read his books to realize that. And 123 is hardly an idiot; it’s still in the top 6 percent of the population.
            #+end_quote

            https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-fact-that-Richard-Feynman-scored-an-IQ-of-124-and-yet-became-such-a-leading-physicist-coincide-with-our-understanding-and-perspective-on-the-IQ-test

            Relevant points:

            > The Putnam test was not timed.

            > Feynman’s IQ was likely understated by the test, due to his visuospatial tilt hitting the test’s ceiling.

            https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/finding-the-next-einstein/201112/polymath-physicist-richard-feynmans-low-iq-and-finding-another

            > Feynman received the highest score in the country by a large margin on the notoriously difficult Putnam mathematics competition exam, although he joined the MIT team on short notice and did not prepare for the test. He also reportedly had the highest scores on record on the math/physics graduate admission exams at Princeton.

            IIRC from the biography Feynman was preparing his whole life for the mathematics exam by creating lots of math shortcuts for fun. It was his style of doing things, as his lockpicking activities demonstrate.

            Feynman is beloved primarily for his simplicity of explanation. But he was not a complex verbal thinker who learned to brilliantly distill his insights into parables. He was just a simple verbal thinker with a vast visuospatial reservoir of content to express, and a culturally-unique (to Americans) pragmatic Jewish perspective.

            In my view, the largest reason to doubt Feynman’s test, besides the ceiling-tilt point, is that it was a childhood IQ, which is more malleable than adult IQ. I don’t know why Vox apparently denies this.

            https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1159719

            #+begin_quote
            gwern on Apr 8, 2010 [-]

            Gleick’s bio actually puts it at 125. There are a couple reasons to not care about this factoid:
            – Feynman was younger than 15 when he took it, and very near this factoid in Gleick’s bio, he recounts Feynman asking about very basic algebra (2^x=4) and wondering why anything found it hard – the IQ is mentioned immediately before the section on ‘grammar school’, or middle school, implying that the ‘school IQ test’ was done well before he entered high school, putting him at much younger than 15. (15 is important because Feynman had mastered calculus by age 15, Gleick says, so he wouldn’t be asking his father why algebra is useful at age >15.) – Given that Feynman was born in 1918, this implies the IQ test was done around 1930 or earlier. Given that it was done by the New York City school district, this implies also that it was one of the ‘ratio’ based IQ tests – utterly outdated and incorrect by modern standards. – Finally, it’s well known that IQ tests are very unreliable in childhood; kids can easily bounce around compared to their stable adult scores.
            So, it was a bad test, which even under ideal circumstances is unreliable & prone to error, and administered in a mass fashion and likely not by a genuine psychometrician.
            As the saying goes, the plural of anecdote is not data, and this isn’t even a very good anecdote. (I charitably assume that Feynman isn’t joking here about the score; Gleick gives no source.)
            #+end_quote

            What some of you fail to understand is that if Vox is visuospatially retarded, he is verbally transcendant. Visuospatially tilted thinkers have no clue what that means, but I’ll give you a hint: it starts at reading and comprehending faster than you imagine humanly possible, then easily performing manipulations on the resulting huge database of knowledge. See John C. Wright for an even more extreme example of verbal tilt. As someone who is verbally tilted myself, I can assure you that Vox unmistakeably exhibits extreme signs of this mode of intelligence.

            • jim says:

              > As someone who is verbally tilted myself, I can assure you that Vox unmistakeably exhibits extreme signs of this mode of intelligence.

              As someone who is massively tilted in the nonverbal direction, it is possible that I failed to detect Vox’s mode of intelligence.

            • Alrenous says:

              The idea that Feynman genuinely had a sub-130 IQ is absurd.

              Even if we posit that it was from averaging an extreme verbal and spatial disparity, then he would be unable to write engagingly. He bombed the test, either deliberately or due to Asperger’s syndrome.

              Here one sees at work how the Aspergoid condition depresses psychometric intelligence when tests are conducted objectively and in the standardized way (so, in the only good way).

              Presumably there are other conditions that cause IQ results to be invalid, perhaps Feynman had one of those. We also can’t rule out a drug-related hangover.

              Vox’s IQ is in the 135-140 range. I would say he is around as smart as Nassim Taleb. This is obscured by the fact he lies a lot. As a student of rhetoric and as a natural salesman, he deeply understands that the truth and what plays well are distinct. What plays well will sound less intelligent than his real beliefs.

            • alf says:

              Seeing how iq has two parts, verbal and performal, and seeing how I am also tilted towards performal, yes, I might miss the verbal aspect.

              But IQ is the average of performal and verbal, and performally he does not impress me so much.

              It would also help a lot if he didn’t front as much as he does. Taleb-esque heuristic: If someone gives you daily reminders of how genius he is, probably not a genius.

              • Koanic says:

                Midwit thought is useless due to imprecision. Vox regularly denies being a genius.

                • alf says:

                  Vox regularly fronted about how special of a person he was.

                  He has toned it down a bit, I notice when scrolling through his recent posts. Only the excessively calling everyone a gamma is still over the top, but I get how that’s his trademark.

                • Koanic says:

                  He has not “toned it down” as if he cared about your Scandinavian norms. He has converted it into an official post and directed queries there, as he does with many issues.

                • alf says:

                  In the game Apex Legends, there is one character whose verbal IQ is markedly higher than the rest: Mirage. Guess his character archetype: the bamboozler.

                  High verbal IQ tends to translate to high social capital; people who are good with words are good with talking, good with people. But of course, this means high verbal IQ people are often leftists, liars or bamboozlers: the typical politician who tells you exactly what you want to hear and then proceeds to do the exact opposite.

                  Vox is obviously not a leftist. I consider him on our team. But I cannot make more of him than he is. People with high verbal IQ are logically inconsistent in their ideas in a way that irks performal IQ people. Vox tagging himself with a 151 IQ yet denying he is calling himself a genius is a typical example. It’s like, come on man, we all know what you’re doing.

                  The guy with the high verbal IQ makes the best first impression, but the guy with the high performal IQ makes the best last impression.

                • Koanic says:

                  More midwit nonsense from you as usual. Vox has a great respect for genius. He considers Eco and Wright and Feynman to be geniuses.

            • St. Mandela II says:

              As someone who is verbally tilted myself, I can assure you that Vox unmistakeably exhibits extreme signs of this mode of intelligence.

              I read as quickly as my eyes can move and I have a small handful of nines in memory, comprehension, and synthesis.

              If Vox is so great, show me the goods.

              • Koanic says:

                Intelligence and wisdom are two different things. I do not regard you as wise enough to be worth bothering to persuade.

                • St. Mandela II says:

                  I asked you for a link, numbnuts. Evidence is the best argument.

            • aswaes says:

              >> The Putnam test was not timed.

              Where do you get that? (thru a quick google search, I could confirm that the first Putnam was timed as usual)

              > Richard Feynman’s sister says:
              > Mine was 124, and his was 123. So I was actually smarter than he was!

              The obvious explanation here is that Richard’s envious sister lied, and Rich, confident in his manifest brilliance, humored her and everyone else.

              > IIRC from the biography Feynman was preparing his whole life for the mathematics exam by creating lots of math shortcuts for fun. It was his style of doing things, as his lock picking activities demonstrate.

              It’s not the type of competition you can dominate just by ‘preparing really really well for it’. This is not Jeopardy, nor the SAT. Just take a look at a list of Putnam fellows. This is what mathematically unsophisticated people don’t get. A very intelligent person (2 sigma) will never get a gold, or even a silver medal in IMO no matter how hard he studies. This is not a matter of training really hard.

              > he is verbally transcendant. Visuospatially tilted thinkers have no clue what that means, but I’ll give you a hint: it starts at reading and comprehending faster than you imagine humanly possible, then easily performing manipulations on the resulting huge database of knowledge.

              Look, signs of verbal giftedness are not hard to spot: Sam Harris (real time eloquence), Steven Pinker (eloquence), Jordan Peterson (eloquence), Moldbug, Nick Land. (Don’t get me wrong, the first three are either sophomoric thinkers or liars, but their verbal intelligence is undoubtedly off the charts). [As an aside VD recently estimated JBP’s IQ at 117, which again tells me that VD is bad at intuitively gauging people’s IQ, including, perhaps, his own.]

              VD’s vocabulary is unimpressive. VD’s speech pattern is unimpressive, choppy, and repetitive. His analyses (social commentary) are good, usually insightful, sometimes impressive. That said, reading, or listening to Gregory Cochran humbles me. Vox Day: not so much.

              > VD writes:
              > He [Richard Feynman] commits major logical howlers on page after page. I could absolutely demolish him in a debate about nearly anything but math and physics.

              No. Logic is not hard.

              • Koanic says:

                > Where do you get that?

                From the link directly above it.

                > The obvious explanation here is that Richard’s envious sister lied, and Rich, confident in his manifest brilliance, humored her and everyone else.

                Nuts. You have a weird sociosexuality.

                > It’s not the type of competition you can dominate just by ‘preparing really really well for it’. This is not Jeopardy, nor the SAT.

                Your quote is not what I said. Feynman’s recreational mathematics clearly prepared him for the Putnam, as described in his biography, “Surely You Must Be Joking, Mr. Feynman.” Your points are irrelevant.

                > Look, signs of verbal giftedness are not hard to spot:

                You conflate verbal IQ and eloquence. VD has always denied being eloquent.

                > VD’s vocabulary is unimpressive.

                False. He is multilingual.

                > VD’s speech pattern is unimpressive, choppy, and repetitive.

                Because he is thinking.

                > That said, reading, or listening to Gregory Cochran humbles me. Vox Day: not so much.

                Pride goeth before a fall.

                • aswaes says:

                  >> The Putnam test was not timed.
                  >Where do you get that?
                  >From the link directly above it.

                  Liar. There is no such information in the linked thread, and now I resent you for making me read all that staleness (I had ctrl+f’ed ‘time’, ‘putnam’ before asking).

                  > Nuts. You have a weird sociosexuality.

                  Little girls are prone to lie for reasons of sibling rivalry, or jealousy in general. It is the more plausible hypothesis in this case. Your personal attack is noted.

                  >Feynman’s recreational mathematics clearly prepared him for the Putnam

                  There’s nothing you can do to prepare to dominate Putnam if you’re sub130 (more like sub145) is the point. It’s not a matter of learning ‘tricks’. It’s not like getting good at solving Rubik’s cube. You don’t get this because you can’t tell what makes a math problem hard. Terry Tao didn’t win bronze at 10, gold at 12, just because ‘recreational mathematics prepared him’ for the occasion.

                  > You conflate verbal IQ and eloquence.
                  It is possible to have high IQ without being eloquent (stem types). But if you can neither demonstrate stem type competence, nor eloquence, then it is safe to say you’re not that special.

                  > He is multilingual.
                  I meant his English vocabulary. Being multilingual is not impressive. Average children do it.

                  >Because he is thinking
                  Again. You can be smart w/o eloquence. But if you’re spatially retarded while claiming an IQ of 151, you better be eloquent as fuck or I’m not buying it.

                • Koanic says:

                  > There is no such information in the linked thread

                  Speed-reading error, probably. I only included those summaries because Jim disliked it when I posted links without commentary. As it was a detail ultimately irrelevant to the question of Feynman’s IQ, which was concluded to be higher than the childhood estimate, I discarded the lead.

                  > Your personal attack is noted.

                  Your unnecessary parenthetical asides are noted as further evidence of sociosexual weirdness regarding women. I think Feynman had a lot more game than you do, and that you are unqualified to speculate on his behavior towards women.

                  > There’s nothing you can do to prepare to dominate Putnam if you’re sub130

                  I don’t care. It is irrelevant.

                  > It is possible to have high IQ without being eloquent (stem types). But if you can neither demonstrate stem type competence, nor eloquence, then it is safe to say you’re not that special.

                  Eloquence and high verbal IQ are not the same thing. Vox’s active English vocabulary is impressive, however, he communicates with the audience and purpose in mind. Try it.

                  > I meant his English vocabulary. Being multilingual is not impressive. Average children do it.

                  Vox’s English active vocabulary test result:
                  http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/07/wounded-gamma-loses-again.html

                  Active vocabulary is a proxy for verbal IQ, across all languages known. You are tedious and foolish. I do not wish to communicate with you any more.

                • pdimov says:

                  >There’s nothing you can do to prepare to dominate Putnam if you’re sub130 (more like sub145) is the point.

                  Yep. From reading about it,

                  “The examination is considered to be very difficult: it is typically attempted by students specializing in mathematics, but the median score is usually zero or one point out of 120 possible, and there have been only four perfect scores as of 2010.”

                  my prediction for someone of IQ 123 would be to have zero points, regardless of how many recreational math problems he’s solved.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Vox’s English active vocabulary test result:
                  http://voxday.blogspot.com/2016/07/wounded-gamma-loses-again.html

                  [30150]

                  FWIW, I just tried the same test, mine is 29754, and my English isn’t even that good.

                  >You are tedious and foolish.

                  He is actually neither. You haven’t spent any time doing math for recreation, and you haven’t participated in any math competitions, whereas aswaes probably did both. (I did, too.) He’s right about the Putnam. There’s absolutely no way for someone with IQ 123 to prepare himself for achieving a good result on it by solving math problems for fun. No way.

                • aswaes says:

                  > Here is a passive-aggressive insult about your socio-sexual status
                  > Ok noted
                  > Haha your unnecessary parenthetical is further proof of my insult. I hereby insult you again.

                  Ok gamma boy.

                  > he communicates with the audience and purpose in mind.
                  If he did demonstrate half a Moldbug level of word-smithing for once, that would be enough. Or show me a spark of unmistakeable brilliance. I have never seen it.

                  >active vocabulary test result:

                  Why is he resorting to
                  (1) an online test
                  (2) Mensa membership
                  (3) National Merit Finalist status
                  if he has an officially controlled score? It’s trivial to cast all doubt once and for all by publishing the result sheet obtained from wherever he was tested.

                  @pdimov
                  National team qualifiers?

                • jim says:

                  Mensa score resulting from a Mensa controlled test is a reliable indicator of IQ. If Vox Day tells us Mensa membership, but not Mensa score, then he barely scraped in to Mensa – which fits with my estimate of his IQ.

                  And, as always when criticizing Vox Day, I add that he has achieved great things, I am a huge admirer, and you should buy his books on Social Justice. But his fiction is purple pilled, and the heroes of his fiction are incurable betas.

                • jim says:

                  Richard Feynman was an obvious genius with an IQ too high to measure accurately. A smart person can sense his genius on reading his books, and if you cannot sense his genius, you are not a smart person. If he failed on a childhood IQ test, it was for being smarter than the writers of the test – a common problem for very smart people on IQ tests prepared by mundanes and calibrated to mundanes. No IQ test reliably measures genius, and most IQ tests do not reliably measure people above 135-140. College entrance tests are not a reliable indicator above about 115. Even the Mensa test tends to crap out at above 145 or 155. Its a good test for typical Mensa level IQ, but very high scores on the Mensa test reflect gaming the test, not IQ.

                • pdimov says:

                  >National team qualifiers?

                  IMO silver.

                • aswaes says:

                  > IMO silver

                  Wow. Congrats dude. Actually impressed. Didn’t occur to me to look you up on IMO. We used to extensively browse teams and people on IMO site, and gossip about people like Scholze (way before he got the Fields medal).

                • Koanic says:

                  > > Here is a passive-aggressive insult about your socio-sexual status

                  My insults are openly aggressive, not passive aggressive, you fool. It is beyond me how gammas like you engage in passive aggressive sniping and then call the overt, direct response “passive aggressive”. What do you need, caps lock?

                  > If Vox Day tells us Mensa membership, but not Mensa score, then he barely scraped in to Mensa – which fits with my estimate of his IQ.

                  No. Vox started putting the Mensa membership at the bottom of his WND column to stem the tide of stupid emails calling him low IQ. He put Mensa because people do not know what Triple 9 is.

                  I am now fully reminded of why I hate communicating with the visuospatially tilted. They completely lack an ability to hierarchically orient themselves inside a verbal argument. All they are doing is blathering about le STEM to measure each other’s rock grok, and projecting their personality onto everyone else they don’t understand.

                • jim says:

                  Given Vox Day’s claims, a Mensa score would be considerably more impressive – unless he only scraped in.

                • Koanic says:

                  I don’t understand your comment.

                  Why do you keep repeating that anyone who doesn’t recognize Feynman is a genius is dumb? Vox recognized that Feynman is a genius in the comments discussion beneath the IQ list post, which I quoted. It is irrelevant.

                  I’ve read that the lowest IQ genius was Victor Hugo. Genius != IQ.

                • ten says:

                  Why is it so important to back vox up?

                  As a person, he seems disingenuous. His arguments re Petersson are either stupid or dishonest, not to mention strangely obsessive and annoying. I trust my prejudice of mental capacity and character, and vox seems neither cognitively brilliant nor trustworthy.

                  I believe i am verbally tilted and so should not suffer from this supposed inability to appreciate verbal thinkers, and vox is nothing, his reasoning is nothing. I have spent many hours, days even, by now trying to find something about the guy that would change my mind and there has been not one single moment of brilliance, while the obvious errors are everywhere.

                  He is a bookworm with delusions of grandeur. Reading his description of a gamma, i was at first genuinely surprised that it wasn’t intended as a self description. The ridiculous masturbatory “sigma” mary sue, his alter ego, is just a gamma who evades a critical eye. Which is also his main difference with Peterson: Peterson does self criticism obsessively, reaches aquisition and projection of power as ultimate purpose through analysis of psychosocial relations through reproductive narratives.
                  Vox thinks vox is perfect, like an annoying bald child, and tries to project power into the world from the get go, gets confused and infuriated by complicating issues, does obviously not understand Petersons heroes Jung and Nietzsche. He thinks Peterson doesn’t make sense on the most basic bitch topics, and his understandings of Petersons inner workings are childishly stupid. E g, Peterson is asked if he believes in the literal resurrection of Christ, goes silent, declines to answer. Vox, not unlike an absolute retard, thinks this means Peterson never even considered the quesstion before. E g, vox repeatedly says that Peterson never read the bible before starting his bible series. This is a recurring statement, from a guy that wrote an entire book fighting Peterson. The internet is awash with clips of Peterson from before doing the Bible series discussing the same biblical stories, or discussing how he gained understanding of some of them upon reading them some 25 years ago, et cetera. So vox is either straight up lying, or wrote a book out of his ass, or has a very clouded mind, where once his absurd ideas gain foothold cannot leave.
                  He would need the same self criticism and -doubt he considers Peterson a pathological liar for subscribing to.

                  Now Peterson is absolutely controlled opposition, working for a “balance” between crystalline tradition and corruption creep from the Outside that can never be balanced and always accelerates towards destruction, and so is too antipathic to tradition and too enthusiastic about dissolution. But vox’s take on him shows beyond any doubt vox is dumb and dishonest.

                  Apparently he has accomplished impressive things, I fail to find them.

                • Dox Gay says:

                  How to pull off a Vox Day:

                  1. Attach yourself to popular e-communities while subverting their leadership hierarchies and misconstruing their ideas;

                  2. Claim credit for the successes of people who never heard about you, and while at it, crown yourself their leader;

                  3. Make a whole lot of SENSELESS NOISE — aka the retard’s marketeering strategy — about things you scarcely understand;

                  4. Sabotage your potential allies whenever they might steal your thunder, but make sure to blame them for being “compromised”;

                  5. Pretend that your verbal IQ is 15 points higher than it actually is (a common goonlord tactic) while spouting very mediocre stuff;

                  6. ???????

                  7. Congratulations, now fellow neckbeards (literal/figurative) worship your every brain fart.

                • aswaes says:

                  I disavow the last two comments from user Ten and DG. It is unfair to say Vox Day is “dumb and dishonest.” He’s not. He is impressive in his core competence. What he does has the potential to dwarf everything else the current dissident right does. I admire his resilience, his fighting spirit, his loyalty to his in-group, and his work ethic.

                  (1) Infogalactic (huge potential, extremely important)
                  (2) Dissident tv
                  (3) Castalia house. Publishes geniuses like Martin van Creveld
                  (4) Venture into comic books publishing from scratch
                  (5) Authoring one of the most important political books of the last decade (SJWs Always Lie)
                  (6) Conducting lawfare against IGG (which has large positive externalities for the entire dissident eco-system)
                  (7) Causing massive grief to SJWs

                  I like 99% of what VD does. Dunning-Kruger Effect implies that whenever someone that doesn’t sound remarkably sharper than us claims to be so, we need to diligently check to see if we’re being victims of D-K effect. If the person’s claims of extraordinary brilliance checks out, then we must afford special respect to every utterance of said person, no matter how stupid they may sound. It’s a question of filtering: tuning out cranks, and tuning into our superior’s broadcasts.

                  That’s why I paid extra attention to VD’s IQ claims. My own conclusion, for reasons laid out in this thread is that he’s significantly exaggerating his IQ for reasons of persuasion.

                  A final note. I think his socio-sexual categories alpha-bravo-delta-gamma reflect reality to a useful approximation (not so sure about sigma). Gamma: A man who’s in denial about his low socio-sexual status and instinctually tries to take down higher-ups whom he resents, aka, a secret king. It’s unfortunate that VD’s gamma followers (exhibited by K*anic in this comments section) will shit on it by projecting, misusing, and overusing until it is just another unrecognizably disfigured term of abuse.

                • Koanic says:

                  > aka, a secret king. It’s unfortunate that VD’s gamma followers (exhibited by K*anic in this comments section

                  See, that’s passive aggressive. It’s passive because you’re attempting to avoid confrontation by not spelling my name.

                  Your theory of Feynman’s behavior regarding his sister and his IQ score was actual secret king projection, revealing your gamma streak.

                  Unlike Vox, I am perfectly sympathetic to neuro-diversity and how some legitimate phenotypes don’t get a fair shake in mass culture. But words mean things, and your mass culture rank is what it is.

                  Neuro diversity is a legitimate reason to be incapable of understanding Vox. But it also means you’re likely incapable of understanding the majority, because Vox is not that far separated from them, except by IQ. And you should have noticed that fact by reaching adulthood.

                • aswaes says:

                  >you’re attempting to avoid confrontation by not spelling my name.
                  Ok walk me through this K*oanic. How am I avoiding confrontation when I contemptuously bleep out your name, to your virtual face?

                  >you’re attempting to avoid confrontation
                  Projected K*oanic shortly after writing:
                  >I do not wish to communicate with you any more.

                  >actual secret king projection
                  Meh. People sometimes humor children. It’s an actual, observable behavior. Was Feynman humoring others when he deprecated his own IQ based on hearsay, or did he actually believe he had an IQ of 123?

                • Koanic says:

                  You are amazingly stupid when it comes to psychology. But I will walk you through it, and then I’m done wasting time on your thick skull, which is obviously only good for rock grok.

                  Gammas such as Scalzi passive aggressively criticize others without spelling their name in order to avoid having the criticism found easily via text search, thus reducing the likelihood of a response.

                • Koanic says:

                  Here’s a point I wish more people would grasp:

                  Social norms are evolutionarily and culturally constructed. The amount of directness that is appropriate for aggression between men thus varies by context. For example, aggression generally becomes less direct as one moves from Europe to East Asia.

                  There is a Neanderthal-influenced Western European phenotype which exhibits visuospatial tilt and small-group socialization. Among its features are relatively greater matriarchy, low hierarchy, high altruism, high honesty, and indirect intra-group conflict.

                  This phenotype tends to perform poorly in modern hyper-scaled socialization, but compensates by gravitating towards milieus in which it is adaptive, such as STEM.

                  Certain features of this phenotype such as indirect conflict, poor large-group social skills, and higher status for women tend to overlap with a subset of a different phenotype: the gamma male of the large-group socialized majority European phenotype. Since the two populations interbreed, there is a gradient between the two groups. However, the gamma subset is also characterized by traits not characteristic of the first phenotype, such as dishonor, dishonesty, weakness, and large-group socialization.

                  Therefore the priority for individuals of the first phenotype should be to avoid being mistaken for members of the second when engaged in large-group socialization.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Gamma males aren’t real they are some bullshit Vox made up even if he seriously believes in them, NPCs ARE real… but the NPC probably mostly sincerely believes what the MSM tells them the way our own NPC CR seems to sincerely believe the scripted bullshit he posts was true. Spergish social outcast have many problems… dishonesty is not generally one of them.

                  Lets paraphrase the alt-rights favorite leftist on NPCs

                  The more I argued with NPCs, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn’t help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn’t help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The NPC had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn’t remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

                  Gradually I began to hate them.

                • Koanic says:

                  You only believe in the social classifications visible to you from your position in society and viewed through your neuro-atypical lens. Since you are not part of the large-group social hierarchy you are not aware of gamma attempts to disrupt it.

                • Koanic says:

                  Visuospatials are so busy translating their concepts into words that they often fail to notice the bigger verbal picture. Here is one important aspect thereof: Due to the ambiguity inherent in language, neurodiversity, difficulty of ascertaining truth, etc., it is impractical to discuss most topics without some focusing point or purpose. Because a di-scussion involves 2+ people communicating within a shared context, of which the implicit dwarfs the explicit.

                  In engineering, the material goal serves as that focus. In the verbal world, the argument supplies that context.

                  Unsolicited meandering dissertational monologues are a fine trait for apprenticeship knowledge transfer in a small-tribe environment, but that solution absolutely does not scale, for reasons any network engineer should grasp. In a small tribe, not only is the holistic context shared, the number of network nodes is low.

                  7 billion people on 7 continents, and the Neanderthal still blathers pointlessly, because his sociobiology is pre-rational. Thus annoying everyone who is optimized for large-group information transfer. One more reason for the divide between Maker and Manager.

                  Perhaps we could unify the two perspectives via the underlying thermodynamics which determine both whether an engineering project succeeds and whether a group functions adaptively. But I suspect that is too big an ask.

            • pdimov says:

              >verbally transcendant

              Vox’s chosen profession of game designer argues against this theory. Game design requires “ordinary” general intelligence. “Verbal transcendence”, were it to exist, would not help him with it. He’s undoubtedly smart and talented, but neither “visuospatially retarded” (he’s good at soccer) nor “verbally transcendent”.

              • Koanic says:

                The only way what you are saying can be true is that he whiffed the visuospatial section of his IQ test by e.g. attempting to use verbal thought on Raven’s matrices due to lack of engineering exposure, and is actually much more intelligent 151 IQ, which I do not believe. The holes in his thought occur where visuospatial should kick in. He is smart enough to know if the test result misread his visuospatial ability.

                Vox is basically a pattern-matching engine that applies historical reading to current events. Don’t expect more from him and you’ll get along fine.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Pragmatism is not ‘culturally-unique’ to legacy American’s; they literally wrote the book on it, rather (eg, Charles Sanders Pierce, William James, and et cetera).

          • pdimov says:

            >Feynman’s younger sister Joan, also a physicist, once said that “[Richard] had a normal IQ. When I was a kid, I sneaked off and got into the files and looked up our IQ’s. Mine was 124, and his was 123. So I was actually smarter than he was!”

            Childhood IQ tests are very unreliable, which is why they are a favorite tool of “scientists” who want to show no correlation at all between IQ and something else.

    • A.B. Prosper says:

      Who cares? . Vox Day for all his flaws has accomplished more for the dissident community than nearly anyone else.

      And sure there may well be people with a higher IQ than him, what matters is what he gets done.

      Attractive Wife? Check

      Multiple properly educated children ? Check

      Asa far as I know one of the only coherent ideological documents in the Dissident Right ? Check

      Right Wing Wikipedia ? Check

      Dissident Right Media publication? Check

      Author ? Multiple Check ?

      We need our own infrastructure including Right Wing Twitter On the Way

      And sure he’s arrogant, a bit in love with his own sexual social hierarchy and arrogant as hell.

      He’s earned it

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      There’s no such thing as an IQ of 151.

      Half the white population has an IQ of a hundred. Just over a quarter has below 85 and a quarter above 115. This level of resolution falls sharply at the next standard deviation: 1% has an IQ below 70 and 1% above 130. This then falls away again.

      The difference between an IQ of 140 and 150 is going to hinge on one or two test answers, and remember it doesn’t actually matter *which* test answers, so if someone screws up by mistake on page one of the Ravens type visual similarity questions, he falls behind by almost ten points lol

      The whole thing’s completely childish.

      The appropriate use of an IQ test is to test for

      a) retardation (ie. IQ below 70)
      b) exceptional ability (ie. IQ above 115)

      The rest’s just wank and means absolutely nothing.

      • jim says:

        This is true of university entrance tests, which top out at 115, but the Mensa test gives meaningful results up to 145 or so.

        IQ Tests written by smart people for smart people give meaningful results for smart people.

  21. Adjudicator says:

    A simpler metaphor I can use to describe Jim’s position and orgyofthewill’s position would be the affinity paths presented in the game Civilisation: Beyond Earth.

    Jim’s position is similar to the Purity Affinity – Restore, Preserve and Improve mankind. Emphasis on Restore and Preserve as immediate priorities

    Video showing the quotes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ7XZ8u4Th0

    orgyofthewill.net’s position sounds a LOT like the Supremacy Affinity. Embracing technology and accelerating evolution.

    Video showing relevant quotes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hr-5L__8hug

    The last affinity, Harmony, is not relevant in this discussion as we have yet to discover Alien lifeforms.

    I will just include the quotes video for brevity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26F0eDUnli8

    Had to use an example that already exists, in a game, no less, just so that newcomers will be able to better understand the rational, reason and philosophy behind the proposals to break the technological stagnation.

    • The Cominator says:

      Need to restore before you can improve.

      • Adjudicator says:

        And The Supremacists will not want to waste time restoring. Just build / code on top, while cleaning out / debugging the bottom. Iterate and reiterate the process quickly and efficiently to clean out the bloat and obsolete / render irrelevant the problematic parts.

        • The Cominator says:

          Doesn’t work. The Cathedral is not capable of managing “The Supremacist” agenda effectively.

    • Zach says:

      Off-topic: Civilization is overrated. RimWorld and Dwarf Fortress kick the crap out of it. Consider that in Civilization one needs to solve the game to play optimally. Anything mapping to that dumbed down game will map horribly to any reality, anywhere, ever.

      It’s a fun little game for the masses though.

  22. Jim

    Burke was a Whig, therefore, not a failed, cucked conservative or reactionary, but more like an unusually sane liberal, maybe linkable to Scott A. Burke never called himself anything like a conservative.

    The problem is with Buckley, who started the conservative movement and invoked Burke’s spirit. But if a conservative movement imitates the least insane liberals, it by definition becomes an Outer Party and thus self-cucks.

    I have a certain hunch that before Google Books, it mattered which books are available, and Burke was available because were read in US high schools not for the political ideas, but as studying style, studying how to write well. So one possibility is that Buckley wanted ideas that are available from books that are held in every town library.

    I don’t really know why exactly Burke was a Whig. It is clear that his secret project was to try to make things better for Irish Catholics, mostly for his in-group and faith reasons, not because that is necessarily the best principle. But why exactly he seeked that on the Whig side, which was Cromwell’s side, and not on the Tory side who were leaning towards some kind of High Church Anglo-Catholicism anyway, is not clear to me.

  23. The Cominator says:

    BTW some people a couple weeks back were arguing with me that the mainstream Mormons are NOT fully pozzed (I said the universal and almost organized Nevertrumpism among them during the primaries proved it).

    Well read this…

    http://faithful-nation.com/2019/04/06/the-sodomite-agenda-marches-on-mormons-to-allow-participation-of-gay-members/

    The Mormon Church will be organizing slutwalks and gay pride parades in 5 years.

    • Bob says:

      Why do you trust a source that quotes Buzzfeed?

      If you’re curious…
      The LDS Church has moved gay marriage from the list of automatic ex-communicable offenses and put it on the list of cut-it-out-now-or-get-ex’d offenses. It’s now on the same list as straight couples living together. If a straight couple doesn’t come to church, they’re encouraged to attend. If they attend, they’re encouraged to marry or move out. If they do neither, they’re excommunicated. Gays who are married are now not automatically ex’d, but encouraged to come back to church and get a divorce. If they don’t, they’re ex’d.
      They can in no way participate unless they get out of their gay marriage.

      Look at a voting map and the “universal” and organized NeverTrumps are around the four universities and in SLC. Look at the towns and suburbs that are majority LDS and they were majority Trump.

      • The Cominator says:

        So let me guess what this really means… being gay married is now okay as long as you pay the 10% basically?

        Yes Mormons voted for Trump in the general reluctantly and grudgingly after fighting like mad to keep him from being nominated. If Trump wasn’t your first choice you are probably cucked and definitely if you were for anyone but Rand or Cruz.

        Trump got something like 17% in the Utah primary and even in the general 20% of the state voted for McMuffin (and were it up to me anyone who supported McMuffin would become part of the Final Solution to the Leftist Problem).

        • Bob says:

          >So let me guess what this really means

          You know jack about Utah and the LDS Church.

          Cruz won the primary, where McMuffin got zero votes. In the general, Trump beat McMuffin three to one, where McMuffin got any votes at all.

          Did you do any reading about this or just peruse Buttfeed?

          • The Cominator says:

            McMuffin wasn’t part of the Republican primary so of course he got nothing.

            I know Cruz won the primary (he was the only competitor to Trump with any shot at the time) but Cruz was clearly compromised since he aligned with the Bush family after Super Tuesday, if Mormons aren’t at least somewhat pozzed why wasn’t he their first choice?

            • Bob says:

              >in the general reluctantly and grudgingly
              >will be organizing slutwalks and gay pride parades
              >very few Mormons had Trump as their 1st choice
              >Anyone who isn’t pozzed had Trump as their 1st choice

              You assume to know a lot that can’t be known. You’re full of crap.

              >Cruz was clearly compromised
              Your average LDS is as politically informed as your average American. Clearly.

              >the mainstream Mormons are NOT fully pozzed
              >if Mormons aren’t at least somewhat pozzed
              Dude, it was me who wrote how some LDS were pozzed.

              Do you have a coherent point you’d like to make?

              • The Cominator says:

                Mormons may not be quite Democrats yet but they are Paul Ryan type Republicans is my point and that is almost as bad and will slide left even more over time. And yes Paul Ryan is a leftist and needs a helicopter ride.

                • Bob says:

                  >they are Paul Ryan type Republicans is my point

                  Since you’ve been wrong about everything you’ve stated about us, why should anyone believe you? Why do you think we’re all the same?

                  >will slide left even more over time

                  Name a group that won’t. Go on. Even one.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I have not been wrong. During the primaries most Mormons loathed Trump. And the Mormons have been loosening the rules on gays. Organizing pride parades and slutwalks isn’t far away.

                  You’re the Mormon equivalent (I assume you are LDS) of a Catholic in denial about how left wing your church has become. Before the 1970s yes the Mormon Church and the average Mormon were both far right but that is no longer the case.

                  “Name a group that won’t. Go on. Even one.”

                  Southern Baptists and Southern Evangelicals have tended to get more right wing, most of them supported Trump in the primary he was their 1st choice.

                  Fundamentalist Mormons probably have gotten more right wing as well but mainstream LDS have not.

                • Koanic says:

                  I can understand how the niceguy Mormons were initially repelled by Trump’s clownishly brash alpha persona; it was not constructed for them. If they have come around, seeing the quality of character beneath, good for them. We are allies in this fight. There are worse heresies, and redemption is possible for all but the reprobate damned.

                • Bob says:

                  >During the primaries most Mormons loathed Trump.

                  How could anyone know that? Did the news tell you that, after they said that absolutely everyone hated Trump and that true Islam was progressive? Was it Buttfeed that told you? Or was it one of the polls that said Trump would lose?
                  My personal experience says otherwise. What is your source?

                  >in denial about how left wing your church has become
                  I’m open about how leftist it’s leaning and give specifics about who and how, but the LDS Church isn’t what you think it is or what the news portrays. You mirror the news’ declaring nonsense like Islam is feminist and peaceful. My Church is holding the line in important ways and giving ground in some. There are plenty of ways to criticize it, so you don’t have to exaggerate what the news misrepresents.

                  >Before the 1970s yes the Mormon Church and the average Mormon were both far right
                  Surprise surprise, we weren’t. We had women speaking in church and in leadership over other women since the 1800s. Utah was one of the first states to give women the vote, sadly. But we’re still telling women to stay at home and have kids and keeping women from leadership over men. Again, you know nothing about us. It’s not clear-cut left/right; your paradigm is incomplete.

                  >Southern Baptists and Southern Evangelicals have tended to get more right wing
                  The president of the Southern Baptist Convention last year called for more recognition of women’s equality and raising up women in leadership and ministry, “like for our sons”.
                  (Starts at 2:10 https://jdgreear.com/blog/w4yw_southern_baptist_convention/)

                  >they are Paul Ryan type Republicans
                  If that’s true, then what of baptists?
                  The SBC pres: “The Summit Church must continue to be a place where gay and lesbian people feel welcome as they seek repentance and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, a place safe to “come out” with struggles of any kind.”
                  The LDS Church and BYU’s rules are still more strict than this.

                  You could have made an argument for the Amish, btw.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There has indeed been an attempt by the Cathedral to poz the Southern Baptist Convention but its had zero effect politically because of its decentralized nature of the actual Southern Baptist Church (each local congregation has total power to ignore them) and because the Southern Baptist anticathedral (Liberty University etc.) is still in the hands of the same radically right wing people who founded it.

                  The Mormons also had their own anticathedral (and one of higher education quality then the Evangelical universities) centered around BYU but my understanding is the Mormon universities have been successfully converged by leftists (on this I don’t claim to be an expert but I’ve been told that the BYU professors are now all leftists).

                  The Amish have started voting against progressives (up until now my understanding is that they didn’t vote at all) because they know the progressives will exterminate them in the end. I don’t think the Amish can be converged per se.

                • Bob says:

                  While, I don’t know anything really about Baptists, so I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, I’m under the impression that the pres was voted for by the leaders of the member churches. Liberty U sounds like it’s holding the line.

                  The three BYU profs I know are very leftist, the pres, Kevin Worthen, is pushing BYU left alarmingly fast, and BYU’s media campaign is all about accepting gays and pushing women to work.

                  Its sister school in Idaho I’m not as familiar with, but they did recently fire an instructor for supporting gay marriage on facebook. So there’s some hope, I think.

                  And the leadership of the Church last week had the biannual worldwide conference, restating what they said in 1995 about the family (men work and lead, women nurture kids, marriage between men and women) causing the usual facebook screeching.

                  The poz is creeping upwards, though it hasn’t reached the worldwide leadership or afaik the regional leadership. I’m very curious to see how far it’ll go.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Okay good you are clearly now speaking truthfully in good faith so can I ask you…

                  What does the common Mormon see in that commie snake piece of shit Mitt Romney. Yes I know hes also LDS… but so what. Mitt Romney was the good guy back when he was trying to take out Ted Kennedy… then he created Obamacare in what was (but thankfully no longer is) my state.

                  Then he carpetbagged over to yours… though hes really from Michigan. How are any of you fooled by this guy… hes a f***ing Democrat.

                • Bob says:

                  > Okay good you are clearly now speaking truthfully in good faith so can I ask you…
                  Where have I lied? What have I said that was untrue?
                  As for good faith, I’ve pointed out before how BYU is heaving left and I’ve given honest reasons why I disagree the church will sponsor gay parades any time soon.

                  The people I’ve talked to who voted for Romney have a starry-eyed view of him as an honest politician because he’s a true blue latter day saint. Really, the state and church are full of NPC’s. People here are just that dumb. For instance, there’s a prophecy attributed (falsely) to Joseph Smith that the LDS men will save the Constitution. The LDS Church isn’t a great candidate for a reactionary state religion.

                • Alrenous says:

                  Bob, I just wanted to say that’s a good answer.

                  And good on both of you for putting up with each other.

                  Don’t be too disappointed with Utah being full of NPCs. Everywhere is full of NPCs. Optimistically I presume it’s from Prussian school, but it’s possible that it’s the natural state of humanity.

  24. Bob says:

    Participate beyond allowed to show up. Can’t be asked to say a prayer or hold a calling, which they do to every warm body over the age of 12 that comes regularly.

  25. glosoli says:

    A sign of your weakness, not letting comments through with hard evidence of the evils of capitalism.

    • jim says:

      Not seeing this hard evidence of the evils of capitalism.

      I don’t let comments through for the stated reasons – usually appeal to fake consensus and presumption of facts not in evidence, or similar illegitimate forms of argument.

      I silence illegitimate forms of debate to maintain the quality of commenters on this blog.

      If you think I silenced a comment containing hard evidence of the evils of capitalism, try resubmitting this hard evidence by itself, without accompanying it by illegitimate forms of argument.

      • Alrenous says:

        Capitalism does have the occasional evil.

        The rich will pay out the nose for luxury plants, which compete for farmland with food. This drives down the supply of food, and thus drives up the price.

        CEOs make so much money that it’s hard to motivate them to care about even large changes in the property under their care.

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

        https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/RUSS-final.pdf

        There was that one firm that forced every envelope to be labelled twice because it was cheaper than fixing their envelope machine.

        Doubtless glosoli is proposing to instead be ruled by angels, though. The known competitors against capitalism have much, much worse evils. The envelope thing particularly amuses me – it was in a twitter thread about how communism kills all the kulaks. “But, but, inefficient envelopes!” Really? That’s all you have?

        Plus, please don’t get me wrong: I don’t give a damn if the poor starve due to being unable to afford food. That kind of thing leads to racial IQ increases.

        • The Cominator says:

          “The rich will pay out the nose for luxury plants, which compete for farmland with food. This drives down the supply of food, and thus drives up the price.”

          Not an evil and does not drive up the price of food it can marginally drive up the price of land as it tends to subsidize excess farmland but excess farmland can be good in the event of war when that land can be turned over to food crops. The problem of land is connected with the problem of rents… and while I agree with Jim that Georgism in its pure form hasn’t been tried semi-Georgism is very successful and the monarch in the restored state should adopt a primarily Georgist tax structure.

        • Oog en Hand says:

          Death by starvation: Slow and painful
          Death by helicopter ride: Quick and painless

          Incentive structure, incentive structure…

        • Adam Smith already gave us a solution for the occasional problems of capitalism: that dual system where people want both money but also the respect of other people i.e. status, and the later tends to reduce their greed. Status and money are basically parallel economies, you can buy status for money (highly public donations to good causes) or money for status (get money by some dirty means and get caught).

          But you see the issue with the status economy is that it requires immobility. That is, if people disrespect you, you should be having to face that every day without the ability to go somewhere else. And if people respect you, they should generally stick around and give you that respect every day.

          So our issue is the highly mobile, globalized nature of the economy and the facelessness of the city and all that. When people were born, lived, and died in the same small town, a business owner would not try to pull tricks that could make him crash from the status of being seen as a pillar of the community to someone universally loathed. But now that people keep moving around, the elite is called the jet set because they fly a lot, this doesn’t really work.

          The status economy would work a lot better for a limiter of greed if people were more rooted and immobile.

          This is not a novel idea, I got it from a more mainstreamly conservative but smart friend, who named this concept “embedded capitalism”. That is, business as a part of the local social life. His example was that if a town has a river or creek and the business owner lives there all his life, then he will not just dump industrial waste into the river. Because everybody would spit in his face. He would lose his friends, and would not be invited to parties. But if the business owner lives half a planet away, he does not care. Hence regulation and hence all the usual problems of regulation.

          I know this idea is not very convincing for everybody. For example, one could argue that in the age of social media a bad reputation follows someone wherever they go, while in the 19th century people could really start a new life in another country leaving all their reputation at home. But what I see is that putting the problem this way, that globalized capitalism is not embedded enough in the local fabric of social life, and we should want a more local, more embedded capitalism is something that seems intuitively true in my corner of Europe. Because it seems it happens more frequently here that global corporations dump their various negative externalities here, while they don’t really dare to do that in the US for example because the government and the media is very powerful.

          The problem of embeddedness or the lack of it is not just something that is relevant for capitalism but for everything. Another issue is hit-and-run international experts, giving policy advice to less developed countries, but they aren’t around when they turn out to be disastrous. Or international media, commenting on and putting pressure about things they don’t really know and have no skin in.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Don’t tell us what we are saying. The position you attribute to dividualist is the opposite of his plain and direct words.

          • The Cominator says:

            Stop listening to NPCs. You are assuming capital and capitalists are the problem when its at least 95% the priesthood The media is controlled by intelligence agencies which are recruited from Cathedral universities.

            Jeff Bezos does not control the Washington Post and the shareholders of Time Warner do not control CNN. If Jeff Zucker (the CEO of CNN) was accountable to capitalists he would have been fired and if those capitalists ruled in the name of capital he would have been executed for his awful performance. Also if capitalists ruled it would still be legal for them to fuck their secretaries.

          • Jehu says:

            Yes, the notion of having ‘skin in the game’ doesn’t just apply to money, its also about status as well. People with ‘skin in the game’ are inherently way more trustworthy than those without.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Dude, in these circles it DOESN’T apply to money ROFL

              Money’s apparently indicative of nothing: Jeff Bezos did nothing wrong, the HR lady made him do it.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Alrenous also repeats the thoroughly debunked trope:

          “I don’t give a damn if the poor starve due to being unable to afford food.”

          Show me the place where this has been allowed to continue and I’ll take your word for it. Not until.
          Every time that starts to happen, you get some form of welfare – usually church- or charity-based but eventually morphing into state hand-outs and government support.

          It’s as predictable as night following day, and if you’re inclined to talk about ‘incentives’ and so on, the mere existence of starvation is the beginning of the slippery slope. Human nature does not change, but introduce starvation and you get the welfare state; don’t introduce starvation and you don’t get the welfare state. QED.

          Disprove my claim by citing ONE EXAMPLE of a society in which starvation was stable over time. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.

          • jim says:

            > Disprove my claim by citing ONE EXAMPLE of a society in which starvation was stable over time.

            Most socialist societies have stable mass starvation over time, currently Venezuela and North Korea. Observe the shape of those escaping.

            Cuba had stable starvation over time when I visited in 1992, in that though people had enough bread and sugar, they had only bread and sugar, and were going blind from nutrient deficiency. Also, they lacked the most basic medicines, and were dying of problems trivially treatable in the west. Cuba had been like this most of my life, and everyone loved it.

            And observe how happily our western elites reacted to mass starvation. They loved the Holodomor, and the love current mass starvation, provided that the right people were being starved. Just have the state religion explain that whoever is starving are bad guys, and everyone who knows which side his bread is buttered will be fine with it. The state religion of progress loved the holodomor, they loved the hungry ghosts famine, and they love the genocide of the Tutsi in the Congo and the genocide of white South Africans. A civilization with our current level of abortion on female whim, without the consent of the husband, demonstrates that people will very cheerfully go along with anything that happens to strangers, provided the state religion tells them this a fine thing. See also the worship of Moloch, whose worshipers we have come to resemble. If the state religion decrees that ninety nine percent of the population should be tortured to death, the remaining one percent will be morally untroubled. And we are rapidly moving toward a state religion that will declare a large portion of the population needs to be murdered.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              That’s a completely different kind of starvation, and I realise that your strategic rhetorical style anticipated that response in advance lol

              I asked for an example of a society in which non-starving people were content with the fact that others were starving.

              The case can be made that the level of intimidation that prevailed in the early USSR led to large numbers of non-starving people ignoring the starvation of others through fear of speaking out.
              That isn’t the kind of society that people like Alrenous and Roberto have in mind: they’re talking about functional, restoration type societies, not totalitarian hell-holes.

              Note also that as the USSR matured, even this kind of starvation was unstable. Ditto Cuba.

              I’m inclined to concede that Venezuelan egalitarian socialism was always likely to produce problems with the food supply: it IS a pattern with that type of society as you rightly point out.
              Just how stable the current situation in Venezuela will be is an open question: it wasn’t stable in Cuba, China or the Soviet Union.

              I’d also tend to note that Venezuela (and perhaps some of the other communist countries in the 20th century) is subject to some of the most stringent international embargoes imaginable. Some of that’s understandable: they’ve built a reputation for reneging on debts and obligations so what did they expect!

              Note also that the problems with food production don’t just stem from a Misesian higher-order catallactics problem: they stem from the wrong people being given control of the farms – the kulak is expropriated so that the moron can achieve equality.

              This means that there’s no basis of comparison whatsoever with a hierarchical restoration society practising active prohibition and central planning of food production. Under no circumstances would any moron ever be given a kulak’s farm to run in a society like that – by definition.
              On the contrary, those farms which happened to be held by morons would if anything be transferred to kulaks!

              • jim says:

                > I asked for an example of a society in which non-starving people were content with the fact that others were starving.

                We are a society which is content with the fact others are starving, and starving in large numbers. What is different about it? What makes the starvation of which you approve different from the starvation that our “society”, aka our priesthood, of which you are a member, is mighty happy with?

                In our society, you are content that Venezuelans are starving, and our society was content with the Holodomor and the hungry ghosts famine. Are the kulaks not “others”?

                No one is starving in the USA, because of capitalism, but some fathers are having their much wanted children murdered. You are content that they have their children murdered. You are content that Tutsi women in the Congo are vaginally impaled with objects larger than themselves, content with white genocide in Africa.

                You are English, and you are content that Englishmen suffer the agonies of toothache, that could easily be treated.

                You are English, and you are content that healthy but excessively white English pensioners who go to hospital with an easily treatable lung infection are deliberately starved to death on the Liverpool pathway while being heavily tranquilized so that they are unable to complain. You are English, and you are content that some Englishmen are starving because of socialism.

                If you are content that other Englishmen suffer unnecessary toothaches, content that other Englishmen unnecessarily lose their teeth, content that other Englishmen have their children murdered, content with elderly Englishmen being deliberately starved to death in significant numbers, and content that Venezuelans are starving in large numbers, you would be content with Englishmen starving in large numbers, which time will come soon enough, the toothaches and the murder of the old and unproductive prefiguring more drastic measures against the white minority whom you blame for the dysfunctions of British socialism.

                No one cares what happens to strangers and people not like themselves, if the state religion says it is OK. Which is demonstrated by the horrific crimes enthusiastically endorsed by the current state religion of England. When England hosted the Olympic games, they had a big show celebrating the murder of the elderly. Hitler deliberately starved a lot of Jews to death, but he did not put up movies celebrating it. The religion of Moloch, on the other hand, does put on spectacles celebrating their hideous crimes.

                > That’s a completely different kind of starvation

                So socialist starvation is fine, but capitalist starvation is completely different.

                Yes, what is different about is that under socialism the worst eat, and the best starve, and starve in large numbers, while under capitalism, no one starves.

                Is there perhaps some other difference that you had in mind?

                Explain to me what makes the entirely hypothetical starvation that people care so deeply about different from the deliberate starvation of elderly pensioners happening right now in England, which no one cares about, different from babies wanted by a woman’s husband being torn apart, which no one cares about – except of course the husband. When I was in Cuba, no one starved in the sense that they had enough bread and sugar, but quite a few people were going blind because all they had to eat was bread and sugar, and nobody cared.

                What makes real life socialist starvation of good people who spent their lives contributing to society happening a short distance away from where you live in England morally fine, while purely hypothetical capitalist starvation of useless and bad people that has not happened in peacetime in real life for one hundred and seventy years is so unimaginably abhorrent that no society could endure it?

                Answer me.

                Non answers will be deleted.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  This is a convincing argument.

                  I take it back: if the poor were simply thrown to the wolves and allowed to starve, things have indeed gone far enough that plenty of people would be perfectly OK with it.

                  It seems your fans could have their eugenics holocaust after all.

                  I can’t really argue with your reasoning or your evidence. The time for compassion does seem to have been one of the casualties of The Enlightenment taken to its natural conclusion.

                  This is a lamentable fact in my opinion, but I really can’t argue with your logic and evidence there.

                • jim says:

                  We don’t plan for the poor to starve. The deserving poor will be taken care of, but not necessarily allowed to reproduce, unless they have prior history of being productive and useful. The undeserving poor will go hungry till they start hunting other people’s cattle and gathering other people’s crops, whereupon they will be enslaved. If unresponsive to whip, then executed. Some undeserving poor may refrain from criminal conduct, but nonetheless have character faults that render them unemployable or disinclined to be employed. They will starve, but I doubt there will be too many of them. No “holocaust” – rather it will be much smaller than the current murder of pensioners in Britain.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Dole and sterilization is better then slavery…

                • jim says:

                  Trouble is that the devil finds work for idle hands.

                • Dave says:

                  In 2012, WSJ ran a six-part series titled “Starving in India”. Not because of any war or crop failure, just millions of people so poor that they cannot afford enough to eat, dying in the hundreds every day. They aren’t rioting in the streets because they haven’t the strength to get out of bed.

                • jim says:

                  WSJ is not a reliable source.

                  Lalit would know the truth.

                  Lalit?

                • The Cominator says:

                  India was and is an extremely socialist country. Modi has been trying to move away but as long as they are a Democracy hes not likely to have total success.

                • carlylean restorationist says:

                  cui bono

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s just another disgusting vision of the future.

                  To your credit, this community doesn’t hide its violently oppressive intentions, which is certainly a step up from the current régime, but in terms of Tucker’s vision of what government should be there for, it’s shitty and inadequate.

                  Sure Jeff Bezos might pay a bit less tax – wooooooo

                  So ordinary people will still feel inadequate and under-skilled, they’ll still live paycheck to paycheck, and when things go wrong, they’ll still be shit out of luck.

                  The only difference is they’ll have tougher assessments for the dole, and probably get sterilised even if they are deemed “deserving”.

                  Carlyle’s carthorse is just going to ‘snort derisive’.

                  Now is it sustainable? I’m intellectually honest, unlike some, so I must concede that at this point in history, with this much ‘progress’ under our belts, it’s quite possible that people will be atomised enough, dumbed down enough and obedient enough to just step over mutilated peasants in the gutter on their way to the latest birthday celebration: Arron turns 57 today, we’d better get the ice cream out.

                  This isn’t a vision that would kill Faust dead on the spot.

                  We need an Emperor Trump who’ll actually DRAIN the swamp, not just tweak it to suit a different bunch of evil bastards.

                  A marsh along the mountain chain
                  Infecteth what’s already won;
                  Also the noisome pool to drain–
                  My last, best triumph then were won:
                  To many millions space I thus should give,
                  Though not secure, yet free to toil and live;
                  Green fields and fertile; men, with cattle blent,
                  Upon the newest earth would dwell content,
                  Settled forthwith upon the firm-based hill,
                  Up-lifted by a valiant people’s skill;
                  Within, a land like Paradise; outside,
                  E’en to the brink, roars the impetuous tide,
                  And as it gnaws, striving to enter there,
                  All haste, combined, the damage to repair.
                  Yea, to this thought I cling, with virtue rife,
                  Wisdom’s last fruit, profoundly true:
                  Freedom alone he earns as well as life,
                  Who day by day must conquer them anew.
                  So girt by danger, childhood bravely here,
                  Youth, manhood, age, shall dwell from year to year;
                  Such busy crowds I fain would see,
                  Upon free soil stand with a people free;
                  Then to the moment might I say;
                  Linger awhile, so fair thou art!
                  Nor can the traces of my earthly day
                  Through ages from the world depart!
                  In the presentiment of such high bliss,
                  The highest moment I enjoy–’tis this.

                • jim says:

                  Allowing this one through, just in case anyone wonders why I have been suppressing so many of your posts.

                  The normal, ordinary white males does not live paycheck to paycheck. He lives in a house in the suburbs, and he or his family owns their house. Leftists live paycheck to paycheck. The typical person living paycheck to paycheck is a leftist lawyerette with a six figure salary, six figures of college debt, six figures of credit card debt, no assets, the wall looming, her eggs drying up, and Jeremy Meeks no longer sends her booty calls shortly after midnight. Trotsky was a wealthy Jewish money lender and the child of Jewish money lenders who could not make it as a Jewish money lender because he pissed away money faster than he got it. Trotsky lived paycheck to paycheck.

                  That is why you hate the man who owns the local Domino’s pizza franchise, you hate the peasant with two cows, you hate the people who live in “ticky tacky little boxes”, you hate people who are not fat, and you hate that you are fat.

                  The reason housing projects, Soviet and British, are to horrible and soul destroying is that you intended them as your vengeance upon the people who, unlike Trotsky, are able to live in “ticky tacky little boxes.

                  Poverty is not a salary, it is not an income level, it is not a standard of living. It is a lifestyle choice and people who choose that lifestyle, mostly feral women and boys raised by feral women, who therefore never grow up to become men, create problems for normal people. Even third world peasants usually own a patch in the jungle and build a shack on that patch, and invest a lot of time and money (well a lot of money by their standards) making that house very nice, using wood and rocks found in the jungle, and odds and ends imported from the garbage dump of the nearest village. Peasant furniture, made from wood they cut down from their garden and the jungle, and finished with a machete and a grindstone, is often impressively beautiful, thought and work for the future made manifest and touchable.

                  Normal people do not live paycheck to paycheck, irrespective of the size of that paycheck.

                  Socialism and welfare does not free people from the poverty lifestyle, it enforces that lifestyle on everyone by confiscating people’s property, and massacring those that decline to live that lifestyle. Hence the infamous housing projects of Britain and the Soviet Union.

                  We intend to restrain that small group, an overwhelmingly female group, mostly feral women and their numerous offspring by numerous thugs, from causing the problems for normal people that they cause.

                • lalit says:

                  Jim, There is no mass starvation in India. Hasn’t been since 1942. Yes, there is some food insecurity. But the poorest Indians are very hardy. They can survive of sprouted Gram.
                  But there is no starvation.

                  The big issue in is lack of clean, assured drinking water for anyone not in the middle class, which is now 2/3 of India’s population. That’s an issue and that is why relations with Israel have become so important. They were always important, now even more so.

                  Perhaps the WSJ should focus on starvation of pensioners in England.
                  https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/a-million-lonely-pensioners-left-to-starve-in-their-homes-qkjtmcv22

                  This is similar to the BBC going bally-ho over one rape case in Delhi (Nirbhaya) which led to mass protests in the Capital, all the while ignoring Rotherham, telford and a whole bunch of grooming scandals in Brtiain as pointed out by Tommy Robinson. This is plain misdirection and a tad evil.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Normal, ordinary people don’t live paycheck to paycheck – that is a left wing myth. They live in houses in the suburbs, and their family owns their house.”

                  In high tax blue states they often did especially younger then boomers pre Trump…

                  But in red states not so much and less so everywhere since Trump so to the extent people do live paycheck to paycheck… more due to socialism then capitalism.

                • Alrenous says:

                  @lalit
                  What do relations with Israel have to do with India’s drinking water?

                  @general
                  Survey says a supermajority live paycheque to paycheque. I have my own reasons for declining to credit this figure (clever lie) but I’d like to hear everyone else’s take on how this number is produced.

                • jim says:

                  The paycheque to paycheque figure is social justice warriors projecting their own lives onto those that they hate. The typical social justice warrior has seven figures of income, no assets, except she probably divorced a husband and has the ruins of his assets, seven figures of college debt, maxed out credit cards, and unpaid back taxes. Also, her furniture is new, but it is garbage.

                  Since any assets that they have, they stole, they figure that the guy with shop got his shop the same way. So they burn down the shop, and then figure it is racism when it is not replaced. In less advanced countries, for example Soviet Russia before Stalin, and Chile under Allende, they kill the cows of the peasant with two cows, and then blame mysterious spells cast by the minions of Wall Street for the ensuing mysterious milk shortage.

                  If she cannot snatch whatever she wants from the supermarket shelves, it must be because the evil minions of wall street failed to assign her a supermarket. Hence Communist Revolutionary’s refusal to believe that the guy who owns his local Domino’s Pizza franchise owns it, and in substantial part personally built it.

                • pdimov says:

                  >but I’d like to hear everyone else’s take on how this number is produced.

                  It says how.

                  “Thirty-eight percent of employees said they sometimes live paycheck-to-paycheck, 17 percent said they usually do and 23 percent said they always do.”

                • jim says:

                  And when fat ugly hairy chested lesbians interviewed cute female college students, fifty percent of them supposedly said they have been raped.

                  The interview technique is simply to refuse to take “no” for an answer: “So what you are saying is …” And unless the interviewee punches the interviewer out, he gets recorded as saying what the interviewer tells him he said.

                • pdimov says:

                  Doesn’t seem to be the case here. Looks like the surveyed employees were asked “do you live paycheck to paycheck” and the answers were

                  – never (22%)
                  – sometimes (38%)
                  – usually (17%)
                  – always (23%)

                  This appears plausible. “Sometimes” may well mean “once or twice in the last ten years.”

                  http://press.careerbuilder.com/2017-08-24-Living-Paycheck-to-Paycheck-is-a-Way-of-Life-for-Majority-of-U-S-Workers-According-to-New-CareerBuilder-Survey

                • jim says:

                  Yes, quite plausible, but your link does not actually tell us that that they were literally asked “do you live paycheque to paycheque?” in those actual words, as in a form where you select option A, option B, or option C.

                  They were asked … something … quite a lot of things … and someone interpreted their answers as meaning “paycheque to paycheque”

                • pdimov says:

                  That link’s not mine, it was in Alrenous’s article.

                  I have to wonder why you insist Americans don’t live paycheck to paycheck though.

                  This link is mine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/01/06/63-of-americans-dont-have-enough-savings-to-cover-a-500-emergency/

                  It references three separate studies.

                • Koanic says:

                  “Americans”

          • Alrenous says:

            Alrenous also repeats the thoroughly debunked trope:

            “I don’t give a damn if the poor starve due to being unable to afford food.”

            Show me the place where this has been allowed to continue and I’ll take your word for it. Not until.

            Reading comprehension problems.

            I am claiming that capitalism could quite possibly starve the peasants. CR is objecting that this never happens. Apparently CR claims that Real Capitalism has Never Been Tried? I’m happy to agree but I doubt that’s the intended message.

            Oh and actually it happened all the time in the dark and middle ages. Excessively documented by Gregory Clark in Farewell to Alms. They wouldn’t necessarily starve, but the lower classes would fall to childhood disease due to malnutrition, and their line would die out. Which is much of why Europe is peaceful and Africa is not.

            If we want Zimbabwe to be Rhodesia again, all that’s stopping them is five or eight centuries of grinding peasant poverty. No pain, no gain. If you can’t stand a few million tragic sets of parents mourning their children, get out of the kitchen.

            I also like the part where my opinion about a hypothetical is supposed to be a concrete claim about reality. It’s funny, and you should do it again.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              If we want Zimbabwe to be Rhodesia again, all that’s stopping them is five or eight centuries of grinding peasant poverty.

              Doesn’t work if peasants starve while hunter gatherers don’t – then it does the opposite.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        ‘Jim’ writes:

        “try resubmitting this hard evidence [for the evils of capitalism] by itself”

        Alrenous tells us how terrible it is that rich people have luxury plants – that’s as bad as capitalism gets! How shockingly horrid of them, the privileged bastards, right!

        “Capitalism does have the occasional evil.

        The rich will pay out the nose for luxury plants, which compete for farmland with food. This drives down the supply of food, and thus drives up the price.”

        Allowed.

        Let’s see if this BARE FACTS list is allowed:

        1. Chaturbate/Clips4Sale
        2. BetFred: guy bets his wages and has to tell his children
        3. Night Clubs, complete with intimidation, noise until 3am and vomiting into the gutter
        4. Blacked dot com, ball-busting porn, lesbian vomit shows, scat
        5. Wonga/QuickQuid

        Everybody knows what else I’d include on that list but I’m going for BARE FACTS that ought to be allowed through if the host’s being honest.

        My proposition is that the host is not being honest: the host is suppressing the evils of capitalism even when stated as bare fact, just as glosoli claims.

        • jim says:

          > 1. Chaturbate/Clips4Sale

          That is the feral woman problem, not capitalism. And we intend to fix the feral woman problem.

          > 2. BetFred: guy bets his wages and has to tell his children

          Nothing to do with capitalism. You plan to make everyone a slave, but even slaves gamble, and some gambles one loses.

          > 3. Night Clubs, complete with intimidation, noise until 3am and vomiting into the gutter

          There is no night club problem. There is a woman out of control problem, a feral woman problem. We intend to bring the woman under control. Night clubs are irrelevant. Bring women under control, and as women quietly transition to being wives, clubs will quietly transition to being gentlemen’s clubs.

          Plus, when I go to a bar, I don’t see intimidation, vomiting, noise at three AM. The problem I see is feral women. I think you are having a displacement fantasy. Nightclubs are disturbing, but it is politically incorrect to notice or even think about what the problem is, so you make up something else that you are supposedly disturbed about to explain your sense of disturbance. Much as women complain of rape, sexual assault, and sexual harassment, when men wimp out under brutal shit tests, failing workplace shit tests backed by the authority of human resources.

          > 4. Blacked dot com, ball-busting porn, lesbian vomit shows, scat

          Not for sale – camgirls can depict any obscenity except realistic female submission. More visibly producers of rock music videos are forbidden to dance the courtship dance. Only Chinese videos can depict men conquering and women surrendering, men performing and women choosing.

          We have the most severe, and most puritan, censorship of sexual matters in history. Every other civilization could depict romance realistically. Our degeneracy reflects not consumer demand for abnormal sexually oriented material, but the brutal and extreme censorship of normal material, the most extreme of any civilization, any culture, of recorded history. The extraordinary severity and puritanism of this sexual censorship reflects the closeness of the left singularity.

          If it was consumer demand that was driving the video depravity, if we did not have extraordinary and extreme levels of sexual censorship on videos, including our most hardcore porn videos, we would see stuff like the bit at 41:44 on western television.

          The problem is not that abnormal sexuality is allowed, but that normal sexuality is forbidden. Obviously we intend to reverse this. We will forbid what is now allowed, and allow what is now forbidden. Overall, censorship levels will be vastly less severe. You will notice a huge improvement in music dance videos. The problem is not the free market in sexually oriented material – there is never a free market in sexually oriented material, and there will not be one when we are in power. The problem is that the censorship is perverted, disgusting, abhorrent, and extraordinarily severe. You just cannot see a woman resisting, then capitulating cheerfully on Western soap opera, western music video, or even western porn. You can never see the “no” that means yes.

          > 5. Wonga/QuickQuid

          What are you talking about? Sounds like a government lottery.

          Lotteries are a tax on stupid people, and yes, when we are the government, we plan to go right on taxing stupidity. I suppose that if capitalists were allowed, they would cheerfully tax stupid people instead of the government taxing stupid people, but capitalists are never allowed, except that the government gets the lion’s share, and when we are the government, we will go right on not allowing them except that we get the lion’s share.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Repetitious and unresponsive.

              Address your interlocutor’s arguments – and when I say “address his arguments”, I don’t mean tell him that what he is really saying is what he would be saying if he agreed with cultural Marxism, progressivism, Marxist history, and whig history.

          • Okay – he may have a point that British night clubs tend to be more disgusting than in Europe and likely more than in America as well, there is a real problem of binge-drinking too fast and passing out on the street and all that. There are these infamous photos: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1182373/Welcome-binge-Britain-Polish-photographer-documents-years-drunken-revelry-Cardiff.html

            But yes, it definitely looks like a feral women problem. The men look more or less like standard working class guys, sometimes they drink too much, sometimes there is a nose getting bloodied, but this isn’t really a big deal. But the women look like nothing I ever saw IRL outside Britain. Whole new level of WTF. When I was young most guys over here had their wives or girlfriends as designated drivers. It was unseemly for women to be seriously drunk.

            When I saw this binge-party culture in, say, Birmingham, the whole thing was centered around fat, drunk and very loud women. Men played a secondary role.

    • The Cominator says:

      You worship demons and want to establish the devils kingdom on earth so don’t talk about evil.

  26. Howard J. Harrison says:

    Burke is the better man.

    • Koanic says:

      Of course! He spawned a whole line of noble losers, so he must be the noblest of them all!

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      The best takedown of Burke i have encountered is James Anthony Froude. I recommend The Bow of Ulysses as well as all of his other numerous works. He very succinctly explains what is wrong with Burke and his ilk, far better than any contemporary, Burke’s or ours.

      • Howard J. Harrison says:

        Frederick: Froude’s prose style is pretty good. However, I do not notice Burke’s name (nor any obvious reference by title, office, etc.) in the table of contents of The Bow of Ulysses. Would you like to direct my attention to a specific chapter and section?

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Bow of Ulysses – Pg. 14 – Chapter II – – – “The silent men do the work. The talking men cry out at what is done because it is not done as they would have it, and afterwards take possession of it as if it were their own property. Warren Hastings wins India for us; the eloquent Burke desires and passionately tries to hang him for it.”

          This chapter is an aside reflection penned by Froude on his way from the City to the Port as he is embarking on his journey. He is speaking directly to Gladstone’s critique of Tennyson’s “Locksley Hall.” He invokes Burke only once here, but it is within a rhetorical structure intended to argue for the doer of deeds and against the twisters of words.

          “Institutions are the slow growth of centuries. The orator cuts them down in a day.”

          “The periods were the orator is supreme are marked always by confusion and disintegration.”

      • The Cominator says:

        Other then Moldbug’s indirect attack on Burke which made me think I had seen the face of God the 1st time I read it (other then his unrealistic cryptographic sovcorp solution and strange liking for the Catholic Church).

        • Neurotoxin says:

          made me think I had seen the face of God the 1st time I read it

          Damn that sounds good. Link?

          • The Cominator says:

            I refer to Moldbug’s Open Letter… it attacked conventional American conservatism as an insane deluded controlled op which fundamentally dare not disagree on too much with the ruling religion… I always thought that was the best attack on Burke.

            Surely I’m not the only one who read the “Open Letter” and thought (about the parts where he described American politics, not about the parts where he said what his solutions were) that it was almost a transcendent epiphany of truth.

            • jim says:

              I am under attack from NPC spambots, and the filter algorithm is getting mighty trigger happy.

              If your comments are suppressed, just wait a while, and I will lift it out of the moderation queue. Sometimes it goes all the way to spam, and I don’t see it in the moderation queue. If that happens, let me know, and I will search the spam pile.

              • The Cominator says:

                I wonder why we never get feminist spambots saying the “As a woman NPC script” here… its always Marxists and white knights but no feminist shills or shills claiming to be a trad woman who nevertheless thinks we should continue this and this feminist policy and is shocked and appalled that we think she should be property again…

            • Neurotoxin says:

              Cominator,
              Saw the link you posted below to the Open Letter. Will read. Thank you.

          • The Cominator says:

            For some reason I tried to respond and my comment was under moderation and then didn’t appear. I don’t know why…

            I referred as I said to Moldbug’s open letter which also attacked conservatives (who at least theoretically followed Burke) as a hapless controlled op and outer party quite brilliantly.

            http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/moldbugs-open-letter/

            • Neurotoxin says:

              Man… finding Moldbug rather a slog. Everyone said he’d blow my mind…

              • Cloudswrest says:

                It’s impossible to digest Moldbug in one sitting. His essays were meant to be read ~weekly.

              • The Cominator says:

                Perhaps because you are somewhat familiar with some of the ideas… back when he wrote them they were pretty novel. The closest (non ancient) writer with remotely similar ideas (and they were still far different) was Jerry Pournelle but he only had part of it (though he went into more detail into how science was pozzed).

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  >Cloudswrest, Cominator.

                  Will keep reading. I’m not giving up on him yet.

                  He’s erudite as fuck-all, I’ll give him that.

                • Alrenous says:

                  I like neither the open letter nor Dawkins re: pwned.

                  Read the formalist manifesto, the very first post. Literally the rest of the blog is an expansion on that post.
                  Also read the latest two – brown scare and Mr. Jones is concerned.

                  Then read anything else that strikes your fancy. If you feel something is insufficiently supported, then you can probably get specific recommendations.

                • alf says:

                  Always thought How Dawkins got Pwned was his best. But reading Moldbug is a bit of a chore because he uses thousand words where ten would’ve sufficed. Erudite as he is, he only got away with that because those ten words were absolute genius.

                • Alrenous says:

                  I’ve heard lots of people say Moldbug used too many words, and so far zero of them have been able to give an example. Can you? Summarize some Moldbug without losing anything?

                • The Cominator says:

                  I always thought Moldbug’s big strength was describing how our current system (pre Trump… its a bit more chaotic now and some things really have changed) REALLY worked.

                  I always thought formalism was one of Moldbug’s weaker ideas (and most of his solutions left something to be desired)… I think this is because (and I’m not particulary anti-semitic) Moldbug being Jewish couldn’t resist trying to be at least a little utopian.

                  So he said instead of restoring what he would call “Optimate-Vaisya” regimes (what Jim would call “warrior” regimes) he wanted to try to outdo history with some kind of technocracy which in practice would probably be dystopian in its own way no matter how much theoretical right of exit existed.

                • alf says:

                  I’ve heard lots of people say Moldbug used too many words, and so far zero of them have been able to give an example.

                  How Dawkins got pwned is almost 40.000 words. That’s a book. And it’s only one of his many essays. It’s no secret that Moldbug is verbose.

                  Can you? Summarize some Moldbug without losing anything?

                  “Professor Dawkins is pwned because he’s chosen quite unthinkingly to lend his literary talents to a received tradition I call Universalism, which is a nontheistic Christian sect. Some other current labels for this same tradition, more or less synonymous, are progressivism, multiculturalism, liberalism, humanism, leftism, political correctness, and the like. ”

                  There. 40.000 words condensed in, what 20.

                • Formalism: depends on what it means. I don’t like the idea of joint-stock corporate states much. But the basic formalist idea of not lying to ourselves, of making informal relations formal makes my inner autist happy. Normies would never accept it because like playing that game, navigating informal rule-systems, precisely because informal power is not tightly linked with responsibility as much as formal power is. And politicians and suchlike are supernormies.

                  The real problem with formalism is that it is not really possible. Remember the Ethereum DAO hack story? Code-as-contract is the closest thing we have to formalism, and a lot of people argued that there should not be a hard fork to fix it for this reason. But others argued that the way Ethereum and even Bitcoin works is that the miners are the judges. That is, if they find some transaction wrong, immoral, unjust, whatever you call it, they have the right and ability to roll it back. This is written right into the technology. Thus, code-is-contract was a somewhat misleading term. Those who interpreted it as something unbreakable were wrong. Those who interpreted it as something you can make a case in front of a court of law, where the judges are the miners, got it right. When it became clear a lot of folks got disgusted. I proposed back then that if the miners are a Supreme Court of Ethereum let’s formalize that and there should be a process of formal appeals to that court. https://dividuals.wordpress.com/2016/06/18/why-the-code-is-law-hence-no-fork-position-with-regard-to-the-ethereum-dao-is-inconsistent/

                • jim says:

                  We need one man with power and ability to make exceptions to the rules. The problem with informality and officially unofficial rules is that you get a thousand people able to make exceptions to the rules.

                  Further, the difference between official reality and actual reality deceives, confuses and misleads people, often with fatal consequences, and is intended to deceive.

                • Eynon says:

                  I’ve never felt that Moldbug was too wordy or dense. His style always reminded me of Terry Pratchett or Douglas Adams. It’s fun, delicious, potent writing (other than the Ashkenazim identitarianism).

              • Neurotoxin says:

                I just noticed these additional posts on entry points for Moldbug. Will keep reading.

                I agree with Alf about Moldbug’s wordiness.

        • There is something interesting here. https://archive.org/stream/englishinwestind00frouiala/englishinwestind00frouiala_djvu.txt Ctrl+F Cicero:

          “Institutions are the slow growths of centuries.
          The orator cuts them down in a day. The tree falls, and
          the hand that wields the axe is admired and applauded. The
          speeches of Demosthenes and Cicero pass into literature,
          and are studied as models of language. But Demosthenes
          and Cicero did not understand the facts of their time ;
          their language might be beautiful, and their sentiments
          noble, but with their fine words and sentiments they
          only misled their countrymen.”

          It is interesting because Cicero played a role similar to Burke in the history of conservatism. Burke was himself an avid Cicero reader.

          Cicero, to me, sounds like very much the textbook “libertarian conservative”. Who is overly afraid of power. Take, for example this: http://www.historymuse.net/readings/CiceroJustifiesAssassination.htm

          It is very good so far that Cicero was on the side of the Optimates, not the Populists. That is a good rightist thing to do. But Cicero’s fear of kingship, personal rule, “tyranny” is similar to that of Burke type Old Whigs. If he just said they need a different king, less like Caesar and more like Sulla, that would have been okay. Because Caesar came from the left much like how Napoleon came from the left. But the categorical refusal of personal rule is something else.

          • Koanic says:

            Indeed. The Bible warns of the burdens of personal rule, but also illegitimizes resisting it, either as institution or individual king. It is clear that even the sovereigns of foreign nations and empires, who could not possibly have been anointed by a priest of Jehovah, nonetheless are set up and brought down by Him. Only a fool calls a God-instituted form of government illegitimate.

            Those not smart enough to figure out from the text that it is sometimes legitimate to topple a king, in times and places of God’s silence, when no word or instruction is given, have no business attempting it anyway.

          • Howard J. Harrison says:

            If the constitution and institutions of Burke’s Britain retained predominance and a degree of integrity, then I would wish to conserve them. It is precisely because the constitution and institutions of Burke’s Britain have lost predominance, integrity, or both that I read Jim’s blog. Others may have other reasons to read but Reaction has something useful to say under present conditions at least. This is my view.

            Institutions are the slow growths of centuries. The orator cuts them down in a day.

            Burke was indeed an orator (as, at this moment, are you and I) but, otherwise, the quoted passage describes the opposite of Burke. Burke felt that it was his king who was cutting down the slow growths. Burke might have been wrong, of course (though I doubt it), but tyranny is not really an institution, nor is it a slow growth.

            Regarding Cicero, I know too little to comment.