We are all white nationalists now

Including Elizaneth Heng, an east Asian child of Cambodian refugees and a moderately left wing Republican candidate.

When she took out a campaign ad reminding people that socialism is a murderous disaster, she was a racist, a sexist, a misogynist, a white nationalist, and all that. And similarly, if you try to discuss the facts on global warming, you are suffering from toxic masculinity. Obviously the only possible reason for disagreeing with plans to destroy the economy and murder millions of people is that you hate women and nams. If you disagree with the self appointed saviors of humanity, that constitutes violence against them – violence motivated by racism and sexism.

Recently esr called me a disgusting racist. I have no idea why. I did not ask him and if I had asked him would not have received a coherent answer, because to answer would be to acknowledge some thought crime or other. They cannot acknowledge thought crimes even while denouncing them.

The left has a paranoid style of discourse, where every word, every fact, and every thought is scrutinized for patriarchy, misogyny, homophobia, racism and all that, and not just the left, but the entire mainstream right, including esr, has responded with no friends to the right, no enemies to the left. When the left decide someone is a racist Nazi misogynist and proceed to punish the evildoer, the mainstream right enthusiastically goes along in the hope of being the last to be thrown to crocodiles, but these days, they are feeding people to the crocodiles faster. Having no friends to the right just does not work any more.

The left is increasingly open about its intent to eliminate the Republican party, punish them for having been Republicans, and get rid of the fifty percent of the population who profile as likely Republican voters.

Denouncing those to your right as hateful racists and ignoring hate facts in front of your nose is just not working any more. If the Democrats regain power, Trump is going to jail, shortly to be joined by his family, and not long thereafter his family, and soon after that most of the Republican party, cucks and rinos included, then people who cling to their guns, then …

The reason socialism tends to be so astonishingly murderous is that it tends to this paranoid style. Without the paranoia, it still needs killing fields, but it is no more murderous than Hitler was.

Socialism is knocking over the apple cart to produce an abundance of apples, and for a short while, there is indeed an abundance of apples. But very shortly thereafter, a severe apple shortage. Which must be caused by evil witches casting evil spells, because it could not possibly be caused by knocking over the apple cart. So they go looking for the evil witches casting the evil spells, and the paranoid style of discourse that we see on the left (and the mainstream right, including esr) tells me they are going to go looking for the evil witches very hard indeed, and will therefore find a great many, esr and Scott Alexander among them.

280 Responses to “We are all white nationalists now”

  1. eternal anglo says:

    That was an awfully quick turnaround from “stupid paranoid republicans, nobody is going to ‘take yer guns'” to “stupid evil republicans, we are going to disarm you, anyone who complains is a terrorist and will be doubleplus disarmed, and also remember that your guns are useless against drones and nukes and you all are as worms beneath our feet.”

    • Dave says:

      I especially like the idea that the government will use drones to crush all dissenters. How’s that working out in Saudi Arabia?

      • Obama's brain says:

        Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, etc all used the good old fashioned methods and killed millions. No need for high tech when a pistol, rifle butt, or knife will do as long as they are used by Red Guards/Red Diaper babies.

        • Dave says:

          Those regimes were a product of early-20th-century technologies, like radio and loudspeakers, that facilitated the one-way communication of fallacious but impressive-sounding ideas from the god-leader to the credulous masses.

          Today’s tech is more decentralizing, and today’s communism is an ideology of faggots, soyboys, shitskins, and obese blue-haired feminists, people so obviously defective that they don’t need uniforms. We can pretty much assume that any white person with a modicum of physical fitness is sympathetic to our cause.

    • Not Tom says:

      You can thank Señor Beto for opening his yap. Now that the jig is up, there is no point in secrecy anymore and it’s time to out-holy all of the other grabbers.

  2. Anonymous 2 says:

    It’s really just ad hominem these days, isn’t it?

  3. Mister Grumpus says:

    (First: Who’s ESR again?)

    “Recently esr called me a disgusting racist. I have no idea why. I did not ask him and if I had asked him would not have received a coherent answer, because to answer would be to acknowledge some thought crime or other. They cannot acknowledge thought crimes even while denouncing them.”

    Just clarifying: Was it his thoughtcrime that he couldn’t acknowledge, or yours? (In this case I mean.)

    Holy crap bro. Are you telling me that even explicitly accusing someone else of thoughtcrime, which requires using words to describe what the thoughtcrime is, is itself impossible for these people? Is it a thoughtcrime itself, in some super brain meta self whistling way? Can you put this into a few more words please?

    That deal with the smiling boy from Covington Catholic comes to mind.

    • jim says:

      Presumably I am a disgusting racist due to some thought crime that esr is unlikely to be able to mention, or even think about.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        “…due to some thought crime that esr is unlikely to be able to mention, or even think about.”

        But could you pontificate a little, please, about just what that “inability to mention or think about” is made of?

        • jim says:

          I don’t understand the question. I thought I was clear enough.

          esr reacted to attacks from the left by censoring himself, crippling his ability to think. As Orwell explained it: “protective stupidity”

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            “I thought I was clear enough. esr reacted to attacks from the left by censoring himself, crippling his ability to think. As Orwell explained it: “protective stupidity””

            OK thank you.

            It could be that I’m the slow guy and this is old news for everyone but me, but there’s this “new” idea that you’re popularizing, here, to the “IRL” people who read this: a more “holistic” understanding of thoughtcrime/crimestop.

            I know it’s from 1984, but Mr. Orwell isn’t blogging anymore.

            It’s not just thoughtcrime, because even the naive freshman year 1984 book reporter can (could?) explain that Commie Man Bad and outlaws certain thoughts. That’s easy.

            The key facet that I’ve only picked up here is that thoughtcrime/crimestop applies to the rulers also. It’s NPC’s all the way up as well, or at least that’s how I’ve been interpreting you.

            It gives a fresh view of the Coulter Rule, for example:

            It’s not that the editor calls a meeting and says “OK look guys, we gotta make sure no one finds out the killer is ____.”

            And it’s not even “Oh shit, I don’t want to be the first guy to say anything about the killer being ____ or I’ll be in serious trouble, so I’ll pretend that it never occurred to me.”

            But rather, it’s his own cognition protecting him from his own noticing that the killer is ____, or that he’s doing anything funny at all by reporting that a “person” was somehow “apprehended” near an “incident” that “left four people dead” on Tuesday night, or whatever.

            It’s not just “to protect the narrative” but “to protect the narrators from each other.”

            How am I doing? Do you agree?

            Or rather, do you believe that there is in fact an unidentifiable shadow cabal of super geniuses at the top — an Inner Inner Inner Inner Party — who can afford to stay “crimestop free” thanks to mafia-class mutual loyalty and incredible op-sec? If so, it’s a new perspective on this Bilderburg/Club of Rome/Red Shield stuff: They would need the utmost secrecy and kid-diddling mutual dirt on each other just to have a chance to talk this stuff over and coordinate plans without getting strung up by their own people.

            I mean imagine if all of us here had to plan and coordinate real-deal IRL operations, the successful execution of which would require that we all engage in the same thoughtcrimes at the same time? How exactly would we hash that stuff out? On Google Hangouts?

            God I love this.

            • pdimov says:

              That’s exactly what crimestop means.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thoughtcrime#Crimestop

            • jim says:

              Both. There are conspiracies at the top held together by giving each other blackmail material, and those conspirators are as sincerely deluded as the rest of them. The Clinton emails, like the climategate emails, reveal a bunch of plotters self isolated from reality.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                “and those conspirators are as sincerely deluded as the rest of them.”

                But do you see them as deluded along the same lines as a sociology professor at Harvard?

                Or rather do they maintain an entirely separate, secret and orthagonal set of delusions and thoughtcrimes just for themselves?

                Are they secret + PC like the underlings, or secret + some other mystery religion that none of us would even recognize?

                • uranus rises says:

                  Are you trying to steer this towards mystery Babylon stuff? Not that I complain, but I hope you have concrete evidence.

                • jim says:

                  We got the inside info on the climate conspiracy, some of the inside info on the animal fats conspiracy. Harvard is what it seems, and it is much as Moldbug depicted it.

                  We see a fair bit of evidence suggesting demon worship in the political and administrative elite, for example the EU and Epstein’s temple, but if Harvard is what it seems to be, the political and administrative elite cannot be too far from what it seems to be.

                  There are no doubt some strange and nasty conspiracies going on, but I doubt that any of them make a huge difference. In the political elite, some conspiracies held together by mutual blackmail material, with the Clintons at the center of one such web, but if the Clintons had been all powerful, Obama would never have been president.

                • uranus rises says:

                  Jim, people whose livelihood depends on a salary will believe whatever is necessary to keep that salary, and can be expected to be less powerful than their paymaster. The conspiracies you cited are between people with salaries.

                  I would much rather have insider knowledge from high finance (“I trade in gold, but not with those peasants at the public exchange”, or “I _print_ your ‘money'”) or geopolitics (“I know how much oil is really left where and how badly any one needs it”).

                  No one who is truly powerful would want the exposure of a public office.

                • jim says:

                  That theory proposes that our secret rulers are capitalists. If our secret rulers were capitalists, they would get laid. Bezos does not get laid, and Musk grossly overpays for sex. QED.

                • I AM says:

                  at some level everyone understands that if you know who someone is (mediated by mass media) they haven’t enough power (or wisdom) to secure their own privacy and if mass media start reporting on them it’s invariably because they’ve become visible whilst falling from grace

                  but sure let’s keep pretending that you can simultaneously have a “media personality” and also an iota of respectability

                • calov says:

                  Are all capitalists bound to get laid, and Bolsheviks not? I think Castro and Lenin and Stalin & Che were probably swimming in poontang, but I doubt that was true of Sam Walton or the Perdue chicken guy. One could argue that one of the purposes of the Revolution was to liberate spoon.

                • calov says:

                  *poon

                  By liberate I mean “free love” so to liberate sex from marriage

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Capitalists are not bound to get laid, but leaders are. Women love power. If the leadership was capitalists, then they would have the power that women love and they would get laid. Rulers command, and women want to be commanded, rewarding mastery with sex. Hence, if not getting laid, not commanding.

                • I AM says:

                  “Getting laid” is a degenerate boomerism only possible in a world of reliable contraception, especially the pill. Reproduction and recombination cannot be separated without fatally fracturing the societal mind into a million schizo pieces. There will be a death penalty for the manufacture of contraception, or reproduction will take place in artificial wombs, which wombs themselves may be the property of the State, and whose fetuses will invariably be subjected to genetic engineering. Human or post-human future, take your pick.

                • jim says:

                  This seems to presuppose that the guy getting laid does not want children, and the women getting laid are thinking about their future. The former is not always true, and the latter is very rarely true.

                  The proposition that contraception made the sexual revolution is false, because we have had contraception since the late Bronze age or early iron age, and because when Victorian England eased up on repression of female misconduct (on the theory that women were so naturally virtuous that they would never engage in misconduct unless evil men made them do it) they promptly got an intolerable bastardy problem, resulting in the welfare state. Our current problems are just their problems only more so.

                  Contraception did not destroy the family. Consent culture destroyed the family. The victorians deluded themselves that women never consent. When that became too obviously absurd, we introduced the new rule, even more destructive and absurd, that consent made sex right, and lack of consent made sex wrong, neither of which is true. Consensual sex often does immense damage, and non consensual sex usually results in contentment for both parties.

                  Last night my wife and my host’s wife were “complaining” to each other about non consensual sex, but they were actually boasting, and had big grins on their faces.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              When I casually mentioned that I used persuasive language and techniques on my coworkers to gain their cooperation, they uniformly denied that I was able to any such thing. It wasn’t even the point of my argument, and they jumped all over it. They all refused to believe that they would have ever decided to do something because I had convinced them, despite me getting away with blatant violations of social norms at work.

              In order to prevent themselves from contemplating that I was able to get them to do things for me, they forgot every instance. To protect their worldview of them being independent, rational actors, they promptly erased those memories. Crimestop works pretty much the same way.

              Saying that races have differences is crimethink. Hearing that races are different may cause you to think that races are different, which is crimethink. Thus, when you notice a violation of crimethink, you must immediately crimestop yourself to prevent yourself from also committing crimethink. The offending thought is thus neutralized, and all you are left with is the emotional feeling of a terrible crime being committed, but you are not sure quite what it was.

      • reafur says:

        due to some thought crime that esr is unlikely to be able to mention, or even think about.

        You are so right about that. The only comment I’m made on his blog that he censored was pointing out an inconsistency in his positions that could only be solved by thought crime. I guess the years of Leftists in the programming community furiously hating him, even stalking any mention of him on Hacker News, to the point I suspect it’s significantly degraded his ability to find work, has taken a toll.

    • Bob says:

      Steve Sailer makes the point that what people cannot speak they cannot think about. That you would think the rulers at the top are thinking about reality and just manipulating the rubes with political correctness, but the fact they cannot say hateful things out loud means that over time, they cannot even think them to themselves.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        “…but the fact they cannot say hateful things out loud means that over time, they cannot even think them to themselves.”

        Right here. This is the paradigm jump, the fault line, that is new for me. That’s why I’m hogging up screen space about it. Seems like the right time.

        “A”
        My conventional conspiratorial wisdom (Jones, Icke, Cooper, et al) has always been that there is a “cabal” at the very top that is both 1 – psychopathic enough to see clearly free of crimestop, and 2 – secretive and diligent enough to maintain an entryist-proof multi-generational safe space in which to accordingly speak clearly to each other, and coordinate their plans.

        Imagine Satan being Satan, father of lies, but still speaking clearly and honestly with his own cabinet.

        “B”
        What I’ve never considered before, even as an idea, is that it might be self-protecting, crime-stopping and self-deluding bullshitters, all the way up to the very top.

        That’s new. That demands very a different perception of the world around me. Retcon’s the whole trilogy.

        And what I’m trying to do now is hold up this “A/B” to the most opinionated people here and provoke them into a “__ is obviously true and __ is obviously false, and here’s why I’m so certain about this: __________”.

        Care to?

        (Aside: Perhaps “A” being their ideal, but also impossible, is why they they yearn for Skynet, which is implicitly unitary.)

        • The Cominator says:

          “What I’ve never considered before, even as an idea, is that it might be self-protecting, crime-stopping and self-deluding bullshitters, all the way up to the very top.”

          Leftism selects for stupidity and insanity, the smart satanic types are all either dead (Zbiginew Brzienski, David Rockefeller, Bush the Elder, McCain) or have one foot in the grave (Soros, Schumer). So it starts out as “A” but degenerates to “B”.

          Their leadership is soon to consist of Cortez and jihad barbie.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            It makes me laugh really. I always assumed it was “A” out of projection. Why wouldn’t hyper-secret genocidal evil-doers be high-trust with each other? That would be so “normal”, after all.

            And now I think to myself “High trust Satan? You sure?”

        • jim says:

          “Imagine Satan being Satan, father of lies, but still speaking clearly and honestly with his own cabinet.”

          Ding. Exactly. Our enemies start by deluding themselves.

          That is their big weakness.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            And there it is (and has been all along):

            “He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him.” –John 8:44

            So according to the book here, Satan doesn’t just keep the truth to his top guys, nor even keep it to himself. Rather, he doesn’t even have it anywhere in him in the first place.

            I’m embarrassed to have never taken these words seriously before, even as allegory.

            (mindblown)

      • iep says:

        You are considering that the people at the top have minds no more resilient to cognitive overload amd stress in general than average people. It’s obviously not the case, and they may very well be able to go on without the help of self-deception, or with much less of its help.

        If they were like the others they would not be at the top.

        • jim says:

          The current impeachment shenanigans are a magnificent example of madness and self delusion at the very top.

          Their real indictment of Trump is insufficient wokeness. If the Democrats ever return to power, all insufficiently woke politicians are going to prison. But hanging the indictment on the Ukraine pretext is the worst possible peg to hang it on.

          Visualize an impeachment hearing featuring a large cast of ngo carryonbaggers with Clinton, Obama, and Biden connections, caught like deer in the headlights.

          They are, of course, going after Trump for insufficient wokeness, and if they ever return to power, will imprison him, imprison his family, then the Republican party, and then kill them. But they are going after Trump on the Ukraine connection to protect the color revolutionist self image as bringing freedom and democracy to the oppressed masses, when in fact they are just knocking over apple carts to grab some apples. It is the worst possible strategy for protecting their image in the eyes of public, but they are trying to protect it in their own eyes.

          • The Cominator says:

            “The current impeachment shenanigans are a magnificent example of madness and self delusion at the very top.”

            Yes but I think there is something to the theory that Trump deliberately set a trap here…

            https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1177669563477118976

            I interpret this tweet to be a very public “I have you motherfuckers now” message.

            I think he gave the Democrats a “marked card” that will self-destruct…

  4. Steve Johnson says:

    Reading through that thread and whoa, that guy is seriously living in a bubble of delusion.

    He’s deluded about China because he’s more deluded about the United States because he can’t see what he can’t accept.

    Here’s an outline of his position on the geostrategic position of the players (correct me if I get any of the details wrong here). China “depends” on the US in two main ways – 1) it needs a market for its exports and 2) it needs a stream of payments from USG debt so it can buy “steel, coal, oil” (of course China is the world’s largest exporter of steel but whatever – he’s got the “needs somewhere to export” argument too). It can’t conquer an oil supply or coal supply because it’s geographically constrained and USN can embargo it.

    Here’s the mirror of this that he doesn’t consider – China “needs” an export market at minimum to pay for imports of raw materials. I think if it came to it the world would be far happier to take Chinese goods and independence from USG imposed gay pride parades, feral women’s rights to tinder hookups and the bioleninism of importing Africans and Arabs but ESR thinks the US exports freedom or something. Leaving that aside – why did it develop that American consumer manufacturing is being done in China? Why is it that every leftist policy has the consequence of pushing manufacturing out of the US? Because it serves the needs of the left / USG. American manufacturing makes the wrong people rich – people that USG hates and is slowly talking itself into trying to exterminate. Cutting off China’s export market means either American poverty or American manufacturing comes back and either one of those is death to the progressive state.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Dangit who is this ESR person and where is this thread where he accuses Jim of thoughtcrime?

      Not Eric Raymond the programmer, right?

      Huh?

      The cheap seats want to see the action.

        • alf says:

          thx for link, left some comments.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I haven’t read ESR, and am frankly disinterested in this blog at this point, but it’s interesting that people are reacting to being censored then replied to (with distortion) by taking the argument off-site.

          Anyone of normal intelligence could have foreseen such a blindingly obvious consequence of such a stupid tyrannical policy.

          Even The Guardian doesn’t do this shit.

          • jim says:

            esr did not censor me – I got bored talking to someone who had rendered himself artificially stupid and ignorant by crimestop.

            • The Cominator says:

              Who is ESR?

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              “esr did not censor me – I got bored talking to someone who had rendered himself artificially stupid and ignorant by crimestop.”

              You just hit something important right there.

              You were bored. Civnatting is boring. Progressiving is boring.

              When I sneakily draw upon Jimmian Analysis in IRL conversations, people are a little confused, yes. But. It’s never boring after that. Getting out J.A. unlocks energy and enthusiasm in people, with me or against me. I snap into a J.A. flavored Slim-Jim, the Kool-Aid man busts in through the wall and the party is on.

              Does everyone change their opinions on a dime and agree with me? Of course not. I don’t do that for other people either.

              But they do come back. “Here” is where the party is.

              And this supports Jim’s position that earnest wingnats aren’t a problem. If they’re “here” in good faith then they’ll come around to the energy and walk toward the light eventually.

              It’s not about the arguments exactly. It’s about the party.

              • Mister Grumpus says:

                At this point, both civnatting and progressiving (and wingnatting too?) are a frumpy childless cat lady nagging us until we agree to what everyone knows isn’t true and won’t work, so we can be dismissed to the cafeteria for lunch.

                Both Rachel Maddow and Sean Hannity are whining and complaining over not getting their preferred impossibility. And everyone knows it. It’s hard to even pay attention anymore.
                So tiresome.

                J.A. points to a way out, or at least vaguely gestures in its general direction. A just-discovered fire escape from a burning building is inherently very interesting.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Most so called civnats are people who are well aware of human biodiversity ( really everyone knows, people just pretend otherwise) and certainly want 3rd world immigration eliminated but find that discussing it isn’t all that useful because it attracts cancerous wignats and allows the cathedral to prove heresy beyond a reasonable doubt…

          • Not Tom says:

            frankly disinterested in this blog at this point

            And yet you keep coming back.

            Like the creepy kid who is totally not interested at all in the chick whom he waited 4 hours at the mall to “accidentally” run into and who is now hiding in the bushes in front of her home. It’s perfectly normal, it’s not an obsession, everyone does it!

          • Bilge Pump says:

            Hahaha I’m pretty new to the blog, relatively speaking, but I’ve seen you turn up in almost every comments section I’ve read, saying the same thing every time “Never posting here again, frankly disinterested, notice me senpai but he’ll know my weakness if I’m so open about it”

            lol

          • alf says:

            What you make a month CR? I gather a tenured academic makes about 5000 pounds a month before tax. A shame if something were to happen with that income…

          • pdimov says:

            Uninterested, not disinterested.

          • Anonymous says:

            taking the argument off-site

            The irony escapes him, yet again.

    • jim says:

      It is often argued that the trillion dollar New Silk Road Economic Belt frequently fails to make economic sense, but it makes strategic sense. It is a bunch of transport routes between China and markets and raw materials that America would find difficult and dangerous to interdict.

      Like the artificial islands in the South China sea, the New Silk Road Economic Belt makes sense as preparation for the possibility of military struggle between a land power and a sea power. Meanwhile the American military focuses on proving that brown women can do white male jobs and wonders why logistics is mysteriously falling apart and wonders why its new fighter bombers cannot get off the ground.

      America could interdict the maritime silk road, but interdicting the New Silk Road Economic Belt is a land war in Asia, and a huge land war in Asia from the middle east to China. Attempting to interdict the New Silk Road Economic Belt would be Napoleon invading Russia.

      Napoleon was defeated because socialism undermined his logistic capability, and he then embarked on a project that required enormous logistic capability. Interdicting the New Silk Road would require unlimited hordes of conscript cannon fodder. The potential logistic capability of the US economy is enormous, but difficult to mobilize using brown women, while China has similarly enormous logistic capability, the capacity to mobilize it, and the capacity to mobilize unlimited hordes of conscript cannon fodder.

      • I AM says:

        it’s almost like there’s a coherent policy spanning China and America to set up a World War Three which America is sure to lose

        weird

        • Obama's brain says:

          Pray tell when was the last time China won a war?

          • jim says:

            China is now out of its dark age. Makes a big difference

            And the US is entering its dark age. The latest generation of fighter bombers tend to be grounded most of the time, and the navy stays in port.

            American fighter bombers are theoretically technically superior to Chinese fighter bombers, but the gap is rapidly closing, and any plane in the air has superiority over a plane on the ground.

  5. My mistake. I linked your post about HK in a comment on ESR’s blog, hoping that the rather superficial discussion about HK that was going on there will get more profound. The result was rather… unexpected.

    • jim says:

      Not unexpected by me.

      I would love to debate these people, but debate is shutting down. With the silencing of debate, we drift towards civil war. Peace requires that people talk and listen, and the left will not listen, nor tolerate those that speak.

      Having been called a disgusting racist himself, esr’s solution is to treat noticing hate facts as a hate crime.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        “…debate is shutting down. With the silencing of debate, we drift towards civil war. Peace requires that people talk and listen, and the left will not listen, nor tolerate those who speak.”

        I see. So a Tor-only DDoS-proof hyper-anonymous “DarkChan” discussion board isn’t only needed to help “our side” rally our intellectual forces, but also (and more importantly?) to rope off one last safe space where this debate can still take place at all.

        Digital Camp David. Blessed are the peacemakers.

        • Not Tom says:

          Tor is very likely compromised. If you want to be truly free from USG influence, you need to do business under another jurisdiction – a real one, such as China or Russia, not one of the U.S. protectorates in Europe.

          • Mike in Boston says:

            I agree that Tor is likely compromised… if you doubt this, please go ahead and examine their Form 990 filings. However, the thought that Uncle Vlad (who jails his own nationalist dissidents) or Uncle Xi is going to be a krysha for American dissidents is laughable. Your agenda is not their agenda, and the minute they gain less advantage from keeping you around than from selling you out to USG is the day you get rolled up.

            Hoping for a foreign Deus Ex Machina is a cop-out that will get you killed. No, dissidents need to build their own infrastructure, the most challenging part of which is keeping out entryists and other Federal agents, as I believe our host has discussed previously.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              “No, dissidents need to build their own infrastructure, the most challenging part of which is keeping out entryists and other Federal agents, as I believe our host has discussed previously.”

              I believe you just explained where all the other secret societies came from as well and why, from the Templars to the Masons to the Vaticans to the Whoevers.

              I also can’t think of why this makes you incorrect or a bad guy, as much as I’d like to.

            • Mandos says:

              >dissidents need to build their own infrastructure

              No such thing. No sign of anything scalable happening, nor is there any indication that the means and support required to build such an alternate infrastructure are available to the dissidence.

              Hence, foreign jurisdictions led by powerful rivals are going to become the go-to place for dissidents as the censors censor harder, which is the observable trend for dissidents throughout known history. I assume it will become more apparent once Russia is done insulating their own internet system.

              Ultimately, competing powers don’t really care about dissidents as long as it doesn’t threaten their own position. Quite the opposite in fact, they love them. See how the US treat Chinese dissidents for instance. If the dissidence starts mattering enough to worry about that it will be a good problem to have comparatively to our current position.

              • jim says:

                > > dissidents need to build their own infrastructure

                > No such thing. No sign of anything scalable happening,

                Gab, one hundred and one upstart competitors to you tube, and Halogen City

                Halogen City seems to largely Dark Enlightenment.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Haven’t heard of Halogen City before. Just looked it up. Looks intriguing. BTW my company, a major Silicon Valley hardware tech company (not tech/info company) just blocked web access to GAB as of yesterday.

                • Not Tom says:

                  one hundred and one upstart competitors to you tube

                  None of which, unfortunately, are or ever could be economically viable, except maybe bitchute, which doesn’t have a ton of great content and doesn’t seem to be expanding that fast.

                  If dissidents had billions of dollars of donor money to run these things at a loss, then they might be able to compete with YouTube, but the situation is generally the reverse of that. Video infrastructure is $$$ which is always tight on the right and in great abundance on the left.

                  Besides, if you get big enough to threaten the progressive hegemony, you’ll be deplatformed. Upstarts can get by because they’re not on the radar. Gab represents their move to Mastodon as a grand victory, epic trolling, etc., and I’ll admit that it was kind of a clever pivot, but it’s still a last resort, a desperate attempt to keep the lights on, and a pretty poor outcome compared to a .com domain and DDoS protection.

                  Please don’t get me wrong, I would love to see all of these efforts succeed and have even donated/invested in a few. But if we’re being realistic, I think most dissidents will eventually move to foreign-owned infrastructure. You’ve said yourself that this blog will likely move to a Chinese hegemony domain.

                  And to the previous poster – secret societies didn’t come from dissident commoners, they came from dissident elites.

                • jim says:

                  We have some elites on board – not many, not enough, and they stay deep in the dark.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  None of which, unfortunately, are or ever could be economically viable, except maybe bitchute, which doesn’t have a ton of great content and doesn’t seem to be expanding that fast.

                  The problem of course is that the forces that made youtube into what it is now have only grown in strength since then.

                  If someone makes a youtube fork and it becomes popular the fork will get infiltrated in exactly the same way. The only way to avoid this is to take measures to prevent entryism – which are illegal because those measures violate civil rights laws. Then you need your servers to be outside USG’s domain because they’ll discover you’re hosting illegal content and unlike youtube the competitor will be liable for it. Then your DOS provider needs to be entirely outside USG’s reach, etc.

                  All for what? To become popular? What we need is an elite preference cascade. Not sure if a youtube replacement gets us closer to that goal.

                • Not Tom says:

                  We have some elites on board – not many, not enough, and they stay deep in the dark.

                  Indeed, which is why Reaction is the only real opposition to the Cathedral. Reaction has insufficient elite support; other “dissident” branches have zero or negative elite support.

                  So we should continue what we are doing, but not expect to be able to do so unimpeded. Not on mainstream platforms, not on alternative platforms.

            • uranus rises says:

              Wouldn’t worry too much. There seems to be a lot of CS guys in the reactionary right. My hypothesis is CS is full of nerdy white males, nerds are natural priests, white males are losers under the current priesthood, hence the rise of priestly competition.

          • Anonymous says:

            Tor Browser is compromised, or so mangled by diversity hires that it doesn’t matter. JavaScript is enabled by default, and NoScript was taken out of the default widgets area and needs a non-obvious series of steps to put it back in.

            In addition to this, in the last couple of releases, on TAILS, you can enable JavaScript after having disabled it by restarting the browser in certain ways, somehow related to the “new identity” button, or from closing the browser then reopening it using a local HTML file. If there is one easy to find bug then there are likely to be many more hard to find bugs. Have a play with it and see what you find.

            The network itself has problems. Tor was never designed to counter timing attacks. The hop count is known. I don’t think the packets are padded. I read somewhere that, because of this, adding additional hops decreases security rather than increasing it, but this could well be TLA obfuscation. Anyone who can see the entire network, or the edges of the network, would have this information anyway.

            I2P as I understand was designed to be resistant to the things that Tor is vulnerable to. If it has nodes that are not in the USG hegemony then it should be resistant to the case where every hop node is evil, but I can understand why China and Russia would want to exclude it as another potential attack channel for progressivism.

            Timing attacks on the scale of days to weeks can be countered by leaving the network running at all times, and by delaying the release of sensitive messages by a random number of hours to days. Open hardware and software counters hacking.

            Individuals are still vulnerable to rubber hose. The NSA could mandate, more strongly this time, the use of encryption with large constants for all communications. We are still strangers in our own lands.

            I have a feeling that true anonymity is yet another coup-complete problem.

            • jim says:

              If data goes from A to B in a reasonably prompt and efficient fashion, a sufficiently powerful adversary can find the connection.

              If data goes into a great big pool, stays there for a while, and is then fished out of the pool, he cannot, except he hacks the pool, or, more commonly, rubber hoses the guy that runs the pool. Trouble is that with a small number of central pools, it is easy to hack or rubber hose them.

              For short plaintext messages, tweets, it is quite economical to have a system where you download a huge pile of them, and then only look at the ones for which you have the decryption key.

              If you have ten million users, and they each send and receive three kilobytes of text a day, that is three gigabytes of text a day. The ten million users can flood fill the whole damn pile around all of them. Each user keeps a few weeks worth of text, and, bittorrent style, updates random other users with any texts that one user has, and another user does not.

              • I AM says:

                Insufficiently meta.

                The post-WWII technology have emanated directly from the military-industrial-congressional complex.

                Highways were invented by the Germans to facilitate their LightningWar. Suburbs were invented by Levitt and prioritized by Eisenhower to set the stage for the Slaughter of the (Catholic) Cities and thus fire the Engine of Assimilation. Before there were silicon-based semiconductors, the Valley was the playground of defense contractors of aerospace and intelligence. Before the Internet there was [D]ARPANET. Steve Blank semi-intentionally wrote a report that was more classified than the facility in which it was housed. LifeLog died so that FaceBook might live. 5G will serve a vital national security interest. Palantir loves you and wants to give you a great big hug.

                Someday they’ll be calling it the Fog of Tech. But probably not before Elon Musk hooks us all up to the Mainframe. Not to worry:—we all know that resistance is futile.

                • I AM says:

                  P.S. The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. The opposite of enthusiasm is not pessimism, but indolence. The opposite of endorsement is not disavowal, but ignorance. Problem, reaction, solution. Out of order, chaos. The intermediate step between conception and normalcy is conspiracytheory. Embrace, extend, extinguish.

                • jim says:

                  The relevance of your comment is unclear.

                • Anonymous says:

                  A chimp, flinging shit.

                • I AM says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for being a random stream of techie buzzwords.

                  Use techie shibboleths in a manner that shows understanding of them and conveys techie meanings.

                  It is inherent in the nature of techie buzzwords that they can only be used correctly in rather complex and precise sentences. You were not attempting to communicate meaning.

                • alf says:

                  So I see this more often, ‘this’ being leftist spouting strange gibberish, puzzling everyone.

                  I think what happens is that this is what we sound like to them: a bunch of random attention-grabbing buzzwords without meaning.

                  Of course, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but the imitation should make some sense at least.

                • I AM says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted again for using buzzwords without regard to what they mean.

                • I AM says:

                  I’ll admit to having improperly capitalized “with” in C with Classes if you agree to name the buzzword supposedly used improperly

                • jim says:

                  That C++ was originally C with classes is an obscure piece of techie history. OK, you know your history. But it immediately became something more than C with classes when it was discovered that templates were a Turing complete language that can do anything lisp can do (albeit badly, write only, and hard to write, but it can do it) with the result that its key feature became not classes, but the Standard Template Library.

                  Thus, speaking about “C with classes” without showing awareness that “C with classes” is not just a term no longer used, but a thing that no longer exists, that the term ceased to be used for good reason, is a Jacques Derrida style blooper.

                  When you use a term that ceased to be used for good reason, that suggests lack of knowledge of the reason. It is not C with classes, because it is C with templates.

                  Well written C++ is apt to generate an exceedingly large and complex set of classes on the fly, of which neither the writer nor the reader should be aware, though sometimes you get one of the infamous error messages concerning them, that forces you to bring them to conscious awareness. But for some time both compiler writers, and template writers, have been striving to avoid the possibility of these strange, complicated, and incomprehensible error messages concerning strange and complicated classes generated on the fly, and I have not seen one of them for quite some time. Correct use of static asserts in the templated constructor can eliminate them – or at least ensure that the error message is intelligible, not because the static assert fails, but because the error message generated in the context of an unsuccessful effort to compile the static assert is intelligible, and if it is not intelligible, the source code generating the error message is documented by the more intelligible error message associated with the static assert in the source.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You were not attempting to communicate meaning.

                  It’s Foucaultian deconstructionist prose applied (badly) to futurist and reactionary memes. Specifically intended to communicate without meaning.

                  Trouble is, that only works when the language is already corrupted and the audience is receptive. Unlikely to work here.

              • Mike in Boston says:

                Precisely this! The system supporting only short plaintext messages also removes the possibility of flooding the system with child pornography five minutes before the cops knock on your door with a search warrant.

                In my opinion decryption keys should be exchanged only in person, and reside only on a device with no network connection except a short-range, point-to-point wireless or infrared link implemented in hardware you trust. Any larger network attack surface, and the adversary will simply exploit your network-connected device using either a 0-day or a backdoor arranged with the hardware manufacturer, and then grab either your decryption key, or else a screen shot of your frame buffer as you read the decrypted message.

                To forestall application of the rubber hose treatment at the expense of bloating messages somewhat, the publicly-visible data pool should look like a big sea of text about the stock market or fantasy football or whatever can be dreamed up and added to a natural language steganography layer.

                It is clear to me that some software and hardware work could produce a secure command and control network. But I am still unclear how to prevent any such network from being subverted by entryists.

  6. pdimov says:

    I remember when esr was the one to be called a disgusting racist. (If my memory is correct, for the observation that America consists of islands of Switzerland and islands of Swaziland.)

    • jim says:

      As I said, all white nationalists now.

    • redpillmyrustledjimmies says:

      ESR has come so close to accidentally red-pilling himself multiple times over the years. But he’s a Pennsylvania Yankee and a nerd that based his entire social life on ‘omg science over masculinity, let’s all be goofy nerds and polyamorists.’ He’ll emotionally run back to his religion every time til the bullets start flying. Then, just maybe, he’ll be able to break that shit.

    • Which was about gun deaths and gun control, and this was an absolute eye-opener for me: http://www.unz.com/anepigone/gun-city/ it shows that literally everybody, republicans, democrats, whites, blacks etc. think gun control is a good idea in the city and a bad idea in the suburb and the country. While I only know this debate from the Internet (never been to the US physically), EVERYBODY seems to talk about gun control in universal terms, not local terms.

      All this boils down to nobody have a real issue with suburban and rural whites having guns and everybody has an issue with urban blacks having guns, but they can’t say it that way. While declaring the city a gun-free zone and leaving suburbia and country alone would satisfy everybody’s wishes, if liberals accepted that, it would implicitly imply they agree that the blacks are a problem. So they have to fight for universal gun control just to get them out of the cities they live in, because they have to pin the problem on suburban and rural whites.

      Anyway. That graph was really mind-blowing to me because it showed very clearly that there is a huge divisive issue and yet everybody has the same essential opinion about it and there would be no division at all if people could state the problem openly.

      This graph is a perfect demonstration of how democracy fails. There is overwhelming support for a city-only gun control and leaving guns everywhere else alone and it cannot happen because you just can’t say it.

      • Not Tom says:

        Two minor issues here:
        – A lot of the new, woke Democrats actually don’t understand the necessity of guns outside urban areas. They literally know nothing about guns or rural life. Case in point, the recent pile-on to some random guy on Twitter talking about feral hogs.
        – Most urban areas are already, essentially, gun-free zones. Problem is that they can’t actually keep guns out of these areas, partly because they’re legitimately “smuggled” in from the less-controlled areas, and partly because they’re stolen from cops and the politicos are just looking for someone else to blame. Either way, it leads to the need for universal bans, not just urban/black bans. Enforcement is the problem.

        It’s not exactly what you think. I’ve experienced white prog culture from the inside, where there are hardly any blacks and the few that make it in are already preselected for intelligence. Whites are terrified, or at least affect being terrified, of other whites carrying any kind of firearm anywhere near them. They don’t even trust each other. Part of this is just signaling, but after a while they start to believe their own BS, because that’s what happens when you lie constantly.

        Urban gun control is a fantasy. The solution is racial segregation, not policy segregation.

        • Nikolai says:

          “Whites are terrified, or at least affect being terrified, of other whites carrying any kind of firearm anywhere near them”

          100% accurate. A shitlib seeing a gun is like a vampire seeing a cross. They become deeply uncomfortable while pretending to remain calm and then tell their friends about it as though it was a near death experience.

          • Mike in Boston says:

            A shitlib seeing a gun is like a vampire seeing a cross. They become deeply uncomfortable while pretending to remain calm

            Totally correct about shitlibs; I suppose you have observed them. But do you have firsthand experience with vampires too? 🙂

  7. Mister Grumpus says:

    Aside:

    Owen B is circling the WQ now, faster and closer than I’ve ever seen anyone with a name and face circle it before. I can’t believe it, but I see it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YTF_VX-i6lE

    • I AM says:

      married to an Amerindian

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Wow such purity I’m impressed.

        I said WQ. Women Question.

        • yankoo in yankoo land says:

          on the tombstone of Owen “Two First Names” Benjamin

          ENTOMBED HERE OWEN BENJAMIN LIES
          HIS EYES THE COLOR OF LIGHT BLUE SKIES
          HE WED A SEXY MEXICAN MAID
          WITH SULTRY EYES OF LIGHT BROWN SUEDE

          IN HER RAN THE AZTEC BLOOD
          THE BLOOD OF THUNDER AND OF FLOOD
          CERTAIN TEMPERAMENT, CERTAIN HANDS
          GHASTLY RITUALS, MACABRE STRANDS

          NOW HIS SON HE CALLS HIS OWN
          HIS LINE NO LONGER NORDIC SHOWN
          THAT IS NOT DEAD WHICH EVER LIE
          AND WITH STRANGE ÆONS DEATH MAY DIE

          otherwise seems like a well-meaning in di vi du al

  8. The Cominator says:

    Saying yes we are “racist” is useful. Labeling ourselves as “white nationalists” who are 99.99% controlled op (outright federal agents) or are retarded is not useful.

    We are aware of the race question, we do not define ourselves according to the race question.

    • Not Tom says:

      You’re a bit literal, aren’t you? Jim wasn’t telling us to identify as WNs, his point is that the left will soon be, and in fact already is, identifying even the most moderate and cuckiest of conservatives as white nationalists. They’ve started believing their own lies, they’re getting paranoid, and if given access to power again, are very likely going to start imprisoning and killing indiscriminately.

      • The Cominator says:

        Spergish and literal I am.

        I know Jim is not a white nationalist, but the point that the democrats see all Trump supporters and all people who might support Trump or any Republican to the right of Mitt Romney as a white nationalist is obvious and has been apparent since the 2016 election.

        My point is that it is dangerous to mention wignatism 1.0 without mentioning that it a controlled op loser movement, lest we be swarmed by entryists, feds, idiots and joofers.

        • jim says:

          If I was to explicitly say “I am not a white nationalist, and most of those saying that they are white nationalists are fbi agents”, this would sound very like “Hey I am not one of those horrid right wingers – no friends to the right!”

          • The Cominator says:

            But nevertheless almost any public figure who calls themself a white anything works for the enemy (Jared Taylor is an exception, Anglin probably is) so we should denounce them as LEFTIST enemies.

          • As a friend of mine had put it: “I am not a Nazi. I am a fucking Nazi swine.”

            I.e. Nazi is something one could ostensibly call oneself, while fucking Nazi swine is something other people are calling one. One has to accept solidarity with the other people who are also called so, but one should also express somehow it is not actually true.

          • info says:

            The question remains. What is best way to deal with wignats?

            So they dont sabotage us with their retardation.

            • jim says:

              Wingnats are fine. Association with them is not going to endanger us worse, and excluding them means we are the next up for the salami slicer. Observe what happened to Conservatism Inc when they excluded the Birchers.

              The big problem with wingnats is that most of them are not wingnats but FBI or Harvard NGOs claiming to be wingnats. Hence the blue pill and the Trump Derangement Syndrome. We need to exclude the entryists, not the wingnats.

              • The Cominator says:

                Very strongly disagree here.

                Wignats are controlled op, look at spencer look at Charlottesville no discipline no regard for optics. They hate Trump as zion don… We should exclude not because we are anti racist but because they are controlled op and toxic.

        • Not Tom says:

          the point that the democrats see all Trump supporters and all people who might support Trump or any Republican to the right of Mitt Romney as a white nationalist is obvious and has been apparent since the 2016 election.

          It is still not obvious to mainstream Republicans, even if it should be.

          Ironically, I think it is a little more obvious to moderate Democrats starting to turn to their right. Betrayal stings the left far more than conventional opposition, and apostates tend to receive the most vicious hate.

          Sadly, I think moderate Republicans and “conservatives” may be the last to get on board. They can generally be relied upon to vote, and not much else.

          • The Cominator says:

            Ive seen center right nevertrumpish cucks drunk off their ass… They are well aware but essentially cowardly. They want to somehow avoid civil war and the final reckoning, they are not interested in war but war is of course interested in them.

    • jim says:

      I am not actually a white nationalist. Whites are not a nation, the white race is too numerous and too varied to have cohesion. Cohesion has to be around faith.

      Rather I make the point that disowning those evil alt rightists is not going to protect anyone.

      • The Cominator says:

        Jim my response to Not Tom is in moderation.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*Deleted*]

          • jim says:

            “Hail fellow anti semite.”

            You cannot pass the Woman Question test, let us see if you can pass the Jewish Question test, which is easier, because much safer when Human Resources checks your entryism output, because discrimination against Orthodox Jews is OK, while discrimination against women is absolutely forbidden.

            Let us hear you say what I said: that the gas chambers are myth, provide some evidence for this fact, and say that Ann Frank’s diary was a forgery, and provide some evidence for this fact.

            And I am not going to allow stuff like the protocols of elders of zion. Give us the good evidence, the stuff that will set HR’s hair on fire, not the stuff that denounces Orthodox Jews. Give us the stuff that denounces Holocaustians.

            • The Cominator says:

              This is one of those few times im genuinely interested in what communist revolutionary’s script is.

              • jim says:

                He said that you, The Cominator, “threatened the tribe” – the “tribe” meaning Jews, as if the fact that Jews tend to be tribal was a deep, dark, and dangerous secret that only you and he were brave enough to mention.

                Let’s see if he is willing to say anything more about holocaustianity than he was willing to say about the woman question.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Lol i mentioned moderation because yor program false positives me too much.

            • Bilge Pump says:

              Discrimination against Jews is absolutely forbidden last time I checked.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        I have had a few comments go into moderation lately. Are you under attack again and the filter is getting aggressive?

      • Mike in Boston says:

        Jim is speaking plain common sense here. The transvestite lunatic in my old neighbrhood? White. The lesbian couple who decided that “their” preteen son is “really a girl” and are now crippling him with meds? White. By contrast my black former neighbor is a pretty normal guy, a financial analyst. Even reads Lew Rockwell. Or take it from the guy who coined the term ‘alternative right’:

        As a professor for forty years I observed that the vast majority of my leftist colleagues were white. It was white academics who brought radicalized minorities into academia in order to further “diversity.” A struggle for cultural and political dominance, moreover, goes on even in countries where nonwhites are politically insignificant. Indeed, the European left has worked to improve their hand by importing Third World, non- Christian populations. After he left office, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted to doing precisely this. The depiction of our cultural wars as based exclusively or primarily on race misrepresents what’s happening. Our most numerous adversaries in the struggle for Western civilization are white, and often belong to an affluent white elite.

        • The Cominator says:

          Hence my uncompromising view on what needs to be done with white male shitlibs in particular. Mercy is a big mistake if we get a chance to solve the problem.

          • BC says:

            Sulla’s solution failed. I’m not sure what repeating it would accomplish.

            • jim says:

              Sulla’s solution lasted quite a while. His problem was that he was trying to restore a republic that was already dead for an aristocratic elite that was failing to reproduce.

              But he permanently terminated a left wing singularity that was under way. The result however was neither empire under a King, nor a restored republic, resulting in a long period of trouble and disruption – but the way things had been going, Rome would have been destroyed.

              The underlying problem that Sulla failed to fix was elite failure to reproduce. But he unequivocally fixed the left singularity, and it stayed fixed.

              Augustus fixed the problem of regime instability by making himself God King – he recruited, or lucked out on, Virgil. Rule by warriors failed to stick, until they got a priesthood on side – well he solved the problem of regime instability and mobile banditry, but he failed to solve the problem of dysgenic elite reproduction.

              He backed the authority of the father, but did so at the expense of the husband, and, surprise surprise, women continued to screw around. If you want the elite to care about the future, and if you want eugenic reproduction, they have to have sons, and if you want them to have sons, husbands have to be alpha to their wives. Elite marriage has to give the husband authority over his wife, and end the authority of the father over his daughter. That is the whole business of “who giveth this woman to this man?”

              God Kings suck, because everyone knows it is a lie. The solution is divine right, the King was appointed by God and rules under God. The left still has George the fourth derangement syndrome, because he refused to be appointed regent by parliament. Unfortunately, once George derangement syndrome set it, George was too fat and lazy to deal with it as it needed to be dealt with, and Kingly power evaporated, despite his initial and successful assertion of divine right.

              • Allah says:

                God Kings suck, because everyone knows it is a lie. The solution is divine right, the King was appointed by God and rules under God.

                Your solution is another lie except you hope it’s going to be better obfuscated next time. Whatever convinced you to be a monarchist can also convince those you want to convince, no?

                • jim says:

                  Divine right is unfalsifiable, while cult of personality is readily falsifiable.

                  People tend to believe authority, so if the state backed priesthood (in the case of Augustus, the mainstream media) pronounce it to be so, why should they disbelieve? Particularly if to get on with all the right people, you need to believe it.

                  If George the Fourth got away with it, Trump should have no problems. Or better, Trump’s son.

                  I see people in the workplace just not seeing female misconduct that is happening right in front of them and disrupting the workplace. Women never stop testing authority and shit testing men, and no one sees it. If they can disbelieve what is in front of their faces and disrupting their work, they can believe that which is unfalsifiable.

                  Look at any woman in authority over men. Alpha males love having beta males around, but women in authority cannot stand having them around, and spontaneously and instinctively act to drive them away – act to drive away employees, customers, and shareholders. And no one can see it.

                • Allah says:

                  I don’t dispute that you can fool people into believing or intimidate them into pretending to believe. Why can’t you just tell the truth?

                • jim says:

                  For some facts, such as rightful authority, there is no easily demonstrable truth.

                  Therefore, faith is needed.

                • Allah says:

                  That’s weird, when my comment went into moderation my profile pic changed too.

                • Allah says:

                  It was demonstrated to you, hence you became a monarchist. If it’s not easily demonstrable, then figure out a way to demonstrate it properly instead of concocting lie after lie. You might think it’s very clever, but others see you as the cynical liar you are. If you’re deceiving me because you think it’s useful or it’s “needed”, what other lies are you telling?

                • jim says:

                  A lie is something the speaker knows, or should know, is untrue.

                  No one knows that divine right is untrue. And the bible tells us that Kings are set in authority by God.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Divine right not necessarily a lie. I sincerely believe that Donald Trump is God’s handpicked anointed monarch.

                • Monarchy is far from perfect, and many of us on the reactionary right merely observe that it is preferable to the unaccountable rule by lies and propaganda that democracy inevitably leads to. Monarchy works for the simple reason that an owner has an incentive to be responsible in the long term. The problem with Monarchy is that it is a monopoly, and a monopolist makes excessive profit. It is far past time that we kill the sacred cow of democracy and seek some form of improvement.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Excess profits aren’t a problem. The problem is weak monarchs or ones with short time preferences that destroy their long term power base.

                • Allah says:

                  Well, do you believe in the existence of gods? Do you believe they are helping your guy? If so, why? You were convinced to become a monarchist for such and such reasons, why hide your own reasoning?

              • Jsd says:

                Are there any examples of successfully reversing fertility decline?

                • jim says:

                  Chinese. Took foreign conquest by a patriarchal people.

                  Japanese. Took a period of anarchy.

              • info says:

                A huge reason for that is abortion which left many of their wives infertile. And left them a much smaller pool of women to marry since many of their potential wives are dead.

                No doubt the importation of the “greek vice” sodomy as well.

                And the lack of strong sexual ethics otherwise provided by early Christianity.

              • Niiiidriveevof says:

                What useful examples of fertility decline -> collapse do we have besides the Romans and the present day?

      • Moon says:

        “Whites are not a nation, the white race is too numerous and too varied to have cohesion. Cohesion has to be around faith. ”

        Faith is far more varied than race. You can at least construct a somewhat coherent qualifier for what constintutes someone being ‘white’.

        • jim says:

          But faith groups are cohesive – Jews, progressives, communists being obvious examples. We are not going to cohere around whiteness. Whites are wolf to whites.

          • Moon says:

            In Judaism you have theologies that are pro-Israel and one’s that are anti-Isreal. You have far left SJW reformatist and hard right Jews. Bronze age fairy tails in the bible can support any conviebiable political position at all, because no one actually beleives in them. They just voice their own political beleifs using the fairy tales. In Judaism you have theologies that say Isreal is good, and ones that say it’s bad. The religion can support two such contradicting positions because no one actually beleives there is any truth to the ancient prophecies, anymore than they beleive Yawhei decides whether their crops will grow.

            Proggressivism has more coherncy because it isn’t a fairy tale about Egyption slaves or walking on water. It’s a set of political convictions, something much more grounded in reality. Historical oppression, poverty, civil rights, these are real things so you get a more coherent set of beleifs.

            You’re hear talking about a monarchy with ‘divine right’, as if anyone beleives there is a bearded man in the sky to giving out the right to rule. What’s next? We need to re-elect Trump or God will send a plague? That if you become a feminist you will get sent to the 6th circle of hell?

            • jim says:

              Nuts.

              Leftist Christians are at best obvious apostates, and at worst demon worshippers. They torture the text of the bible to make it say the opposite of what it plainly says, and leftist Jews are more of the same.

              • Moon says:

                You’re no more or less following the bible than the the SJW Christians are. You pick and choose out the parts that suit your need and ignore the rest. You like when Paul of Tarsus says are gays are bad but you don’t take him literally when he says it is ideal for a man to never have sex, but if he must have sex it should only be for procreation. You don’t care that Jesus said those who make themself Eunichs for the kingdom of heaven are blessed or that you should give up all your wealth.

                You aren’t intereseted in aboundening the material world to prepare your soul for the propheicied apocylpse. Or the idea that all this political turmial will be solved by a brigade of angels during the second coming.

                What is an is not hersey changes as people change the religion to suit their own taste. Paul of Tarsus was a heretic until his theology became mainstream. You talk about how Christian leftists ‘twist’ the bible text, but the bible text we have know is itself twisted and usurped.

                • jim says:

                  > You’re no more or less following the bible than the the SJW Christians are.

                  Nuts. I know what it says.

                  There is no way you can get the social justice bible out of King James Bible.

                  It is not that hard to read. No women’s rights, no divorce on female demand, submission to earthly authorities acting lawfully in their proper sphere. (Hence divine right of Kings) Christians are encouraged, but not required, to free their own slaves, and forbidden to free other people’s slaves. Men should love their wives (plural) women should respect their husband (singular).

                  You are supposed to be generous with your own property, not other people’s property. Pay your just debts on time, particularly to employees.

                  No killing, no stealing, and no coveting. The Social Justice Bible is all coveting and stealing, which from time to time escalates to mass killing.

                  No adultery, where adultery is defined with sex the way it is with beer – no actions that obscure paternity or prevent a man from raising his own children. A man cannot sleep with another man’s wife or betrothed, and a woman may only sleep with her husband. Wives and husband are required to sexually gratify each other. You cannot get women’s liberation out of that. Women have absolutely no right to have sex with whosoever they please, or refrain from having sex with their husbands. None of this crap about consenting adults. Consent is absolutely irrelevant to whether sex is legitimate or not. Consent is only relevant to a woman’s guilt in illegitimate sex – that she did not consent does not make legitimate sex wrongful, and that she did consent does not make illegitimate sex rightful.

                  Sodomites suffer gay diseases which reflect the wrath of God, and should be cast out (New Testament) or killed (old Testament). Sodomites also behave badly in a wide variety of ways in addition to sodomy.

                  Contractual marriage (female consent to marriage) is an eleventh century addition. In the bible consent is preferable, but by no means required, marriage being a deal between patriarchs for grandchildren.

                • Moon says:

                  Nietzche got a social justice interpretation of the bible and he did it before social justice existed.

                  What you seem to be describing is the ‘family values’ version of Christianity. It’s not consistent with what historical biblical scholars say about the religion (aka the people that actually study it with the Greek/Hebrew versions and a proper knowledge of the historical time periods they were written in, not hill billys talking about “King James”). Which makes sense, you are not actually interested in finding out what these Jews from Rome 2,000 years ago were thinking, you’re just interested in shoving your own political opinions down people’s throats using the religion (all while complaining that leftist Christians are doing the same thing).

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “Nietzche got a social justice interpretation of the bible and he did it before social justice existed.”

                  England had its last execution for homosexuality in the 1830s.

                  “What you seem to be describing is the ‘family values’ version of Christianity.”

                  Is it the one that focuses on the proper methodology for genocide?

                  “Which makes sense, you are not actually interested in finding out what these Jews from Rome 2,000 years ago were thinking, ”

                  So you can read Jim’s mind by reading his writing, but Jim cannot do the same because…

                  “you’re just interested in shoving your own political opinions down people’s throats using the religion (all while complaining that leftist Christians are doing the same thing).”

                  Our objection to leftist isn’t they are using religion to achieve their aims any more then we object to people using guns to achieve their aims.

                  It is that they are lying and seeking to kill everyone.

                  Jim’s evidence that he isn’t lying and isn’t a mass murdering lunatic is the further back you go, the more consistent his interpretation is to what people believed and by the time you get to the 18th century it is essentially the same.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It’s not consistent with what historical biblical scholars say about the religion

                  You sound like a CNN journalist. “Don’t read WikiLeaks, in fact that’s probably illegal or something, instead we’ll summarize the important parts for you.” Don’t do your own research, don’t look at primary sources, just listen to our experts!

                  Your experts are wrong about everything else, why would they be right about this?

            • Steve Johnson says:

              You’re hear talking about a monarchy with ‘divine right’, as if anyone beleives there is a bearded man in the sky to giving out the right to rule. What’s next? We need to re-elect Trump or God will send a plague?

              Nah, He did that when we ignored His teachings about sodomites.

            • Dave says:

              “What’s next? We need to re-elect Trump or God will send a plague?”

              We need to elect Tom Steyer or droughts, floods, plagues, and hurricanes will kill us all. Steyer must own YouTube now because in every video I see his kike face promising to “declare climate change a national emergency from day one and create millions of jobs”. Yet he’s still polling between zero and two percent.

              Last summer was long and hot, but this summer began at the end of May and ended in early August, so climate change is obviously real.

        • Moon says:

          “”
          You sound like a CNN journalist. “Don’t read WikiLeaks, in fact that’s probably illegal or something, instead we’ll summarize the important parts for you.” Don’t do your own research, don’t look at primary sources, just listen to our experts!
          “”

          Have you looked at the primary sources for the bible? If you can’t read Hebrew or Greek the answer is no. Christiand and Jews understanding of their own text is crap because they have a basis, they have a bias in making the texts as relevent to modern times as possible. They cannot give proper respect to the writers who lived in a very different world.

          Let’s take the apocalypse of Christianity as an example. Every scholarly treatment on I have seen says the writers and followers of the religion believed the world was going to end in their life-time. Yet there is a not a single Christian who would say that the second of coming of Christ was supposed to happen in the 1st or 2nd centuary–to do so would be to discredit the entire religion.

          This isn’t a small detail. It helps explain why Paul wants his followers to not have children, why the apostles did not seem to care they were executed by the state, why Jesus insists his followers must sell everything they own. Because there is no sense in caring about continuing one’s lineage, having material positions, or valuing a long life if the world will end in a few decades. The idea that we must ‘sustain our race’ is in an utter contrast to this. There are probably so called Christians that do not even consider ‘the apocalypse’ into their thinking at all. The idea that all political disputes will be solved when Jesus comes to earth on a brigade of angels and establishes himself as the world monarch is too alien for us.

          This is why the religion is becoming worthless. Jim is correct that the bible teaches that God is a monarch and we must obey, but monarchs derive their authority through their ability to punish disobedience. In other words that king jesus will literally raise your ex-wife’s soul from the dead and send her to the dungeons of hell because she divorced raped you. If he isn’t going to do that than his commandments no longer matter–and your ex wife knew that. All the emasculated alt-righters paying alimony still don’t know that…

          • jim says:

            > It helps explain why Paul wants his followers to not have children

            You have been reading the social justice bible. Paul of the actual bible laid down commands that made Christianity a fertile religion in a Roman Empire suffering population collapse and replacement. Paul of the actual bible expected Bishops to have families. His abstinence statements have been holiness spiraled – I read the Church fathers holiness spiraling them, and they are obvious scum, using the debating tricks that I do not tolerate on this blog. It is like the Jews attributing latest theological innovations, twentieth and twenty first century, to Moses.

            Paul told his followers that Christ was coming tomorrow, but he built a church designed for ten thousand years.

            • Nikolai says:

              “I read the Church fathers holiness spiraling them, and they are obvious scum”

              Ah the eternal Anglican. A stalwart defender of the Faith, Tradition and the Communion of Saints. Right up until it gets in the way of muh dick.

              • jim says:

                As the last Anglican, I believe that the fathers of my church were right about priestly celibacy, and the fathers of your church were wrong. And they, and I, have both empirical and biblical evidence that the fathers of your Church were wrong.

                And when I read the fathers of your Church arguing for their position, I read dishonest methods of argument that I would never tolerate on my blog, methods of argument that are a reliable indicator of evil and malice.

                • Nikolai says:

                  Ok I’ll bite. What empirical evidence? How has allowing married priests helped the Anglican church?

                  I look at the Catholic Church and I, admittedly, see no end of very severe problems. Mass apostasy, awful catechesis, rampant liturgical abuses, countless homosexual priests, bishops more worried about open borders and global warming than any of the above. The list goes on.

                  Yet I look at the Anglican church and it seems worse in more or less every regard. Say what you want about the Church, but we don’t have women priests. What good has ordaining married men done?

                • jim says:

                  You cannot look at the existent “Anglican” Church. There is a reason why I called myself the last Anglican.

                  But from 1660 to 1928, it did a mighty good job, and throughout this period, married priests.

                  Years ago, however, jokes about Anglican Church’s atheism and hostility to Christianity were mainstream, appearing routinely in the mass media, for example “Yes Prime Minister”. The problems with the existent institution that calls itself Anglican is that it is atheist and profoundly hostile to Christianity, and has been for a long time.

                • Allah says:

                  How can you be a True Anglican and a materialist at the same time?

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                By their fruits you shall know them, and the fruits of priestly celibacy have been… well, fruits, or fags, queers, or whatever else you want to call them. By pushing healthy male sexuality out of the priesthood, you invited unhealthy male sexuality in, instead.

                • Moon says:

                  Paul said something to the effect that if Jesus did not rise from the grave than the religion is pointless (literally rise, not some Jordan Peterson metaphorical rise). This is because if Jesus could not become immortal than neither can any of his followers. And this promise of immortality was the entire point of the religion for Paul–not to sustain a society as you want to twist him to mean. You’re talking about how bishops followed Paul’s order of celebacy, as if the medieval concept of a bishop had anything to do with his teachings. He wanted NO one to have sex, because he that the world would end any day (would you have children if you beleived that). If Paul and his followers became convinced their religion could not get them immortality they would have abounded all the teachings of their religion and declared the whole thing a lie.

                  Another juicy bit. Paul’s belief was that the Jesus who walked on the earth was not an authority figure in the religion and the real word of God were the voices in his head. Paul guy was in a theological squabble with James and co. James not only personally knew Jesus, being his brother, but as per Rabbinical practices of family-succession would have been head of the very church Jesus founded. James and co knew Paul was full of shit and his teachings were not the same as Jesus, so Paul had to come up with this idea in order to have any grounds to argue.

                  This idea of Paul would be considered a heresy of the highest of rank by his immediate predecessors (or even by the Gospel of John). It almost sounds like Gnostism. So both Paul’s understanding of sex and of the very nature of God was drastically different than all other Christians that followed them, because they were not sustainable ideas at all. People need to have children, and if hearing voices in your head is the highiest of divine authories there can be no order.

                  But what you are really missing here Jim, which is where the entire system of Christianity breaks down, is that Paul is not Christianity. Jesus is Christianity, and if Paul not only didn’t know Jesus but was seen an an enemy by the people that did know him this makes him a CORRUPTER of the religion. Modern scholarly conesus is that all 4 of the Gospels were written in Greek (the agreement is that a number of the lines would not have been written as they are if they were translated from Aramiac or hebrew). This means the writings are something different from the teachings Jesus, which was a Jewish-only movement and what sort of Jew would record holy writings in Greek? And since Paul was the guy that introduced the religion to Greek-speaking people it means all the writings NOT by Paul are written by Paul tainted by him. This is corruption on a MASSIVE scale. It means the entire chain of theology from Paul, to Augestine, to Jim is based on reading HERETICAL WRITINGS. It is a massive crisis of authority in which every single line in the bible now becomes suspect. There was so much competetion between rival Christian factions, each calling the other a heretic, that it is not a wild assumption that must of the teachings in the bible are not at all representative of the origenal, and just represent the winning factions shoving their own ideas into the mouth of the messiah. Is the voice in Paul’s head really anything else than his own opinion? The guy has a seizure on the road to Damascus hear’s voices in his head from his schizproena which he attributes to ‘the holy spirit’ and so this mentally ill Jew becomes a sage? How did Christians go so fucking long without realizing the guy was a con and could not possibly be part of the same religion as Jesus. Centuaries of noses shoved in their book and they don’t notice the most basic of things. Retards that know absolutly nothing about their own book. The concentration camps for Christians cannot come soon enough.

                • jim says:

                  > You’re talking about how bishops followed Paul’s order of celebacy,

                  Paul did not order celibacy nor found a celibate order. You are lying about what Paul said. Celibacy is for those called to it, and Paul did not expect the Church to be composed or run by people called to it.

                  The church has an earthly mission, as well as a divine mission. To address the earthly mission does not reject the divine mission.
                  The problem with denying the earthly mission of Christianity is that it is done to leave room for Christianity to adopt the earthly mission of progressivism.

                  Our current state religion is based on lies. Instead of being required to believe in things unseen, we are required to disbelieve in things seen, such as the differences between races and sexes.

                  When the Church goes along with the lies, it rejects both its earthly and divine missions.

                  You repeat Orthodox Jewish lies about Christianity, and progressive lies about Christianity, any mud that comes handy, regardless of its source. The stuff you are telling comes from a multitude of sources, each of them hostile to Christianity for different and entirely contradictory reasons.

                  One faction hostile to Christianity came up with unreasonable conclusions through motivated reasoning, and another faction hostile to Christianity came up with unreasonable conclusion through motivated reasoning for completely different and contradictory motives, and you are giving us the motivated conclusions that all these very different factions reached.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Your post sounds like it was written by committee. You took the time to make sure that it was well-written and persuasive, made all of the points that you wanted to make, and had excellent grammar. You all high-fived each other as you hit the send button… and rightly so. In your world, these words would easily get that Nazi imprisoned for hate crimes or that thought criminal purged from his job. A job well done.

                  Your problem, however, is that you are an idiot who is writing to impress other idiots. These are in somewhat short supply among the regulars on this forum.

                  Take the hint, fuck off, and spend the next five years begging for forgiveness and repenting with all of your heart, because if you don’t, I will hand over control of the big red button to The Cominator, and we all know what he is like when he’s angry.

                  Shill.

              • Mike in Boston says:

                The Eastern Orthodox church knows that the push to mandate priestly celibacy resulted from a holiness spiral, and attempted to nip it in the bud. It was first imposed at a local council in Spain the early 300s, then floated for universal adoption at the first ecumenical council, in 325.

                However, St. Paphnutius, himself a celibate monk since his teenage years, rose and declared:

                that too heavy a yoke ought not to be laid upon the clergy; that marriage and married intercourse are of themselves honorable and undefiled; that the Church ought not to be injured by an extreme severity, for all could not live in absolute continency.

                This was the end of the matter as far as the Eastern churches were concerned, and to this day married men may become Orthodox priests.

                In the West, however, local councils continued the imposition of priestly celibacy, at first de jure and then de facto.

                I suppose this may have been due to the greater temporal power of the Western clergy in a region with weaker secular government leading to increased holiness spirals vis-a-vis the situation in the East, where imperial power was stable much longer. Or maybe the West’s greater susceptiblity to holiness spirals is in its DNA.

          • Not Tom says:

            And what if we have read the original Hebrew or Greek? Not that it matters, as there are plenty of good, faithful English translations, generally labeled under the “archaic” category. Just don’t read the ones produced in the 20th century or later.

            Again, it’s the CNN argument: “don’t bother looking at the source, you wouldn’t understand it anyway, here let me explain to you what it really says…”.

            Nope. You are preaching heresy, and there will be consequences for you, maybe in the next world but preferably in this one.

          • Anonymous says:

            Every scholarly treatment on I have seen says the writers and followers of the religion believed the world was going to end in their life-time.

            Perhaps you should ask the writers and followers of the religion rather than relying on scholars of dubious merit. I hear there are quite a few believers on this blog.

          • jim says:

            > Every scholarly treatment on I have seen says

            Commies.

            The words and the conduct of the apostles was that the world might well end in their lifetimes, but, just in case, better build for a thousand years.

            Every scholarly treatment is full of bare faced lies easily falsified. Their real belief is that the bible is a dangerously radioactive thought crime that needs to be neutralized lest it explode again.

            Among the notable lies of every scholarly treatment is that the books of the New Testament were written late. But the Acts of the apostles ends right in the middle, before the execution of Saint Paul and persecution of the Jewish Christians of Jerusalem just beginning. The prophesies of the fall of the temple were obviously written up before the temple fell. If written late, would cover the persecution of the apostles and the flight from Jerusalem.

            Since the Books of the New Testament was written while they still lived, with the exception of Revelations, if they believed the world was definitely going to end in their lifetimes and therefore no point in taking care for the future, would have said so. Rather, they hinted darkly that the end of the world likely coming real soon now.

            Every scholarly treatment of the Bible tells us that the Bible really says X, when it plainly says Y, the same crap as Dalrock is always denouncing. And if someone points at the Bible saying Y, the scholars then tell us that they know what the Apostles really said, and if the Bible says something different, that is because it was not written until four hundred years afterwards. If this stuff was written up late, how come you can read all about Saint Paul and Saint James in the Bible, and not get a clue about their executions? Their executions made it into the history books. If they did not make it into the books of the New Testament, that means the books of the New Testament were finalized within the lives of the apostles.

            There is not a hairsbreadth of difference between any scholarly treatment of the Bible and a blue haired crew cut lesbian pastor congratulating Jesus on aspiring to be as holy as her very holy self. They are both products of the religion of Harvard.

            Scholars do not in fact read old books for fear of contamination by thought crime, and I do not believe that the scholars who claim to read the Bible in original latin and greek would touch it with a ten foot pole. They base their writings on what other scholars said about what other scholars said about what other scholars said about the Bible.

            The reason every scholarly treatment says the same thing is because one microphone, a thousand megaphones. A decade or two ago every scholarly treatment said something different, and then suddenly they all simultaneously change their minds, say the new thing, and forget that they ever said anything different.

      • Yes, but I would put it different. Nations, ethnicities are subgroups of races. People in the old world identify with that. As people from various white nations intermarried in the US and created a new culture, the obvious thing for white Americans would be to identify as white Americans as simply a new ethnicity, a new nation. In fact, as whites were always the default Americans, this just what the American identity used to mean.

        So what we are seeing now is that in the freedom of the Internet young American men are discovering that they can have a racial identity. And instead of having a white racial identity and an American cultural, national, ethnic identity as its subset, which would be the most obvious normal logical thing to do, this is what a rightist Englishman or Frenchman does, they are willing to abandon the second and just identify with their race. Why? OK, part of the story is that because cultural conservatives are cucks, but it is still not a good idea. You need both.

        But I think there is another aspect. Given that most white nations have cucked out, and that includes the white American nation, I think there is the idea to rediscover in oneself a long-lost old ur-white nation, that was the ancestor of the rest, some kind of a viking-pagan thing, hence Odinis/Wotanism (which even Hitler considered retarded and tried to talk Himmler out of pushing it). So the idea could be that they collect the few, small percentage of a noncucks from all white nations and form a new white nation somewhere, likely in America, not very big, a few states, a few ten millions of people, clearly a workable size for a nation. And it is not even a stupid idea, this is Landian Exit.

        And it could even work with Anglos. The problem with us Continentals is that we are peasants, not farmers, our patriotism/nationalism includes a strong attachment to local geography. We just can’t do things like the English did, to go and recreate a mini England in somewhere like Rhodesia. For us a nation has a fixed geographical place. Nazis used “blood and soil” as an advertising slogan precisely because people were really feeling that way, feeling attached to the local soil, and every advertising and propaganda works by selling things by linking them to other things people already like. So we would likely not leave no matter what. (Of course, many left back then, many moved to America, but they were precisely the less patriotistic, less nationalistic sort.)

        • Lenny says:

          According to Wikipedia, Sweden’s TFR, solidly around 4 since 1600, went below 2.1 from 1927 to 1942 and then after 1968 with a brief rebound in 1990, around which time even Matt Groenig had Ms. Hoover yell at Lisa for repeating too-aggressive feminist talking points.

          • True of course, but I don’t see the relevance/connection to my comment.

            • Lenny says:

              A monarchy, with Lutheran archbishops who the kings have a history of prosecuting, with an autochthonous, high human capital population, a nation with a presitigious military history, a modern economy, not socialist, with a decent TFR. 20th century Sweden is the dream of, and a warning to, anyone who would be content with half measures.

            • Coco the Gorilla says:

              a brief rebound in 1990, around which time even Matt Groenig had Ms. Hoover

              You’re a bisexual deviant who falsely projects his bisexuality and deviance onto the rest of us. You swing in the direction of cock, balls, and hairy ass, whereas normal men (which you will never, ever be remotely considered to be) are attracted to fertile females of whatever age they happen to be, and especially to chicks who are nubile and perky. You are offensively, despicably low status among every community that has ever hosted your ramblings, first because your lipsticked mouth has evidently breathed on lots of dicks, and secondly becomes just about everything about you is abnormal, depraved, and disgusting.

              Your colorful bric-a-brac spam posts always betray your complete disassociation from normal and healthy male sexuality, because you’re here to rationalize your effeminate bisexual deviance – and that’s all you ultimately care about. I’m glad Mobutu crapped a ton into your throat.

        • The yearning for the “ur-white” is misidentified by the people participating in it; it is actually the desire to found a new race of whites. And this is quite a positive development. The wignats, at least the good ones, are now talking about nomadic banditry, maritime piracy, and war brides once the SHTF, not about populist uprisings and new Hitlers. As much as it is memes for now, this is the attitude that crushes a decaying civilization and founds a new elite, while the “political solution” merely empowers the bugmen.

          • The Cominator says:

            You are confusing wignats with admirers of the work of Bronze Age Pervert. BAP is no wignat he has about 100 iq points on them at least.

            • BAP is also downright weird, but has one very interesting point. Everybody, left and right, is thinking about liberty or freedom in the framework of legislation. BAP is saying plain simply living on the steppe (or American frontier) is freedom, living in the Eastern city is slavery, and living in a Western city is freeer only so far that it preserved some aspects of the steppe.

              This is interesting because at the end of the day people living in low population density places tend towards being fairly libertarian, and people living in high density places not simply because they interact more and thus need more rules to make that interaction work well. So I have a book about Aberdeen in 1200 and it is full of regulations like on which days are people allowed to drive their cattle to the slaughterhouse. Makes sense. No point in having cow traffic jams.

              This means these politics are kind of deterministic. Don’t live in the city. And don’t be ruled by city people. The rest will just work out.

              • ten says:

                I think much of BAPs impopularity, such as it is, which is sort of vaguely disapproving, on this blog stems from the clientele here being towards the autistic/male/logical end of the mental spectrum whereas BAP is towards the schizotypal/female/ecstatic end.

                I find him absolutely genial and endlessly entertaining. I dont think he fucks men, but i think he is a feminine dude, so gay in that way.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Sure. Of course. Why would we suspect that an individual who claims to orgasm by looking at statues of naked men might actually be inclined toward buggery? Crazy!

                • >on this blog stems from the clientele here being towards the autistic/male/logical end of the mental spectrum whereas BAP is towards the schizotypal/female/ecstatic end.

                  This is an interesting way to put it. Do these map to cultures, like Anglo or German cultures more logical and French or Romance cultures more ecstatic?

                  I mean, I (autistic) from the European Continent tend to like Anglo and German cultures and strongly dislike the Frogs.

                  For example “Continental Philosophy” is a misnomer, as long as the Germans did it they strived to make something logical, although severely lacking in empiricism and common sense, and when the French took over it became a travesty. What Husserl tried to do was a honest effort even when too abstracted away from real life, what Deleuze did was IMHO pure faggotry. But I think Anglo analytical philosophy was even better than the German version of Continental as it was more down-to-earth, more empirical.

                • ten says:

                  You misread. Why?

                  He says anything that seems like a good meme in any given moment. Which is not to say that maybe this particular thing is literally true, but don’t count on it. Maybe he does fuck men, i don’t know, but if i would bet, would bet no.

                • ten says:

                  TheDividualist, (so the above post was directed to Not Tom)

                  The mapping you suggest seems intuitively right to me too. I’m sure some would argue against it, pointing out differences among subgroups, combinations of tendencies, contingent characteristics and other things.

                  If a culture, f.x. the commentariat at blog.jim.com adopts a certain spirit, this creates a feedback loop supporting this spirit as the one to use for success, so retards talking like fags don’t get traction here, while people talking like jim would get no traction among outraged white knighting facebook nationalists talking like retards, or among philosophy undergrads talking like fags.

                  Balanced against the average genetic psychic prophile of the cultists, this cultural spirit ought to have great sustainability, and make a persistent difference between fx germans and frogs, or among different priesthoods of philosophy departments.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Ah yes, the perennial gay excuse. I call it the CinemaSins excuse. Advance whatever stupidity one pleases, and then when called out on it, say “it’s just memes, bro! can’t you take a joke?”

                  Satire has a particular form, and what BAP is doing is not satire. Most people are pretty good at sniffing out when something that was clearly not intended as a joke is being retconned as a joke in order to avoid consequences. Even progressives know what a joke looks like, despite their performative outrage at the “wrong” kinds of jokes.

                • ten says:

                  I don’t think BAP ever uses satire and did neither say nor imply it.

                  If some statement in some context would pull someone in some mindset in some desired direction, and this effect is in aggregate greater than its opposite, the statement is effective in a common interpretation of the meaning of occult magic. Nietszche did not practice magic in such a tradition but was well read in it and his philosophy is mired in it. So is BAPs.

                  This reading of BAP is what i previously called “schizotypal(,feminine, ecstatic)”, which i am sure some psychological professional would raise loud and angry objections towards, while yours is clearly what i called autistic/male/logical. So, if he is thinking and talking like i think he is thinking and talking, your mode of reading him won’t hit home.

                  But hey, maybe hes a fag, i’m open for the possibility, it just goes against my prejudice, or judge of character. He certainly says a lot of gay shit, but i think it is reasonable to understand it as i understand it, and not as you understand it. If i am wrong, you are right.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’ve presented evidence, Spandrell has presented evidence, you have presented opinions and wild speculation. I will continue to assume that your reading is wrong and incoherent until you present evidence.

                  That may be “autistic” of me but it’s generally the path toward truth.

              • Mike in Boston says:

                Don’t live in the city. And don’t be ruled by city people. The rest will just work out.

                Today’s situation in the USA is not too dissimilar from the years before the Bolshevik Revolution, so let’s see how a Russian peasant would have fared applying BAP’s dicta.

                Don’t live in the city. It’s early 1918 and you have enough to eat, unlike the city dwellers. Every now and then you venture there and some starving “former person” trades you a silver bracelet for a dozen eggs.

                Don’t be ruled by city people. So far so good. The Bolsheviks have their hands full with the city and you never see them in your village, where everything runs just as it always has.

                Now, fast forward later in 1918. The Bolsheviks have consolidated power in the cities and are now able to spare a Red Army detachment. They arrive, seize your crop to feed the hungry proletariat, and collective your khutor. Two of your sons were shot for resisting and the rest of your family dies of starvation not long afterward. BAP is no longer looking so smart.

                City or country, things don’t just “work out” without organization.

                • I AM says:

                  Without Anglo aid the Reds would have been crushed by the Whites. Colonel House literally sent in the Army to secure the Trans-Siberian Railroad on their behalf. The lesson here is “don’t lose the Office of the President, the hinge of world history”.

    • Dave says:

      Racism is a necessary condition for long-term survival. If you don’t think your DNA is any better than that of some African with a bone through his nose, why bother having children? Sexism too, because birthrates collapse when men can’t own women.

      ESR, Scott Alexander, Jordan Peterson, and anyone else who tries to reason with the Left will be executed for insufficient Leftism. Jim won’t be because (a) he long ago realized what was happening and took care to conceal his identity and establish residence in countries not ruled by Leftists, and (b) Jim’s ideas are so far outside the Overton Window that merely acknowledging his existence would be a thought crime.

      • Not Tom says:

        Technically, racism is not a prerequisite for wanting to preserve your own family line, though there does appear to be some modest correlation. You’re more likely to produce lots of kids if you think your DNA is not only better than a Bantu tribesman, but also better than most members of your own race.

        Which is why the WN crowd tends to be childless and incel. The race is all they have. I don’t want to associate with them not because progressives think they’re bad, which is irrelevant, but because they’re actually very low status, which is quite relevant.

        • pdimov says:

          White nationalism has been successfully assigned low status, which is why people with status to lose avoid it.

          By enthusiastically embracing the idea that white nationalism is low status, you’re accepting the frame of your enemies.

          • info says:

            @pdimov

            Christianity also assigned low status?

          • Not Tom says:

            I don’t countersignal white nationalists on public platforms as long as they stick to HBD and keep their mouths shut on economics and policy. But I’m afraid you are wrong, my friend; I considered white nationalists to be low status before “my” “enemies” even knew they existed.

            It wasn’t assigned low status, it was always low status. People should indeed take pride in their ancestry, and maybe to some extent their ethnicity, but Irish and Italian men and assorted mutts completely ignorant of their own ancestry staking claims to the achievements of the English, Dutch and Germans by lumping them all into “white” is desperate and pathetic.

            Elite movements are aristocratic. Dynastic, even. White nationalism is peasant, through-and-through, and it shows clearly in their inability to regulate their public behavior.

            Of course, this accords it the status of a genuine grassroots movement, but all of the above is equally explainable by being a fed-run shill op.

            • jim says:

              Lots of things wrong with wingnats, but the big threat is the salami slicer. The left does not disown its worst. Works for them.

              • The Cominator says:

                Including wignats is like drafting retards into the army (Mcnamara´s morons) they are more a threat to the rest of us then the enemy and they consistently prove this.

                • jim says:

                  Again, remember conservatives and Birchers. Wingats around protect us from the salami slicer.

                  Conservatism purged the Birchers and got salami sliced.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Birchers werent controlled op morons…

                • jim says:

                  That is an entryist problem, its just that wingnats have a lot of entryists. The problem is excluding entryists, not excluding wingnats.

              • Not Tom says:

                It takes a lot of skill and a certain amount of luck to maintain that protective ring and still keep it at arms-length.

                The left does not disown its worst, and over time has become its worst, to the point where elites are being forcibly driven out.

                An ideal right-wing elite would protect the wignats, give them opportunities for assembly and gainful employment, while both firewalling itself completely from their ideology and firewalling the wignats from entryism.

                I have no idea how to make that happen and I’m not sure if anyone on this side has the resources. Without firewalls, we get dragged down and bleed elites. With firewalls, entryists will relentlessly incite wignats to attack the firewalls, and elites get tied up defending it.

                What’s the strategy, Captain?

                • jim says:

                  Not seeing the problem. Our ideology is pervading the wingnats. Wingnat ideology is not pervading us. We need to debate the national socialists, not exclude the wingnats.

                  Wingnat ideology, in so far as they have one at all, is white male socialism. All whites are equal, white wealth gets redistributed among whites by a benevolent state. Sounds like a good idea, the catch is in “redistributed by a benevolent state”. In practice, you cannot even redistribute Jewish wealth, been tried many times, it just gets smashed up and what little survives just winds up in the hands of losers, who dissipate it at a slightly slower speed. When Jewish wealth is substantially in the form of debts owed to Jews, the solution is to prohibit usury – which Christians tried many times, but it turns out to be surprisingly complicated to do it a way that makes it work, and the practical and working form of usury prohibition is a lot gentler as well as more complex than what the wingnats have in mind.

                  We have been there before many times. The corrective is not to exclude wingnats, or even wingnat ideology, but to remember the lessons of the past. Despite being implemented by smart, prosocial, loyal, orderly, and cohesive elite, National Socialism self destructed in the usual fashion.

                  Also, if you have a highly interventionist white state, then you have a problem figuring out who is white, which problem the Nazis never satisfactorily solved. Do we want to exclude George Zimmerman? Do we want to exclude born in America affluent Japanese businessmen? That George Zimmerman upholds order, is always prepared, and can shoot one shot directly through the heart while his assailant is pounding his head on the concrete makes him my brother, or at least my neighbor.

                  If you are not redistributing white wealth among whites, you don’t have to figure out who is white. The elite have to figure out who is trustworthy, prosocial and cohesive with the elite – which obviously not all whites are, but if you have a white Christian elite, the prospects of a candidate being trustworthy, prosocial, and cohesive are a hell of a lot better if he is white Christian.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Wignats dont pervade us because traditionally we’ve been pretty intolerant of them… I think we should keep it that way. That does not mean we should exclude Jared Taylor but the average one should be considered a fed, a socialist and an enemy agent until proven otherwise.

                • jim says:

                  Nah, the reason that wingnats don’t pervade us is that we pay attention to the lessons of history. They are not excluded by intolerance, but answered by evidence and argument.

                  Our movement is built around Chesterton’s fence. Our goal is to recover lost social technology.

                • Allah says:

                  I’m sensing white nationalism is disliked here not because it is socialist but because it excludes Jews. The Zimmerman and Japanese businessman examples are distraction from the real intent. What Jim calls redistribution of Jewish wealth is just booty and “redistributing” it is fairly simple: This is well known. If you didn’t participate in the jihad, you don’t get to share the booty.

                  Where Jews practicing socialism when they invaded Canaan, genocided its inhabitants and took everything for themselves?

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  And the award for the most retarded take goes to… Allah!

                  Another example of how stupid and destructive Muslims are. He sees that someone else has something and all he can think of is killing them and taking it. It’s like you based an entire religion off of the Ten Anti-Commandments. Murder, envy, theft, covetousness, distrust, uncooperativeness.

                  If, theoretically, we killed all muslims and took their shit, it would revert to the sovereign. Your wealth would go into his treasury and–the sovereign being the font of all honors–would distribute some of it to his best men. We would not give it away carelessly. Just waving a gun around does not qualify you to run a store. Successful organization of men and material is a better qualified. We can pass around your women, but the highest ranks still get the first choice.

                  Worse still, that assumes a war; that you fight back. Given your ultimately craven base nature, that is not a sure thing. Winning a fight is what makes it spoils of war. Assumption of risk, dating, and skill. Beating up some nebbish Jewish shop owners is not particularly risky and glorious, and should not be rewarded as if it is.

                • jim says:

                  Notice that Jewish wealth tends to be in forms of that are complex to manage, hence the frequently unsatisfactory results of confiscating it.

                  Arabs, on the other hand, are sitting on a lot of land and oil, much of it under utilized. (A noticeable exception being the UAE, which as well as effectively utilizing their resources also has a military than punches far above its weight.)

                • The Cominator says:

                  Distributing booty of simple capital (women, jewels, cash etc) is simple. Distributing booty of real estate gets a bit more tricky (I think such confiscated things should be sold to the highest bidder but the profits from such should be distributed between reactionary soldiers) and government is simply incompetent at redistributing complex capital like businesses.

                  Its not so simple for an unqualified person to take over a specialized business requiring specialized knowledge, nor do the former owners clients necessarily want to deal with some new guy who was awarded it by the government.

                  Wignats jooferism is a problem but its a subset of their extreme stupidity, undiscipline, infiltration, contempt for optics…

                  As I said the problem with including wignats in a movement that needs to be effective is similar to the problem of including retards in the army. They are generally incompetent for even simple duties and far more dangerous to anyone who includes them then the enemy. The 8channers wignats were often an exception since they uniquely seemed to have some intelligent wignats but that is the exception not the rule.

                • Allah says:

                  If, theoretically, we killed all muslims and took their shit, it would revert to the sovereign. Your wealth would go into his treasury and–the sovereign being the font of all honors–would distribute some of it to his best men. We would not give it away carelessly. Just waving a gun around does not qualify you to run a store. Successful organization of men and material is a better qualified. We can pass around your women, but the highest ranks still get the first choice.

                  What qualifies one to run a restaurant, thesocialistknight? Surely the market determines if you are qualified to run a business, not the party.

                  Its not so simple for an unqualified person to take over a specialized business requiring specialized knowledge, nor do the former owners clients necessarily want to deal with some new guy who was awarded it by the government.

                  If he can’t make it he’ll lose money and probably sell this precious specialized equipment to someone more interested. Not your business either way.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  The Throne and the Church decide who is able to run a business. The market only gets to chime in as to whether or not it is run well. The Sovereign, being the market owner, will want to maximize his returns, meaning he is likely to at least attempt to satisfy the customers. To do that, he will probably chose those who have shown the ability to organize and plan ahead to own any businesses taken as spoils of war. That means generals and officers get to run the businesses, while the line troops get to satisfy themselves with your women.

                  Heretics and the excessively holy do not get to run businesses. Heretics get to be punished in status-lowering ways, refused state and quasi-state employment, and forced to find low status jobs. The excessively holy will be granted sinecures at an Alaskan monastery to contemplate their holiness far away from distractions like other people or power.

                • Allah says:

                  You talk of heretics and “line troops” in the same breath, as if you hold contempt for both equally. What, come the revolu- I mean the restoration, are the unenlightened “line troops” going be liquidated also?

                  You hate and envy warriors, thesocialistpriest. You hate that it is rewarding to fight. “Generals and officers” are in your mind the closest it gets to a priest in the military, as opposed to the “waving a gun around” the lowly line troops do.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If he can’t make it he’ll lose money and probably sell this precious specialized equipment to someone more interested. Not your business either way.”

                  No generally what happens is that the business dies and becomes worthless, what tangible capital it has (equipment land etc) will likely be sold but all the intangible capital will be lost.

                  Hitler in his early days (when he was successful) before he went full retard socialist and full retard joofer understood this, actually personally stopped lower level nazi offiiclals from confiscating jewish department stores and jewish doctors offices. He took the position (until about 1938) that the Nazi state should not touch such businesses (while otoh banning them from the law and civil service almost immediately).

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’m sensing white nationalism is disliked here not because it is socialist but because it excludes Jews.

                  It shows a staggering lack of reading comprehension to claim that criticism of an ideology for being too inclusive and expansionist is actually criticism that it is not inclusive enough.

                  In fact the WN movement is hopelessly tied up with Jewish interests. All of the so-called leaders – Spencer, Enoch, and so on – are married to Jews, dating Jews, or have some kind of close ties to Jews.

                • Allah says:

                  Notice that Jewish wealth tends to be in forms of that are complex to manage, hence the poor results of confiscating it.

                  You love your market dominant minorities. We got rid of ours and did not descend into communism and famine and we had much worse odds, what are you doing wrong?

                  No generally what happens is that the business dies and becomes worthless, what tangible capital it has (equipment land etc) will likely be sold but all the intangible capital will be lost.

                  Obviously, that’s like saying a car becomes worthless without a driver. You are taking the car, not the driver.

                  Tommy, it’s too inclusive in that it ingroups whites, and not inclusive enough in that it outgroups Jews. You dislike this. You were initially alluding to the classic skinhead neo-Nazi stereotype plus incel to really mix it in, now you’re switching to talking about a different subset of people.

                • jim says:

                  > > Notice that Jewish wealth tends to be in forms of that are complex to manage, hence the poor results of confiscating it.

                  > You love your market dominant minorities. We got rid of ours and did not descend into communism and famine

                  That is low bar to pass. Your economies suck badly, with the notable exception of the UAE

                  > that’s like saying a car becomes worthless without a driver. You are taking the car, not the driver.

                  Most people know how to drive a car. Very few people know how to make a pencil, or even run a pizza shop, and running a pawnbrokerage or a distillery (pawnbrokers and distilleries being the primary target when you get rid of market dominant minorities) is an order of magnitude harder than running a pizza shop, though a lot easier than making pencils.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  He is ultimately just a more irritating form of CR. He is here to preach leftism to us, doing his, “Hello, fellow anti-semites! I, too, hate Jews,” trick to get in the door. He cannot or will not grasp the simple meaning of our words, reads bizarre and nonsensical subtexts in our comments, and is engaged in vivid projection of his own racial insecurities into us.

                  He is a violent, envious, covetous, thieving, raping, murdering, lying wretch. Being of such base ancestry and personality, he assumes that we are as bad or worse than he. It’s honestly a little refreshing to find a leftist with so little effective guile.

                  Think of him like you would a woman or a social justice warrior. Whatever they accuse you of doing is what they are planning on doing, and everything is to one aim. For women it’s getting laid, for social justice warriors it is holiness spiraling, and for Allah it is getting you to lower your guard so he can kill you, rape your women, and steal anything he can carry.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The Throne and the Church decide”

                  The church under our system is going to be on a very tight leash and going to be very restrained from making a lot of decisions.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You love your market dominant minorities. We got rid of ours and did not descend into communism and famine

                  You really didn’t have very far to descend.

                  it’s too inclusive in that it ingroups whites, and not inclusive enough in that it outgroups Jews.

                  An interpretation that nobody here iterated or implied; you completely made it up and started attributing it to other people here.

                  An interpretation which literally makes no sense according to the exact statements it’s supposedly interpreting. Jews are an ethnicity, whites are a broad racial category with very fuzzy boundaries (are Latin American Castizos “white”?).

                  We are not – or at least I am not – impressed by an ideology that purports to include everyone who looks a certain way, but excluding some people who look that way, and also including other people who don’t really look that way, and claim any logical consistency whatsoever. It looks like, and I assert that it is, a vain attempt to ingroup oneself with other people who don’t really think of them as ingroup, by creating totally arbitrary and subjective criteria for the ingroup. It is essentially the mirror image of “people of color”, which is every bit as ridiculous; African Americans who are 25-75% American have nothing to do with Indian H-1B workers who are 0% American. Another example of this silly artificial ingrouping is “Judeo-Christian values”.

                  You imply that it’s Jews who matter, when I’ve clearly stated it’s the definitions that matter. Chinese nationalism makes sense because the Han are one people. German nationalism (as in, the Nazis), makes sense, aside from the socialism part, because the Teutonics are one people. An “American nationalism” based on the English, Dutch and Germanic peoples who first settled the land would make sense, if it existed. All of these could, and would, outgroup the Jews. “White” nationalism does not make sense, because “whites” are not one nation, they are dozens of nations all smashed together under one empire and whom, if you actually look at the genetic ancestry, have surprisingly low levels of intermarriage, despite the erasure of their original culture.

                  A “white” person who is 25% Portguese, 25% Irish and 50% Italian has no more solidarity with a heritage American who is ~95% English and ~5% Dutch than does an Ashkenazi Jew who is 50% “mixed European”. They are both totally incoherent.

                  Are you getting any of this, or are you just going to keep prattling on nonstop about joo joo JOOOOO?

            • Anonymous 2 says:

              A little thing called the socialist movement successfully integrated ambitious elites and ‘the working class’ (consisting of a broad array of low-status people), now they run things.

              Even blacks manage to cohere into a ‘black’ group and remain one.

              The individualistés, by contrast, will remain free of allies and easily no-platformed by the more practical ethnic or other political groups.

              • jim says:

                > A little thing called the socialist movement successfully integrated ambitious elites and ‘the working class’

                Nuts

                When the socialists gained power, the working class did not do too well. Communism was always an elite movement that used the working class as mascots. Remember “All power to the Soviets”. Their position was always that the workers were misguidedly and mistakenly failing to support them, and when they could flay their skins off with red hot irons, then the working class would discover where its true interests lay.

                Communism, and progressivism, was and is a faith movement, with cohesion among a relatively small group of believers. The working class was and is irrelevant to what was done in their name, and always will be.

                Cohesive groups are always faith groups, and the group that takes power is never very large at all. It is always a handful that grabs power, because to grab power you need cohesion, and the larger the group, the harder it is to have cohesion. “The white race” is far too large and too diverse a group to take power.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Of course the elites will get the lion part. Yet in the case of socialism the working class apparently still thought their elites pursued their collective interests in some tangible way, and organized into a globally powerful international movement.

                  That is not to say the closely knit crime family approach is not a viable way to power.

                  “The white race” is far too large and too diverse a group to take power.

                  Perhaps, though it currently seems like the American ‘white’ race is being defined by its enemies regardless of such objections, so overall it might be better to give it a try.

                • jim says:

                  > Yet in the case of socialism the working class apparently still thought their elites pursued their collective interests in some tangible way, and organized into a globally powerful international movement.

                  Commie history. Not what happened. Remember “all power to the Soviets” then they shot the guys the workers elected and created their own Soviets.

                  What happened is that the bureaucrats around the Czar did a coup when he was away at the front, found themselves unable to rule without a Czar, there was a succession of ever leftwards coups, each in the name of the people that they were busy terrorizing, the communists took power, and then found the power of the communist party becoming increasingly centralized, until Stalin finally shut down the ever leftwards movement.

                  Each coup was a smaller group with greater faith, zeal, and internal cohesion, taking power from a larger group with lesser faith, zeal, and internal cohesion.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Here I’d like to add that I have become increasingly interested in Moldbug’s exhortation of ‘becoming worthy’. It seems a trivial observation in one sense, but the devil is in the details.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  So look at the rest of Europe, for instance the many social-democrat parties that were working class parties with elites who were not as extremely hostile to the working class.

                • jim says:

                  My most reliable knowledge of Europe is England, where Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the labor party, wants to destroy the English working class in favor of greenies, mainland Europeans, and immigrants, and substantially relies on recently imported voters who vote their race and religion, not their social class. And what other voters he has are mostly single women, voting their sex lives or absence thereof, not their social class.

                • John Lennon says:

                  > meanwhile back at home there’s nineteen Pakistanis living in a council flat
                  > candidate for Labour tells them what the game is then he tells them where it’s at
                  > get back! get back! get back from where you don’t belong

                • Dave says:

                  Bernie Sanders thinks socialism is not about race, yet every country he considers socialist is run by white people.

                • jim says:

                  The higher the level of government intervention, the harder it is to avoid disaster. White people find it easier to avoid disaster. The countries he is calling socialists are

                  1. Not socialist. They have high levels of government intervention and redistribution.

                  2. Even white countries suffer disaster when they go full on socialist. Britain and Australia were falling apart as a result of war socialism in 1949, famine loomed in Britain, and the lights were going out. If disaster did not loom in the US, it is because they dismantled war socialism immediately after the war. Nazi socialism self destructed in the usual fashion.

                • ten says:

                  Union based social democracy, like the swedish one, represented a to some extent genuine workers’ movement.

                  Normal voluntary unions don’t work because noone wants to pay for the unemployed scum in them, so either they are full of employed decent workers, so does nothing, or everyone leaves, and organization level of workers remains low.

                  The meta union, “the land organization”, enforced membership by terrorizing employers to only employ organized workers, and terrorizes workers to join and not work unorganized. It is in the interest of both employers and workers to not have terror and conflict, so the meta union is incentivized to not bleed employers to death. This terror balance worked, sort of. Things could have been more effective, and small businesses were in many cases left out of it.

                  The workers pulled the apple cart under constant threat of flipping it unless they got every single apple they could get their hands on. They were not marching towards communism, but under the flag of (potential, almost always dormant) terror, towards more apples.

                  They did it under the orders and occasional terror of a circle of believers including both elite who just loved the working class so, so much, and the smartest workers themselves.

                  It is objectively better than communism, at least..

                  I even forgot to mention the party. The socialist party is bankrolled by the land organization meta union, making their by terror mandatory membership instead mandatory by law, generally being a fucking nuisance, and bothering the balance between employers and union.

                  Finally, with the satanic ultra upper class commie cunt olof palme, in whose murder i take great pride that my father was briefly a suspect, and whose grave stinks of piss, they ditched the meta union, enslaving them as pay cows even though the “fascist party” now is the largest union party, and joining the american state religion instead.

            • >it was always low status

              Look into Lothrop Stoddard. Member of the American Historical Association, the American Political Science Association, and the Academy of Political Science. Being sent by the North American Newspaper Alliance to Nazi Germany to work as a journalist for them. Referenced in The Great Gatsby and not too negatively.

              Does not seem very low status to me.

              I also have a more generic hunch here. It seems to me that when the Left is really frantically, hysterically trying to make something low status, it is because it was fairly high status fairly recently. Things that were low status for a long time – say, in the US, monarchism, Toryism, the idea that it would have been better to stick with King George – are not so frantically denounced as hardly anyone cares.

              Woodrow Wilson was very much a liberal in character and attitude. Was nicknamed The Professor. Many very lib ideas. But also quite racist, segregated the civil service. Also the whole rearrangment of European borders after WWI, the idea that European states should be mostly monocultural ethnic states. No hint of multiculturalism.

              My hunch is this. When the liberal frantically denounces racism or monoculturalism, he is not really fighting some low-status redneck. He does not care. He is fighting the memory of Woodrow Wilson, who made (or kept) such ideas high-status and “liberal” and respectable. Or something in this direction. Of course fighting Wilson’s memory would make sense in 1959 but not so much sense in 2019. So I admit that is a weakness in my hypothesis.

              • jim says:

                > Of course fighting Wilson’s memory would make sense in 1959 but not so much sense in 2019. So I admit that is a weakness in my hypothesis.

                They are still fighting the memory of George the Fourth’s assertion of divine right to rule. George the Fourth Derangement Syndrome set in when he became regent by divine right, and they still suffer from it.

              • The Cominator says:

                Yes Wilson (the worst president we ever had, the creator of the Cathedral and leader of the allied coalition of satan that destroyed Christendom in 1918, may he be tortured for all eternity in the deepest pit of hell) was back when progressive ideas included race and eugenics. But of course progressives think history began yesterday anyway and even if they didn’t they wouldn’t want to point this out.

                • >the creator of the Cathedral

                  Wut? Wasn’t that Roosevelt? Linked the intelligentsia to the Washington bureaucrats (“brain trust”) and the media to said bureaucrats (“Office of War Information”).

                  An the whole thing rests on the Pendleton Act, 1883, making bureaucrats unfireable by politicians.

                  What did WW do in Cathedral-creation?

                  And WW definitely did not lead the Entente. America’s contribution to WWI was late, small compared to the other Entente powers, and peace treaties were dominated by England and France, WW was actually quite disappointed in them. Back then the center of the world was still London.

                  My nomination is Lord Grey for the role of the destroyer. “We have no obligation to France, but we have to protect Belgium.” Emperor Willie: “OK if we leave Belgium alone, will you stay neutral?” Grey: “No, we reserve ourselves the right to declare war anyway if we feel like doing so.” Willie: “Well, then… [marches into Belgium]”

                  The second place of responsibility for the insane war goes to the Pan-German League, Claß etc.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Harvard missionary school created the Cathedral. Pendleton installed it as the permanent U.S. government. Wilson added ambitions to be the permanent world government. Roosevelt, arguably, added socialist ambitions.

                  It wouldn’t be the Cathedral if it wasn’t constantly being expanded.

                • I AM says:

                  Not only is calling the Entity “the Cathedral” an insult to every cathedral everywhere, as well as an insult to the very concept of the cathedral itself, it’s also, if you accept the so-called “Puritan Hypothesis”, technically inaccurate. Which is the worst kind of inaccurate. Because the Puritans, b.16th d.18th (as a religious phenomenon), didn’t build cathedrals. Their society revolved around small farming and fishing townships, their political structure was decentralized, their living spaces were quaint, and their places of worship were humble.

                  If you ever actually bother to look at the “American” political substructure since Woodrow Wilson, what you’ll find is an infinite roster of the least WASPy people in America, like Meyer Lansky.

                  The Ivy League was a lagging indicator, by literally generations.

                • jim says:

                  Moldbug is the techie that you are pretending to be.

                  Among techies “Cathedral” refers to an organizational form, not a building. And that is the organizational form of our enemies.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Before Wilson the Federal government was very limited in what it did, and when it did do things beyond its usual scope did not do so with an enlarged permanent bureaucracy (Teddy Roosevelt breaking up Standard Oil).

                  Wilson created it because he created the permanent federal bureaucracy, the federal reserve and all that. FDR expanded it (FDR at least was successful in some ways at the end, Wilson did nothing good) but Wilson was its originator. If Wilson truely said before he died that he betrayed his country he was damn right.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Before Wilson the Federal government was very limited in what it did

                  Before Lincoln, there was no federal government. Aren’t you drawing arbitrary lines here?

                  Wilson created it because he created the permanent federal bureaucracy

                  No, that was definitely created by the Pendleton act some 3 decades earlier. Maybe you could argue that Wilson made it less about “merit” and more about ideology, but I’m not really sure how.

                  Wilson’s big contribution was throwing out the idea of Westphalian sovereignty, and a highly aggressive foreign policy incidentally requires a much larger government.

                • I AM says:

                  Moldbug is a weak-chinned cult-leader/autist filled with RAGE who was booed off the stage by the SWPoLice in an even more embarrassing fashion than when Uncle Bernie was some time later upstaged by that pack of gregarious sheboons.

                  I’m well aware of esr’s book, as well as all of your precious Agile, Waterfall, Mythical Man-Month, etc. development “philosophy”. It’s all bunkum, except for the latter mention, which correctly diagnoses the failure of software to scale, because, among other things, software isn’t engineering, which helps to explain why it’s such inconceivable trash on every conceivable dimension. With exceedingly rare exceptions, which make the rule, every successful software project is a slow-burning dumpster fire, and everyone calling himself a software “engineer” should be slapped down by an avalanche of lawsuits from fuck-if-I-care. CI “methodology” is a travesty, UB literally should not be a concept, SaaS is extortionate, IoT is a sick joke maturing into an unmitigated catastrophe, facial recognition is an invasion, and every point update or nightly or emergency-update-to-patch-the-three-thousandth what-the-fuck-ever is an admission on the part of the publisher that your software sucks donkey balls and is never going to ever get better and that the whole fucking stack should be scrapped and tried again, with memory-safety, a militarized access control system, and first-class crypto this time.

                  Incidentally, I will laugh in the literal face of anyone I find to ever have taken seriously the maintainer of literally the most useless thing in existence (INTERCAL).

                  At least Yarvin tried to rip out UNIX by the roots.

                  Did I mention that C must perish, C++ is a frankenstein monster (Turing-complete templates, fucking really?), JS is the trojan horse of adtech (the menace of our time), and even the brightest lights in the extra-NSA environment are still building their heapless crypto libs in C because the 70’s never died in our hearts computers, maaaaan.

                  It’s 2019: why is memory-unsafety still legal? It’s 2019: HTF did we get this godless UNIX monoculture? It’s 2019: will we ever wake up? (No.)

                  Unplug AWS and watch the world burn.

                • jim says:

                  You are ignorant of the stuff of which you so confidently speak.

                • Anonymous says:

                  And again I say unto you, It is easier for a dog to pass wind through the eye of a needle, than for the purple-hair to enter into the kingdom of Prod.

            • jasondercommando says:

              right, white nationalism is sklavenmoral, Christianity is also for the aristo’s, who understand ubuntu, aristo’s are aristo’s because they have peasants, and they need to tell their peasants to not be cuckstians. Replying to heresy with expressly natural arguments is Christian, too often we allow Christianity to be compared with other religions that also have some kind of supreme being, but whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.

              • Peppermint = Fat Fucking Faggot Face says:

                You’re a potatonigger mutt, your wife is a potatohead mutt, and you’ll never have a real white family, nor do you belong to any white race.

              • Allah says:

                LMAO

                Weren’t you shitting on Christianity 24/7 some time ago?

    • chedolf says:

      “The [1965 Immigration Act] will not flood our cities with immigrants. It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society.”
      – Sen. Ted Kennedy

      Most Americans were “white nationalists” then, even the center-left, hence the need for Kennedy to make that false promise. The Overton window has shifted so far left that nearly everyone outside a gay and cringe corner of the alt-right refuses the label, but there’s nothing wrong with the idea that the US should have a white supermajority. It’s a necessary (but insufficient) condition for most other social and political changes that reactionaries want.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        everyone outside a gay and cringe corner of the alt-right refuses the label

        I’m told the preferred nomenclature is “racist, sexist, homophobic, neo-nazi”.

  9. Mister Grumpus says:

    “Jim’s ideas are so far outside the Overton Window that merely acknowledging his existence would be a thought crime.”

    Fascinating point. Championship notice. Gold star. Thank you.

    • alf says:

      Yes. That’s why currently the trick is to get people to actually acknowledge Jim’s existence.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        Sharp as nails, Alf.

        I can’t think of a single podcast (at neither TRS nor DS nor anywhere else), nor a single blowhard on YouTube, who demonstrates Jimmian Analysis. Not one. Which leaves me pretty shocked. So, thank you.

        I can find “RTKRWN” in 12 different languages, rock, rap, country and classical, but I can’t find this. Incredible.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        In current events, I think we might have a “thoughtcrime mine” going off in the form of the paper “Islam is Right about Women” posters that got taped up onto windows and utility poles in Winchester, NY.

  10. pdimov says:

    >wingnats

    It’s not about them. It’s about reclaiming the label.

    There’s white nationalism – a nation of whites, white supremacism – you can have a nation of any races as long as whites rule, civic nationalism – you can have a nation of any races as long as they are effectively white, and fairy tales – anything with a neo- prefix.

    Of these, white nationalism is the lowest difficulty setting. It should not just be a legitimate option, it should be the default option, the normal option. Not relegated to the ideological fringes and populated by the leftmost part of the bell curve.

    • I AM says:

      strong, stable, and vigorous Founding Fathers-variety white nationality did absolutely nothing to prevent or even forestall generations of replacement immigration by Italians, Jews, or Slavs

      why is that?

      • jim says:

        The reason is “all men are created equal” – a religious doctrine that is falsifiable, and easily verified as false. Once you have a readily falsifiable belief in your state religion, you are in trouble.

        • I AM says:

          there’s no evidence that prior to 1963 anyone notable thought that men were equal but before the law

          • jim says:

            “For score and seven years ago”

            Equality before the law is inherently a problem, because in order to thrive, blacks need simpler and harsher laws, more swiftly enforced, an in practice that is what they get, under various furtive pretexts, because the alternative is too disastrous.

            • I AM says:

              “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

              Nice try.

              • jim says:

                “For score and seven years ago” was holy, and insane. So inevitably the next guy was even holier and more insane. The next step was “separate, but equal”.

                • I AM says:

                  1. The Civil War was related to slavery only incidentally.
                  2. “And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior…”
                  3. He also wanted to send them back to Africa, which would’ve effectively stripped the South of the whole of its economic base. Premonitions of Morgenthau Plan..?
                  4. Social engineering works at the slow pace of generations.

                  But don’t let the facts get in the way of your philosophizing.

                • jim says:

                  The civil war was the holiness spiralled state religion of New England, already holier than Jesus, conquering the state religions of the separate states. They declared their superior holiness frequently, and one of the sticks that they used to denounce all those less holy than their very holy selves was “all men are created equal”. And, victorious, “all men are created equal” continues to spiral to ever greater heights of holiness and madness.

                • I AM says:

                  Abolitionists were on the side of the Union for their own quasi-religious reasons, but they didn’t drive the conflict. Religious reasons never drive these conflicts, because religion, like history, is a post-hoc phenomenon. In history, in retrospect, you can pick out the important sequence of events, but in the moment nobody really knows how anything is going to turn out. Religion is like that. In the moment, nothing feels like anything because water is wet, and the best you’re going to get is a Señor Beto coming out and announcing his gun-grabbing plans as the designated jackboot facemask of the State. Your “holiness spiral” theory isn’t predictive except as it happens to coincide with the underlying structural phenomena of demography, culture, power dynamics, and so on. Trump for President 2030.

                • jim says:

                  The war of northern aggression was driven entirely by superior holiness, New England making its state religion the religion of America, just as much the trannie program is.

                • I AM says:

                  P.S. Lincoln was from Illinois, not New England; Alexander single-handedly saved Inchoate America from falling back into Britain’s ever-grasping tentacles, thereby earning her its enmity forever; “And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior…”

                • jim says:

                  Bullshit. Britain was absolutely willing to concede all the revolutionaries demands, so they came up with new and impossible to meet demands.

                • The Cominator says:

                  From what I read the British were not really willing to concede on the navigation acts and in the long term strict enforcement of them would have made the American colonies as poor as Ireland.

                  I don’t entirely agree about the American civil war and “holiness” the William Lloyd Garrison’s were only one Republican faction and a smaller one.

                  Free soilers dominated the party and free soilers mainly didn’t want diversity in the territories (and where were they wrong I entirely agree with the free soilers), they were fine with it in the existing Southern States and Lincoln was willing to support an unamendable amendment that slavery in the Southern states could not be touched for decades anyway.

                • jim says:

                  > the British were not really willing to concede on the navigation acts and in the long term strict enforcement of them would have made the American colonies as poor as Ireland.

                  According Wikipedia “the consensus view among modern economic historians and economists is that the “costs imposed on [American] colonists by the trade restrictions of the Navigation Acts were small.” – which agrees with the arguments presented by people at the time who were not fans of the Revolutionary war.

                  > they were fine with [slavery] in the existing Southern States

                  John Brown and Bloody Kansas was the real start of the war of Northern Aggression, and consisted largely of organized large scale acts of terrorism and murder by abolitionists given impunity by the holiness of their very holy home states, after the fashion of antifa, only far more so and rapidly escalating. Under these circumstances, Lincoln’s conciliatory offers were rendered irrelevant by events.

                • The Cominator says:

                  John Brown was killed though, the civil war started in the territories partially due to fanatics but it wasn’t bound to escalate into armies until the South not the North pushed things to war when Lincoln was willing to give the South total guarantees within their own states (while taking a hard line on the territories).

                  Nothing I’ve read about Lincoln makes me think he was a Lloyd Garrison/John Brown style fanatic.

                  The man who won the war for the North William Tecumseh Sherman (he won it not Grant) fucking hated antislavery fanatics AND lived in the South for a long time before the war, he still blamed the Southern Aristocracy for it.

                • jim says:

                  > John Brown was killed though, the civil war started in the territories partially due to fanatics but it wasn’t bound to escalate into armies until the South not the North pushed things to war

                  War will start, and will escalate, if those who commit warlike acts are not restrained and punished by their own side. They were not being restrained and punished.

                  > Nothing I’ve read about Lincoln makes me think he was a Lloyd Garrison/John Brown style fanatic

                  Nothing I have read about Nancy Pelosi makes me think she is a fanatic, but observe what is happening. The sane are not in the driver’s seat today, and in the lead up to the war of Northern Aggression, the sane were not in the driver’s seat back then.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “the consensus view among modern economic historians”

                  LOL c’mon what do we normally think of consensus views of cathedral “experts”…

                  I used to oppose the revolution but John Hancock took a much more Trumpesque view of how badly the navigation acts were going to vacuum out the wealth of the colonies…

                  And maybe he was wrong but there is a good chance he was right.

                • jim says:

                  The Navigation acts were certainly sucking the wealth out John Hancock, so he may have had a biased view on the matter.

                • Not Tom says:

                  LOL c’mon what do we normally think of consensus views of cathedral “experts”…

                  We pay more attention when there’s an admission against interest. It’s a sound principle.

                • cloudswrest says:

                  “Nothing I have read about Nancy Pelosi makes me think she is a fanatic, but observe what is happening. The sane are not in the driver’s seat today, and in the lead up to the war of Northern Aggression, the sane were not in the driver’s seat back then.”

                  Reminds me of Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”.

                  https://www.orwell.ru/library/articles/elephant/english/e_eleph

      • pdimov says:

        It actually did.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Act_of_1924

        “As a result, populations poorly represented in 1890 were prevented from immigrating in proportionate numbers—especially affecting Italians, Jews, Greeks, Poles and other Slavs.[1][3][4] According to the U.S. Department of State Office of the Historian, the purpose of the act was “to preserve the ideal of U.S. homogeneity.”[2] Congressional opposition was minimal.”

        I suppose that was prompted by

        “From 1901 to 1914, 2.9 million Italians immigrated, an average of 210,000 per year.[23]”

        14 years isn’t exactly “generations of replacement migration”.

        • Not Tom says:

          Doesn’t this point away from white nationalism?

          The Naturalization Act of 1790 used the phrase “free white person”. Then, over a hundred years later, Americans almost uniformly and uncontroversially said “whoa, hold on there, we didn’t really mean all white people!”

          And yet, the white nationalist movement is predicated on saying “yes, all white people”.

          A movement that simply sought to preserve today’s demographics would be more intellectually consistent at least – albeit not very effective, considering that today’s demographics are only 60% white.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            The problem is white nationalists are using white in three different ways. Lets break them up; Amerikaneer, Hagnal and white pan-nationalism. The first is all white people who identify as Americans, the second is whites inside the Hagnal line and the third is all white people (with the borders of white being defined by Christianity).

            So Hagnal only immigration sort of works as does low levels that don’t tilt Amerikaneer ethnic make up in favor of any one group.

            White pan-nationalism is sort of nuts and only really is on the table is whites are united under a single banner. Which is about as likely as Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg unifying.

          • pdimov says:

            White nationalism is the most restrictive of the currently existing options. Yes, “all white people” is worse than “some white people”, but the “some white people” option isn’t even on the menu.

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            Don’t forget that, for better or worse and as pointed out in the title of this article, the enemy provides the definition of ‘white’. Hence, it’s been quite ineffectual to point out that ‘my ancestors weren’t even in America during slavery’, etc. No wriggling out of this, I’m afraid.

            On the mildly more positive side, perhaps it helps to consider that white nationalism is, like some other examples, a big tent movement where one tries to emphasize likenesses and common interest rather than parse out differences. Unfortunately, it’s not very successful in Current Year.

  11. JimFiresBlanks says:

    [*deleted for not even trying to make sense*]

  12. […] We Are All White Nationalists Now. I agree, either because we are, or because Lefty will label any dissent as such, which will […]

  13. iel says:

    “The left has a paranoid style of discourse, where every word, every fact, and every thought is scrutinized for patriarchy, misogyny, homophobia, racism and all that”

    That’s what the style of discourse (and thought!) will be for the side that feels secure they are the majority and the more powerful of the contenders when dealing with the side they feel sure has less power.
    Left or right… if the media academia and the rest of the mouths of real government started being on the right from tomorrow, you’d see the some people switch around and change the names they’d call the new group seen as less powerful, but act the very same way as now.

    When they are confident they are “winning”, it becomes harder for them to not let the distance between nice-speak and what what they say actually is about and means show.

  14. Anon says:

    For example the mainstream media tells simultaneously tells Britons that no deal exit is going to ruin British farmers by forcing them to sell food at lower prices, and will also raise food prices in the supermarket, both articles appearing at the same time in the same newspaper. Much as they cover climate change.

    It’s all amply deserved by the ample majority of the drones/subjects, and if you are someone who neither is a drone/subject nor a élite member (in spirit, if not in fact), all you can do is be frustrated beholding the never-changing show.

    I just read an article where a tennis chair umpire’s career is going to be ended for good because he said, to a 16 or 17 years old ball girls, the following words: “You are very sexy”, “I like you very much”, “Are you hot? [The girl was sweaty] Physically hot or mentally hot?”.
    You should see how 100% of the male commenters to the article commented things like “To say things like that to a less than 18 years old girl is the worst crime a man can commit”, “I hope the girls and her parents file a lawsuit against him, it’s not just about never letting him referee again, it’s about penal relevance too”. And so on.

    To witness the gusto with which men go at other men, anytime they can find an excuse to do so, is… well, it makes you think men not only deserve their lower-caste state compared to women, but they basically deserve to have no rights vis-a-vis women, as they soon won’t, and mostly haven’t already.

    (Same thing for other issues: if Whites’ favourite hobby is to virtue-signal at the expense of their co-racials, then they deserve to be bossed around in every way by a 2% minority in the countries where they are the majority. And it happens because they deserve it, it couldn’t happen otherwise.)

  15. Whiteman says:

    Socialism or Communism light has always been about overthrowing some ruling class by using the dead weight of the disenfranchised as a battering ram. Every instance in history resulted in genocide. The international clique is painting Whites as their scape goat presently.

Leave a Reply