A prediction.

Because of rationalization, prediction is a good test of theories. One can always with sufficient cleverness find a hundred and one explanations of past events that fit your model. Wrong predictions indicate indicate false models, and right predictions indicate true models, but retrodiction is always suspiciously accurate.

Correct retrodiction is sometimes valid evidence for the truth of a model when it makes sense out of phenomena that were formerly arbitrary, for example Newton inventing calculus and universal gravitation to explain Kepler’s laws, the oxygen theory replacing the phlogiston theory, and the red pill and evolutionary psychology making sense out of female behavior that is destructive, self destructive, and seemingly irrational, for example their failure to cooperate with our rape and sexual harassment laws. But what tends to happen is that each case that fails to fit the false model, for example miasma theory, is explained away and vanishes down the memory hole, even if, as with miasma theory, a whole lot of people die in that failure. One correct prediction for germ theory (John Snow’s pump) had more impact that a thousand failures of miasma theory to explain past deaths. For three decades, Apocalyptic Anthropogenic Global Warming has always retrodicted past temperatures with pinpoint accuracy, while always predicting climate catastrophe with millions climate refugees or dead in two decades, with the predictions of catastrophe getting their dates moved forward a few years ever few years.

I predict that from here on, every federal judge and every red state judge is going to quietly and silently toss every past case and every recent precedent down the memory hole and stop obstructing ICE (immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the BIA.

My model of the judicial system is that the court and appeals process is Kayfabe, that the real decisions are made in secret for secret for reasons, like the outcome of matches in professional wrestling, that the judiciary is corrupt from top to bottom, and that its decisions are frequently unjust, when justice conflicts, as it often does, with secret commands and secret policies.

Notice that when the judiciary is bypassed or ignored, the results tend to be quite good. Notice, for example, that every patent that gets enforced is bogus, and that legitimate patents never get enforced. Notice that Duterte’s death squads were hugely popular. I was in Davao when Duterete was mayor, and everyone, with only a single exception, was mighty keen on them. And the one exception probably needed killing. Notice that the Australian border control authority gets to make quasi judicial decisions, for example tearing up Sultan and Nassar’s tourist visas and then throwing them in jail without access to judges and lawyers, and the left is never able to find a case where they did this unjustly, as justice would be perceived by normal people. The left screamed to the heavens about the extrajudicial imprisonment of Sultan and Nassar, and the public never took any interest. Even the astroturf was checking their watches, while the courts make horrifying cruel, unjust, and obviously politically motivated and commanded decisions all the time, as for example Paul Manafort.

My model of judiciary is that they were under orders that if any man set foot in the US, the judiciary was to give him lifetime residence, welfare, and the vote, even if he came here illegally and was making a living by robbing and killing. Therefore, since a single judge has abruptly reversed himself, the secret orders have abruptly changed, and henceforth every judge will turn a deaf ear to illegals and people who (like Sultan, Nassar and Dehghani Hossein) arrive on visas that likely fail to reflect the real intent of their visit.

If we suppose that the judicial process is real, rather than kayfabe, then one minor judge’s miraculous change of heart should not be followed by every judge everywhere having the same miraculous change of heart at the same time. We shall see.

167 Responses to “A prediction.”

  1. bob sykes says:

    You are too kind. Every department of the federal government is completely and irredeemably corrupt. That includes every executive department, including the so-called science agencies like NSF, EPA, NASA, the military (especially the flag officers), the courts, including the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Roberts, and every single Congressman. The situation is irredeemable.

    • Strannik says:

      What do you suggest we do, Bob, throw up our hands and give up? Because if that’s what you’re really intimating, then you should just quietly stay home and let the men take care of the heavy lifting.

  2. The Cominator says:

    Judges are IMHO subject to blackmail in many cases espec by the Derp state (as BAP calls it) but not all of them are in all cases…

    So I’m going to predict that the lawfare will go on, though I think Trump has a better handle on Derp state intelligence than he used to and the lawfare will LESSEN but not disappear.

  3. alf says:

    I do recall you predicting a Trump coup within months of him taking office, so we’ll see how this goes. 😏

    • BC says:

      Jim was massively wrong about Trump. Trump just wanted to fix trade and a few other mostly economic issues and build a legacy for his name and his children. He wasn’t planning on changing the system much. Instead he ran into an American elite stumbling it’s towards a Bolshevik style civil war with Trump and his family playing the role of the Romanovs.

      I don’t think Cesar wanted to overthrow the republic but circumstance drove what he had to do. Trump’s in a similar boat.

      • jim says:

        > Jim was massively wrong about Trump

        I expected a Trump coup sooner, and I expected the wall built faster.

        No coup as yet, and the wall has just started, but he has done something with bigger short term effects than the wall. He has reversed the great centralization, which had it continued would have given the blue bicoastal megalopoli twenty to thirty additional seats in the house. The flow of white working class voters returning to Texas from California means the Republican presidential candidate will not lose Texas, and the exit of whites from the bicoastal megalopoli means that the census does not give the Democrats extra seats in the House or the Electoral College. My error there was thinking he was playing 3D chess when he was playing 4D chess.

        Every illegal alien counts in the census, and thus every illegal alien gives the bicoastal megalopoli extra seats in the house and the electoral college, so the Democrats were betting that four years of Clinton, under whom Obama’s great centralization would have continued, would give them an unbeatable advantage, rendering the Republicans forever irrelevant, the collapse of the flyover economies giving them Texas plus more immigration and people moving to the big cities for jobs giving them more votes from the bicoastal megalopoli. So we all thought the most urgent thing to do was to stop illegal immigration as fast as possible – but no, the most urgent thing was jobs in flyover country.

        While the Dems and the cucks were fighting him over the wall, they failed to see that one coming. Looks like the census will leave everything approximately unchanged. Three years of decentralization under Trump has cancelled eight years of centralization plus immigration under Obama. And bingo, when the census count was completed, then he focused on the wall.

        • Strannik says:

          Not only has President Trump done things in the right order as you lay out, I suspect that he and his group that he’s always had around him had all this at least broadly mapped out before he even ran for office, knowing pretty well that his political enemies would act as they have so far. Which means; private security consisting of some ex military heavy hitters, and private intelligence with Intel veterans having the ability to tell the truth, not just what their client wants to hear.

        • Bob Psyches says:

          Trump Economy 2019 in eight words:

          Corporate income growth: 25%; wage income growth: 3.3%.

          Twelve more words:

          Labor Force Participation Rate has been flat (+/-1%) since Trump took office.

          Meanwhile, there’s been no jubilee. No usurers have been soaked. The rich are richer and the indebted more indebted.

          Presumably, this is why Bernie Sanders is beginning his transcendancy over his elitist progressive rivals backed by the neoliberal finance-tech-college axis. People are about to vote in Literal Communism.

          Would people vote in Literal Communism if they didn’t hate capitalists more?

          Why do they hate capitalists so much?

          When will we see wage income growth of 25% and corporate income growth of 3.3%?

          Is Trump Capitalism bringing home the bacon? 🤔

          • jim says:

            > Labor Force Participation Rate has been flat (+/-1%) since Trump took office

            And before Trump took office it was falling.

            The hijackers in the cockpit were flying the plane into the ground.

            Further the white labor force participation rate has been soaring – the problem is that Democracts have been importing hordes of voters to live on crime and welfare.

            > Corporate income growth: 25%; wage income growth: 3.3%.

            Like Trotsky, you tell the peasant with one cow to kill the cows of the peasant with two cows. But wealth inequality soared massively under Obama, because he was killing the cows of all the peasants.

            > Would people vote in Literal Communism if they didn’t hate capitalists more?

            Bernie Sanders is promising free stuff. Naturally everyone votes for free stuff. Which is why voting has to end. (But we intend to continue it pro forma, as the Queen still opens parliament) Augustus said, and perhaps believed, that he was restoring the Republic, and Trump will say, and probably believe, that he is restoring the Republic.

            Bernie Sanders is running on Hugo Chavez’s program. Which program worked great until he ran out of other people’s money.

            > Is Trump Capitalism bringing home the bacon?

            It is obvious that the average white working class male has substantially improved his income and very substantially improved his assets. So yes, more bacon. The white working class votes for Trump because their wages have risen, and their IRA has substantially risen.

            So has the income and assets of working blacks and Hispanics, but they vote on tribe, not pocket book. Tribal identity trumps Marxist class identity, always has. The Marxist attempt to tribalize by class always failed horribly

            Now that Trump is beating the lawfare that formerly held the borders open, I expect the labor force to soar, and the wealth of the working class poor to soar, as the nonworking underclass diminishes among all races.

            That the labor force participation has stabilized in the face of increasing diversity indicates a massive rise in white working force participation. The hordes of voters Obama was importing, and the judges and blue states continued to import in the first three years of Trump, had been living on crime and welfare in their home countries. In the Trump economy, at least some of them are getting jobs.

          • Not Tom says:

            Corporate income growth: 25%; wage income growth: 3.3%.

            You realize that corporate income is not corporate profits… right?

            Businesses had to increase capital and labor spending to see that income growth. Capital spending, obviously, will not raise wages. But even labor spending will not necessarily raise wages; a company can either raise wages, or hire more people.

            There’s an inherent tradeoff between increasing employment and increasing wages. More of one, less of the other. Only when the industry starts running out of workers to hire do employers have to compete for existing employees, which is where the real wage growth comes from.

            25% higher wages and only 3.3% higher corporate income is literally impossible. Look at the balance sheet of just about any company and you’ll see that the vast majority of their spending is already on opex, and primarily on wages. Increasing that by 25% without adding any significant top-line revenue would mean that the company is losing money, meaning that all of those workers would soon be unemployed.

            What you want to imply here – what you want people to assume from these numbers regurgitated with no context – is that all of the extra money is going to the CEO’s Swiss bank account, or to executive bonuses in general. But that’s not true, and the reason you can’t say so explicitly is that you know it’s not true. The extra money is going toward new employees and capital investment. It can’t even be going toward executive salaries, because that would show up just the same in wage income. It’s being invested, used to pay off debt, and sometimes paid as dividends to shareholders. Those are positive outcomes.

            You want to know what’s really been going on with wages, check out this paper (PDF warning): https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45090.pdf

            It’s a massive transfer of wealth from men to women, even in the 90th percentile. Also, Hispanics are driving down wages at the low end. All things that we already knew intuitively.

            • jack boot says:

              [*deleted for posting from an alternate universe where the Trump presidency had the economic results predicted by communists, democrats, Paul Krugman, and the mainstream media, and capitalism has the consequences predicted by Marx in 1860*]

                • jim says:

                  Which shows that things are getting better under Trump, from a condition that was much worse than the government admitted under Obama.

                  Which fits with the evidence of one’s eyes.

                • jack boot says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jack boot says:

                  and the censorship which really tanks your credibility.

                  but then you think arbitrary lawless peace of westphalia shredding out and out gangster state terrorism against foreign dignitaries is good for america ™

                  because neoreaction always thinks its neo and edgy and always ends up being neocon2.0

                • jim says:

                  I censor repetitious spam. Every so often I let some through, so that everyone can see what I am censoring.

                  I censor argument from fake consensus.

                  I censor stuff that tells other people what their position is, when it is wildly different from their stated position. (Which is usually also argument from fake consensus. You attribute to us acceptance of Marxist and progressive premises.)

                  I censor stuff that is unresponsive and repetitious. You make a claim, someone provides evidence that the claim is false. You ignore the evidence and repeat the original claim with double the confidence.

                  I censor “hail fellow peasant” – posts full of symbols of shared identity, lacking real content.

                • jack boot says:

                  yes i posted that link, thanks for noticing.

                  unemployment is down 2 to 3 % from its all time high (since 1990 ish), peaked in 2014 and slowly began to trend down. if you deny this your’e insane.

                  and this is by your rules: wage slavery is good, more wage slavery is better

                  like i said before: one screen, two movies.

                • jim says:

                  President Trump was inaugurated on January 20, 2017

                  And that is when shadowstats shows that the recovery from the Obama recession starts.

        • Viking says:

          Yes the most important thing for non Race traitor whites was to understand that parole white men hold the world in their hands because they hold superior violent ability which yes has a cognitive element despite many of them proles. How fucking American elites forgot it was prove white men like the wrights fords edisons that built this world is well a product of allowing Jews in. You can go back even 75 years and whites still knew their power. Of course if trump hadn’t pointed this out white men themsrlves would have eventually not that trump isn’t a basic white male prole.
          But while guys like rand Paul and others Congress critters along with based white boys like tucker and Jewdicial watches Tom Fitton are emerging the Bitch McConnell appointees like kavanaugh are going to disappoint all they are going to do is ret to 1990 cuz they’re cuck losers kavanaugh has always hired only women the next supreme bitch is an actual leftist feminist.
          No there has to be blood and an anti holiness spiral a purge and race to the right and if the muds don’t leave during the civil war then afterwards they have to be loaded onto UPS freight jets

          • jack boot says:

            [*deleted for sheer irrelevance*]

          • jack boot says:

            and indians and chinese speaking flawless english

            surreal

            • jim says:

              Your english is not flawless, and is not such as to rule out the possibility that you are a dot Indian.

              You were triggered to outrage by unkind discussion of dot Indians, and your response was suggestive of dot Indian stereotypes of white people.

              In this comment, the comment which just triggered you again, a white progressive would project anti black and anti wetback racism, and Jewish communist would project anti semitism. But you projected anti dot Indian racism – a very odd reaction if you are not dot Indian.

  4. BC says:

    I’ve been observing the bail changes in NY. Kayfabe seems likely. The law passed only applied to non violent crime but it’s being applied to all crimes and violent crime is already up 30% because of it. Clearly someone told judges what to do and they’re doing it.

  5. Mister Grumpus says:

    Smart of you to throw down a marker like this, with a timestamp and everything.

    Scott Adams is all about this too, about how “predicting the past” doesn’t prove you’re worth listening to. Only predicting the future.

    It’s like in a horror movie, where people are dragged kicking and screaming from the comfortable mental place of “what’s good and should be” (status footsie), to “what is and what can I do” (survival).

    As more people switch from status footsie mode to survival mode, they’ll find you more and more interesting.

  6. Karl says:

    The courts have to process millions of case every year and thereby decide millions of cases every year. No man alone can decide that many cases a year. Hence, it is impossible that some high priest of the cathedral tells every court precisely what to decide in each and every case. Therefore the courts have to follow a given set of rules (laws) to reach a decision. Those rules may very well be completely different from the laws signed by the president, but they must exist. The fact that the courts by and large agree with each other also shows that such rules exist.

    If a court is expected to follow a given set of rules to reach a decision, mistakes might be made. Appeals are the way to correct such mistakes.

    Even if the courts are not using laws signed by the president, but instead some rules given by a cathedral high priest, court procedings would not be kayfabe. Rules must be interpreted in view of a case, facts must be checked and then subsumed with the rules. That is what lawyers do. That is what courts are supposed to do.

    Even if the cathedral ruled absolute, there would still be courts with real procedings. Even Stalin had courts. There were too many cases for him to decide – and most didn’t interest him anyway.

    Of course, the cathedral high priest could simple decide any case he is interested in. Change the rules any time he feels like it. In history, capricios monarchs have acted like that – even they had judges.

    All in all, you post is more a predication about where the rules (laws) come from that the judges apply, less a predication about judical process.

    We all know that some FBI and CIA agents were not following Trumps orders. They did not act on their own, but followed orders of someone else.
    Of curse, there are also judges that are not applying Trumps laws, but rather someone else’s laws.

    That is the situation you have when there are two governemnts for the same territory. Pretty soon one will have to defeat the other.

    • jim says:

      Yes, but it is obvious that the courts are following secret rules and acting on secret information based on off the record channels.

      Thus, for example not one loan officer or borrower got in trouble over the enormous number of grossly irregular loans and outrageously and flagrantly false loan applications in the Great Minority Mortgage Meltdown.

      That was not a bunch of people in the legal system making a bunch of decisions, but one decision made for all.

      One microphone controlling a thousand loudspeakers. Someone said “Don’t touch that can of worms.”

      • Not Tom says:

        Or not so secret.

        Thought experiment: In what substantive ways would court decisions change if 100% of their legal arguments were based on articles in the New York Times?

      • Viking says:

        Secrets? Much more likely apes smell where power is moving try to not be last ape to switch sides.
        It’s not just trumps power the cucks didn’t finally get in line because of his chest beating. They got in line when they started counting. Heads of violent whites males aligning with trump realized aligning with trump pushed war back maybe forever not aligning with trump meant war soon and they would be considered traitors and enemies
        Now Bitch McConnell and Lindsey candyass bent the knees judges have zero cover
        Judges also certainly know if the deep state is going down and how hard if judges really get in line then deep states really going down

        • jack boot says:

          [*another post from the alternate universe where the Trump presidency had the economic outcomes predicted by commies and progressives*]

          • jack boot says:

            i’m not talking to you jim boomer fuck. i’m sending messages to viking. this ridiculous censorship is like when facebook prevented anyone from send a message with the name of the fake whistleblower.

            and it’s a perfect example why you can’t be allowed anywhere near any levers of power. because you’re a crypto neocon looking to unleash a bolshie holodomor on the american people and blame it on the puritans who made you do it to prevent them from doing it to you and you’re a good boy who did nothing wrong.

            yeah i know about that too.

            “Tribal identity trumps Marxist class identity, always has. The Marxist attempt to tribalize by class always failed horribly”

            and then blames “””””””communists”””””””” AS A CLASS for what a certain “tribal identity” did to the ukrainians

            doublethink por favor

            • jim says:

              Communism is not a class, but a religion.

              Maoism and the Khmer Rouge were more lethal – the deadliness is characteristic of the religion, not Jews.

              Further, it seems likely that whether you are Jewish or dot Indian, if you were in power you would murder all the engineers, for much the same reasons as the Khmer Rouge did, and a very large proportion of the farmers, for much the same reasons as Trotsky did.

    • jim says:

      > Even if the courts are not using laws signed by the president, but instead some rules given by a cathedral high priest, court procedings would not be kayfabe. Rules must be interpreted in view of a case, facts must be checked and then subsumed with the rules.

      I know from direct personal experience that key facts are not necessarily presented in court or through official channels, but the judge is informed of them through unofficial out-of-court off-the-record channels.

      We not only have secret laws, but secret process.

      • Karl says:

        How secret was the process? Merely unkown to the general public or unkown to the attorneys working on the case? Wouldn’t be surprising if a local attorney in good standing has an unofficial line of communication.

        Rulings of a first instance are not a good example to show that the judical process isn’t working. More interesting is what an appeal court does with such a case.

        As long as there is a one-microphone-controlling-a-thousand loudspeaker-situation the appeals court will have to check whether the decision was sound (by whatever law the appeals court deems valid). Easy if the unofficial law was don’t touch that can of worms or even a direct order from the high priest, more difficult in other cases.

        Judicial process is governed by procedural laws. I have no problem believing that there a two procedural laws as well. If there is official and unofficial law, the judge might even have to write an official and an unofficial reason for his decision. But there must be a way for his superiors to check the decision. Otherwise there could not be a one-microphone-controlling-a-thousand loudspeakers-situation.

        • jim says:

          > unknown to the attorneys working on the case?

          In three cases that I know of, unknown to one of the parties in dispute. In one case, known to the attorney supposedly representing the party, but not known to the party. In the other two cases I do not know if their representatives knew unofficially and informally, but if they did “legal ethics” forbade them to tell the party that they were supposed to be representing, or give them opportunity to respond to facts never presented in court.

          • jack boot says:

            what would change if they represented themselves in court

            • jim says:

              They would be found guilty of every unsolved crime on the books, plus witness tampering etcetera, and would have absolutely no idea why.

              • jack boot says:

                then what is your solution to this problem. for the individual. no grand ideological theories.

                if you are in court what do you do.

                • jim says:

                  Hire the lawyer who has the inside track and pay him well. The charges are likely to mysteriously go away or a much lesser charge substituted. You might get convicted for something lesser, and then the conviction gets expunged.

  7. Allah knows best !!! says:

    A newly formed Swedish political party has proposed making all Muslims in Sweden a “special minority”, claiming that Muslims suffer daily from violence and verbal attacks.

    The Nyans Party say they want Muslims in Sweden to be recognised in the same way the country recognises Sami peoples and Jews as special minorities, saying that they want so-called Islamophic crimes to receive a special classification under the law, SVT reports.

    The party chairman Mikail Yüksel, who was kicked out of the Centre Party for his association with the ultra-nationalist Turkish Grey Wolves, told the broadcaster: “Sweden’s Muslims daily experience both physical and verbal attacks of a racist nature.”

    “It is not the veil that must be fought, it is the oppression. At the same time, parents have the right to raise their children based on their culture and religion,” he added.

    When his prior association with the Grey Wolves was raised, Yüksel said that he abstained from Turkish politics saying: “I meet people with different political opinions, but that doesn’t mean I share their opinions.”

    https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2020/01/24/new-swedish-islamist-party-wants-grant-muslims-special-minority-status/

  8. Not Tom says:

    Your prediction may get a field test sooner than you think. Did you read about this?

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/show-up-to-court-with-a-toothbrush-ice-says-sanctuary-city-officials-should-expect-jail-time-if-they-ignore-subpoenas

    Killing the sanctuary city policies that have been a hallmark of progressive immigration policy for the last two years would be a major reversal.

    • jim says:

      I predict federal courts located in blue states to be cooperative, but state courts located in blue states to be uncooperative.

      Push comes to shove when a state officer breaks federal law. Of course they are massively breaking federal law, and challenging the feds to do something about it.

      The feds can do something about it if federal judges cooperate, cannot do anything about it if federal judges defect, short of RWDS.

        • jim says:

          The governor sat on his ass until the feds actually hauled her up in front of a grand jury on charges of obstructing justice on 2019 December 4. She was sitting in her court hearing cases until December third. At which point the governor of Massachusetts (Republican) told the judges to pull their finger out, and to my astonishment, they did. Trump has been telling the judges to pull their finger out, and until now, they have not. In particular, the Fisa court has not.

          Massachusetts is Cathedral central, but the governor was unenthused by the judge’s policy of encouraging and enabling as many illegal immigrants as possible. The state supreme court displayed obvious submission to political leadership, rather than Harvard leadership and New York Times leadership, which is surprising. I don’t know the background to this.

          But I think that seeing a judge actually hauled before a Grand Jury by the feds got them thinking.

          Under the fruit of the poisoned tree doctrine, everyone indicted in the Mueller investigation should get off. Not to mention that they were punished on process charges – the original crimes being absurdly insignificant, they then got way big punishments for “lying to the Fbi” amd “witness tampering”, which are just a way of manufacturing big crimes out of little crimes.

          What we have in the Shelley Joseph case is a straight up and down conflict between secret law enforced by secret off-the-record procedures, and the laws signed by the president and the governor of Massachusetts. Obeying one, breaks the other. Which law will prevail?

          • The Cominator says:

            Grew up in Mass and lived there nearly all of my life…

            I’m surprised that Baker was against that at all given that I got the impression that Charlie Baker was practically a communist (like most Mass Republican governors, the exception was the unfortunately now Trump deranged drunk Weld who actually as governor was actually very good I don’t know what happened to him…).

            “The state supreme court displayed obvious submission to political leadership, rather than Harvard leadership and New York Times leadership”

            Also very weird if true… as it was the Mass SCOTUS which out of nowhere (the normal Cathedral trial balloons weren’t there to my knowledge) that initially created gay marriage. Though mass courts are not generally so deranged as California ones on most things.

            • Atavistic Morality says:

              >Though mass courts are not generally so deranged as California ones on most things.

              That is hardly surprising to me, as I’d expect the dog to be far crazier than the master. The master is legitimately delusional, and his delusion is coherent within itself, but the dog has to play double time to signal loyalty, making it incoherent and thus insane.

              That Massachusetts priests are responsible for gay marriage makes sense to me, from what I know of John Adams he also insisted on “principles” that ultimately when the joke is lost along the way justify gay marriage.

              But what if you are just retarded, the delusion makes no sense to you and at the same time try to simulate it? California?

              I always thought that the FF forgot to write down what they actually believed: we, the white and respectable men of Anglo-Saxon heritage. Because they didn’t think much of anyone else, they were the people.

              But the borderline middling IQ individuals never get the joke, they are right there on the trap of mediocrity where they must pretend they understand what the deal is about because of ego, but not intelligent enough to actually get it. Most blacks in the ghetto get it far better, they don’t feel the need to pretend because they are ok with being stupid, their instinct providing a better perception of reality. When faced against a court, the ghetto man is often smarter than your average white middle class man and you can see that in women/divorce cases.

              • The Cominator says:

                I erred when I said Mass SCOTUS merely Mass supreme court…

                Up until the second half of 2016 it was mostly okay socially to be right wing even far right wing in Massachussetts (outside of say Cambridge, though Massholes are assholes anyway Cape Cod and Plymouth excepted) but following Hillary’s nomination the holy cult of holy wokeness perhaps fearing mass conversions to Trump really begin tightening the screws. I’m glad I’m in Florida now.

                Seeing this subhuman lemming like behavior me of the necessity of the Suharto solution and hardened my heart towards any people crying Havel’s Greengrocer.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  You can get away with far far right wing in Cambridge by sufficient boldness and some charisma. That may not apply to important people in their official and public activity, but maybe none have thought to try, or they did so with insufficient bold. But the average male in the midst of Cathedral Central can do it, get away with it and get laid more as a result of it.

                • jack boot says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Classic Marxism is a dead horse. Not going to debate it.

                • jack boot says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  I am happy to debate the labor theory of value with you, but I am not going to allow you to endlessly repeat the labor theory of value while failing to respond to our rebuttals.

        • jim says:

          It is about as infectious as the common cold, with a long incubation period enabling it to pass through quarantine, and therefore likely to spread to the entire world unstoppably, but will rapidly evolve to lesser lethality, that being the usual pattern of a virus, such as Ebola, that makes the jump from animal to human. Looks like it has already become less lethal.

          The virus crossed the species barrier due to the Chinese habit of eating anything organic, and infamously poor personal hygiene habits in Wuhan. It is therefore adapted to spread through poor personal hygiene. Always wash your hands, and never touch your eyes and nostrils. Get a pack of baby wipes, and always use them when you touch your eyes and nostrils.

          • info says:

            What do you think of the supposed evidence that its a manmade bioweapon?

            By memeology:
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz4ZL57kntE

            twitter:
            https://twitter.com/shiroihamusan/status/1221800261519167488

            Its a tad suspicious that there is 2 biohazard labs located in Wuhan not far from the wet market.

            • jim says:

              I am sure the Chinese government keeps bioweapons under tight control. Kind of obvious the Wuhan food markets do not keep bats, frogs, blowflies, snakes, and so forth under tight control.

              There is the disease vector in front of your nose in Wuhan market place.

              Chances are that a virus crossed from a snake to a human, and then hybridized with a related human virus, to produce a new strain of virus.

              • info says:

                One hypothesis is that the tested animal from the biohazard lab was wheeled into market instead of being disposed of, so that said person can make a profit.

                And that began the transmission.

                • BC says:

                  China’s been causing flu pandemics for ages by caging animals too close together in meat markets. This sounds like more of the same.

                • jim says:

                  Nature is always more inventive than bioscientists. In the meat market you have a stew of viruses miscegenating of their own accord without human supervision. Occam’s razor. The bioscience lab is a redundant hypothesis.

              • info says:

                Regardless the massive quarantine and the massive loss of economic activity would be detrimental to the CCP in lost revenue.

                I don’t believe that the measures taken would be taken just because its not that serious.

              • simplyconnected says:

                That’s a good prior.
                There may be some new evidence (I’m not an expert):

                “Full-genome evolutionary analysis of the novel corona virus (2019-nCoV) rejects the hypothesis of emergence as a result of a recent recombination event”
                https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.26.920249v1

                • jim says:

                  This paper tells us that half of the virus is a well known bat virus, but the middle part of its genome is of unknown origin.

                  I do not see how the conclusion “not a recent recombination event” follows, and if I did see that, would probably still conclude that the problem is eating bats purchased from a market that crams live animals, including bats, close together.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Literally from the abstract:

                  Conclusions: The levels of genetic similarity between the 2019-nCoV and RaTG13 suggest that the latter does not provide the exact variant that caused the outbreak in humans, but the hypothesis that 2019-nCoV has originated from bats is very likely.

                  So they tested a specific bat virus, and found that it probably wasn’t that exact strain, but is similar enough (96%) to almost certainly be some other bat strain.

                  Maybe the rest came from a different species, maybe it came from patient zero, or maybe it just randomly mutated; doesn’t seem to matter that much in terms of the root cause.

                • Karl says:

                  https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1.full.pdf

                  The authors of the above paper claim that 2019-nCoV is basically a known corona virus with 4 insertions. Surprsingly, these 4 insertions are known from HIV only.

                  Maybe a HIV positive man ate bat soup and the two viruses swapped parts or maybe someone wanted to create a novel virus and designed the whole thing.

                • Karl says:

                  https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00705-010-0729-6

                  The above publication shows that Chines scientists were actually working on crossing corona virus and HIV.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  Not what the authors suggest.

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              Chinese biolab probably less prone to random screw-ups than US labs.
              PRC government can detect (face recognition) and lethally punish any major mistake or malfeasance.

              A possible exception is that China’s labs are younger than the US’ so maybe there are weird failure modes they have not yet experienced and accounted for.

              • nomen nescio says:

                Maybe. Then again, remember that the biolab in question was itself made in China, with all that implies. I wouldn’t want to live downwind of it–live bat soup or no.

    • Viking says:

      -“hallmark of a progressive left for past two decades…”
      There fixed that for you

  9. Mister Grumpus says:

    Please someday give us your Jim,000 foot view of the Wuhan coronavirus story. I’ll wait.

    • The Cominator says:

      Media is trying to cause a recession to hurt Trump’s reelection chances via hysteria. Not that the virus won’t spread but all it is is something equivalent to a slightly nastier than average flu.

      It will not cause a recession, it will absolutely cause a stock market correction though. Market is going to be sharply down the next 2-3 weeks before abruptly rallying.

    • Korth says:

      The CCP is very likely spreading panic and blowing this out of proportion just so they can declare themselves saviors of the world (new hospital in 5 days! biggest quarantine in history!) when all of this blows over.

      Many things have changed in China since Xi consolidated his personal grasp on power. For one, the government doesn’t bother trying to coverup scandals anymore. Instead, now they agree and amplify. Make the problem seem bigger and badder than it actually is, rile up popular anger and fear, make an unnecesarily huge display of the party’s capacity to mobilize resources, and finally find a handful of incompetent civil servants or low level party apparatchicks to scapegoat and punish (they have a massive surplus of both types). The CCP saves the day, and fights corruption too!

      Supposedly an infected person can spread the virus for 6 to 12 days before showing any symptoms. If this was as contagious as they claim, it would have spread to every corner of the world by now. It has probably been around for quite a while, but has mostly stuck around Hibei almost exclusively because the average gook has terrible living standards and abysmal hygiene, lives like an animal, never washes their hands and spits all over the place all day. It isn’t exactly easy for a virus to jump from animals to humans in the first place, it has lottery-like ridiculously low odds, and we’re talking bats and snakes here, which makes it extra harder. Some snake farm wage slave had to sleep rough next to live produce for years, never showering, for this thing to develop at random. Just imagine the smell.

      • Not Tom says:

        Yeah, none of the numbers seem to add up. I’ve seen claims that one person will on average infect 4 others… over 6-12 days… in an unhygenic area of China that also happens to be a major transit hub? I don’t think so.

        Either it’s not very infectious at all, the incubation period isn’t that long, or there are 100x more infections than what’s been reported so far. And if there are 100x more infections, then the mortality is more like .02% rather than 2%, which is on par with the flu.

        Colds are way more infectious than this strain, we do literally nothing to try to contain them, and most people still only catch them once or twice a year, if that. We can’t compare to periods of history where people didn’t understand the concept of germs and often didn’t even have running water.

      • info says:

        The massive quarantine would be costing the CCP a lot of revenue in lost economic activity.

        • Strannik says:

          Couldn’t that imply that this is something much more serious than anyone is letting on, that they’re losing a tremendous amount of money, and also the seemingly desperate willingness of the Chinese authorities to set up what amounts to martial law and quarantine in all these cities of many millions of people (and they’re adding more cities to the lockdown by the hour)? Man, I have the feeling that the morgues are filling up and the health care professionals are fleeing, and many many more people are dying.

          • Not Tom says:

            Occam’s razor again. If they were going to lie, they’d just say they have it under control, they wouldn’t generate a bunch of publicity talking about how they’re quarantining entire cities and building new hospitals double-plus quick.

            Either it’s exactly what they say it is, or they’re playing it up just a little bit because it’s headline-grabbing.

            As far as I know, not one person outside of China has died, and even the people in China who died are all elderly or infirm, usually both, with the infirmity typically being another respiratory condition like bronchitis. There are a lot of sick people in China, so it’s easier for the virus to claim victims. They’re just doing what any country should do when a novel and infectious germ is discovered – do everything possible to contain it until either it can be treated or it mutates into something generally harmless.

            Has everyone forgotten that we’ve gotten much more serious diseases under control, like measles and polio? That was with vaccines, to be fair, but if this thing mutates too quickly for us to vaccinate, then it’s just going to become another variant of the common cold, which is likely anyway because viruses are subject to the same evolutionary pressures as any other organism.

            Practice good hygiene, maybe stay away from densely populated places for a while, but don’t waste too much mental energy on this otherwise.

          • jim says:

            Nah, China is in many ways a more open society than the US. If the proverbial was hitting the fan in China, everyone would know.

            Things are bad in Wuhan, but no worse than advertised, and probably less bad – social media gets hysterical. It is very hard to know in America about misbehavior of women, blacks, and migrants, but easy in China to know about communist party fuckups, albeit not top leadership fuckups.

  10. notglowing says:

    https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-01-27/immigration-judges-are-quitting-or-retiring-early-because-of-trump
    “Immigration judges are quitting or retiring early because of Trump”

    Do you think that this is a confirmation of your conjecture that Judges are forced to follow decisions made in secret, and therefore they are quitting because they have no other choice in order to avoid that?
    If your theory is true, then this kind of event would be expected to follow.

    On the other hand I don’t believe the reverse reasoning is true though; there are simpler explanations to this than all judicial decisions being made behind closed doors by some third party.
    For instance, I am not even sure if this news is true, it sounds like something that could be a concocted narrative from the left.
    3-4 judges who would quit because of other reasons are using it to virtue signalling and it’s spun into an anti-Trump narrative.

    Also, from the article it seems like there are enough legal reasons out in the open for this to simply be legitimate, without really needing a “conspiracy” to happen secretly.

    However what is beyond any doubt is that the legal side *is* moving towards this direction:
    >I predict that from here on, every federal judge and every red state judge is going to quietly and silently toss every past case and every recent precedent down the memory hole and stop obstructing ICE (immigration and Customs Enforcement) and the BIA.

    • jim says:

      > there are simpler explanations to this than all judicial decisions being made behind closed doors by some third party.

      They are not made behind closed doors by some third party. They are made by the judge behind closed doors on the basis of non public information and secret instructions, which instructions amount to secret law. Sometimes they are made by a third party.

      Judges are resigning because as secret law rapidly becomes ever more radical, they are likely to find themselves, as Shelby Joseph did, the meat in the sandwich between secret law and official law.

      • TBeholder says:

        Judges are resigning because as secret law rapidly becomes ever more radical, they are likely to find themselves, as Shelby Joseph did, the meat in the sandwich between secret law and official law.

        This also indicates that this “living law” is often maintained with the stick (someone got “goods” on them?), rather than just via pulling already loyal cadres into right places and relying on the carrot to keep them loyal.
        Then again, maybe they have cushy places in private sector reserved, too? How do the judges retire in USA?

        • The Cominator says:

          They get their full salary and benefits (and their salaries tend to be 120 grand a year or over) plus “cost of living increases” for life so once you become a federal judge you’ll never need to work again you only need to avoid doing something very blatantly illegal or corrupt that would cost you your job and pension.

    • TBeholder says:

      For instance, I am not even sure if this news is true, it sounds like something that could be a concocted narrative from the left.
      3-4 judges who would quit because of other reasons are using it to virtue signalling and it’s spun into an anti-Trump narrative.

      Sour grapes are always in season. That’s why more samples are needed.
      Also, sour grapes themselves can be for political reasons and unrelated.
      So it can be hard to tell apart hammer-and-anvil resignations signal vs. political sour grapes resignations signal vs. incidental sour grapes resignations noise. Especially if it won’t come in a single wave, but stretched thin.

  11. Strannik says:

    Very first post here, so here it goes; I am finding Jim’s general take on Trump to be pretty accurate, so I find his prediction to likely be a correct one. When Chief Justice Taney’s pronouncements on Lincoln’s legal and constitutional conduct of the American Civil War were simply ignored by Lincoln, they were quickly ignored by everyone else. And then Lincoln started getting the legal decisions he wanted which ex post facto covered what he had already done (Taney also being dead by then).

    Now, in before anyone asks; I am a traditionalist in my views on women and much else besides, am a Orthodox Christian, and pretty socially reactionary. Without a doubt Jim and others will disagree with me on things, but such is life, it’ll be fun.

    • jim says:

      You might want to read marriage

    • Not Tom says:

      No need for the proactive defense, unless you’re planning to post Marxist class theory. The Inquisition only visits suspected and proven shills. Otherwise, you’re good.

      • Strannik says:

        No, no ”Marxist Class Theory” from me, having Russian wife and family and friends with stories to tell leaves me loathe to do that. My opinion on Socialism/Communism is that as an enforced Statist top-down system it doesn’t seem to work for very long, people appear to be just too selfish for that naturally speaking. As a religious and voluntary arrangement in a monastic sense, it does work and has worked for thousands of years.

        I just figure on getting that out of the way early on.

        • jim says:

          The monasteries and nunneries were where state, Church, family, and society dumped people who would otherwise get hungry and cause problems. It is a good system for problem people, more humane than slavery or execution, and it stops them from reproducing. Monasteries and Nunneries were not successful socialism. They were the welfare state done right.

          Recollect empress Theodora “rescuing” whores and putting them in nunneries. They failed to be entirely appreciative of this rescue.

          State, Church, family, and society detained people who are disinclined to work for a living, took care of them, and forced them to perform fulfilling and uplifting work.

          • Strannik says:

            Reading the lives of the early Desert Fathers for example as well as later monks and nuns, I can see that these sorts of people come from all walks of life and aren’t exactly maladjusted to the World when they chose a spiritual life. On the contrary, they escaped into that religious life because they were terminally all too involved in many cases with the World and with sinful living. It’s a better life but not everyone is called to it.

            Empress Theodora was a woman of deep religious impulses given her previous life but also was a woman of decidedly monophysite sympathies, so her bias definitely informed her decisions, I will say that.

            Now, it’s possible that since the Western world has been graceless for many centuries, that the monasteries and nunneries of Western Europe did indeed become dumping grounds for the mentally ill, the maladjusted, the problem people, because this too can be seen when you examine works of Roman Catholic spirituality post 11th century and later, it’s unhinged and frequently deviant eroticism and sensuality barely sublimated under a veneer of Christian piety.

            Whatever we want to call the spiritual life, ”Socialism” or ”Welfarism”, it tends to lower and degrade it’s higher meaning, which is the salvation and divinization of Man, by using terms drawn from political ideologies.

            The role of the State is to help it’s subjects insofar as it is possible in this World, to attain to eternal life in the World to Come, and so for me politics is just a reflection of how the State helps do this, or to the degree that it does not.

            That’s not to say that I’m not a Statist, far from it, as obedience to the rulers in all things except sin is the true Christian way. Nor am I an Erastian, however, as the Church should be in harmony and concord with the State without being reduced to being a government ministry. It’s aims are higher than the State’s as it is the ordinary means of salvation for mankind. In my ideal conception The Monarch, the Tsar, rules absolutely as an Autocrat. And only within the framework of being guided by Orthodox Christian faith, by the ”Right Belief”, will the State achieve it’s true and best end.

          • Dave says:

            Nunneries are especially important as a place where bad-girl genes go to die. The Islamic world never had them, and its women are absolute animals despite much harsher repression than Christian girls ever had to endure. Perhaps the slutocalypse of 1820 to the present day happened because the Protestant abolition of nunneries allowed female instincts to evolve in a more feral direction.

            • Strannik says:

              A controlled environment where persons can subdue their disordered passions and become closer to God in this life, said persons helping each other as they go along to do it, is about as good an environment as such people would ever have than anywhere outside that environment. Conquering yourself is not easy, we need help to do it.

              • Not Tom says:

                Conquering is all well and good, but the main benefit appears to have been containment.

                It’s inhumane to just lock ’em up or sterilize them? Fine, move them into a full-time occupation where they simply won’t have the opportunity to chase alpha dick.

                • Strannik says:

                  Okay, maybe I’m looking at the genuine spiritual purpose, but if you want to say the ”main benefit” was ”containment” in a worldly and non-spiritual sense then there might not be much else to be said, really. A person can’t see what they can’t see, after all.

                  Sure, from a secular and even materialistic perspective, one that might be favored by gentlemen like Napoleon or others to whom spirituality registers not in the slightest except as a form of social control, yeah, you’re probably right. But you’d be missing that one needful thing for sure.

                  So what I propose to you is a kind of synthetic ‘common ground’ should you desire it; If one is seriously committed and motivated by spiritual truths, especially on a collective level, one will succeed, and succeed in moving mountains, impossible to those materialists whose horizon is like that of a man at the bottom of a well.

                  Simply put, you won’t go far simply corralling anyone. You have give someone a mission, a goal.

                • jim says:

                  Social control needs to be backed up by outright coercion, so that people voluntarily accept social control – broken window effect. If one man gets away with breaking a window, every man will expect defection, and is likely to defect on you expecting you to defect. You need to flat out violently coerce the people who break windows, and who don’t voluntarily and on their own initiative fix them, and the ruler is in charge of outright coercion. And in this sense the ruler is over the Church. King Solomon executed one high priest and appointed another. Obviously one would prefer that the succession of high priests was only managed in this fashion in exceptional cases. But the ruler decides the exception.

                  But the church has the job of getting people all on the same page as to what constitutes cooperate/cooperate equilibrium.

                  There can be no such thing as rule of law, in the sense that one cannot deduce ought from ought. When one attempts to deduce ought from ought, one always ends up with stupid and wicked conclusions, whether it is philosophers attempting to deduce ought from the greatest good for the greatest number, or Jews elaborating the law.

                  But equally law cannot be merely the momentary will of ruler. There is a difference between the ruler telling his servant to wash his socks, and the ruler telling the Lord to make sure that inheritance of property is respected. William the second died of the difference.

                  For centuries British law was based on “writs”, written commands of the King, in form no different from the King telling someone to wash his socks. But when a ruler lost track of the difference, as William the second did, cooperation broke down. In this sense, there was rule of law under William the first, but not William the Second, and Henry the First reintroduced rule of law, even though the law of all three Kings, and subsequent Kings for centuries afterwards, was simply written commands of the King. The King dictated these commands on the spur of the moment, to deal with the situation at hand, directing someone with judicial authority how he should use it, often in regard to one particular case, sometimes for all cases of a certain form. The King made law, and the King decided what the laws he made meant. And if any judge got too creative in interpreting the King’s writs, the King had something to say about it. But Kings generally ruled in lawful manner, and sometimes in an unlawful manner. If law was merely commands of the King, how could one say a King was ruling lawlessly? But people certainly did say that from time to time, and King William the Second died of the difference.

                  And in this sense, the Church is above the King. Not that the Church can or should make law, but in that the Church should be central force getting everyone on the same page about what constitutes right conduct, and the wise King will therefore make laws such that his coercion backs up right conduct. And the Church should have more to say about right conduct than the King.

                  The peasant bows to the lord, the lord bows to the King, the King bows to God, God sacrificed himself to man, and the peasant eats the sacrifice. If a King claims to rule by divine right, claims to be backed by the biggest alpha male of them all, he would be wise to rule in a manner that makes that claim plausible.

                • Not Tom says:

                  …from a secular and even materialistic perspective, one that might be favored by gentlemen like Napoleon or others to whom spirituality registers not in the slightest…

                  The very essence of Jimian neoreaction is that God/Gnon’s will is expressed through efficient material processes. There is no inherent conflict between the spiritual and the material, so long as priests refrain from extrapolating spiritual principles into falsifiable (and false) material claims.

                  I am a materialist who accepts the spiritual. I have no quarrel with spiritualists who accept the material. Spiritualists who reject or demean the material, however, tend toward gnosticism and bad decisions, evolutionary speaking.

                • jim says:

                  > The very essence of Jimian neoreaction is that God/Gnon’s will is expressed through efficient material processes.

                  Notice that Saint Paul’s very Jimian command that the priesthood should be male, married, fertile, and successful at patriarchy was justified by entirely Jimian reasoning.

                  > Spiritualists who reject or demean the material, however, tend toward gnosticism and bad decisions, evolutionary speaking.

                  The Lavender Mafia has been disturbingly successful at entryism into the priesthood, and every other profession that gives them access to young boys, but the Gnostics, like the Satanists, have generally done a piss poor job at entryism through failure of Gnostics to cooperate with Gnostics, or indeed with anyone, while the Lavender Mafia get naked in a great big pile, and plot together in the pile.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “And the Church should have more to say about right conduct than the King.”

                  Careful Jim down that road lies damnation and priestly rule.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The Lavender Mafia has been disturbingly successful at entryism into the priesthood, and every other profession that gives them access to young boys, but the Gnostics, like the Satanists, have generally done a piss poor job at entryism through failure of Gnostics to cooperate with Gnostics, or indeed with anyone, while the Lavender Mafia get naked in a great big pile, and plot together in the pile.

                  Yes, gnostics tend not be effective entryists themselves, but tend to make questionable decisions that permit entry to the entryists, and through their failure to cooperate, are unable to eliminate the entryists once present, and often undermine reactionary attempts to remove the entryists.

            • The Cominator says:

              “The role of the State is to help it’s subjects insofar as it is possible in this World, to attain to eternal life in the World to Come”

              This is holiness spiraling and moralfagging. The state’s role is to provide order defense and to optimize things for efficiency, by keeping the state religion in its proper sphere in a very unlibertarian way by suppressing conspiracies and women in a very unlibertarian way, but in most things staying out of the way in a libertarian way.

              “Nunneries are especially important as a place where bad-girl genes go to die.”

              Nunneries are a waste and an abomination, and don’t give me any crap that they have a spiritual purpose as the female mind is not capable of rising far above the material world. I like the Orthodox Church in general (as opposed to the Catholic Church) but they really need to get rid of Saint Jerome and ESPECIALLY get rid of nunneries. Peter the Great rightly banned young women from joining nunneries and restricted it only to older widows.

              Bad genetics should be dealt with very simply via sterilization and nothing else. Bad girls who no one wants as a wife should be sterilized and become whores or servants.

              • Dave says:

                Yeah, tie their tubes and turn them loose to be free-range walking sex dolls. What could possibly go wrong?

              • Not Tom says:

                Bad girls who no one wants as a wife should be sterilized and become whores or servants.

                No. You’re forgetting rule #1: AWALT.

              • Strannik says:

                Absolutely ridiculous;

                ”Nunneries are a waste and an abomination, and don’t give me any crap that they have a spiritual purpose as the female mind is not capable of rising far above the material world.”

                No human mind, unless aided by God’s help, is capable of rising above the material world, in the belief of Christianity.

                ” I like the Orthodox Church in general (as opposed to the Catholic Church) but they really need to get rid of Saint Jerome”

                Saints are Saints, in Orthodoxy. If you have a problem with what he said or wrote, you must either have not understood what he said or wrote, or have deeper spiritual issue yourself that need to be personally seen to.

                ”and ESPECIALLY get rid of nunneries.”

                Ridiculous, even from a purely materialist and utilitarian perspective. There’s nothing wrong with nunneries, or monasteries, and in fact the spiritual life is a higher calling that is proper for those called to it.

                ”Peter the Great rightly banned young women from joining nunneries and restricted it only to older widows. ”

                Tsar Peter was an Antichrist, a lunatic Westernizer, and it was not his role as Tsar to try to change anything purely of an Ecclesial and theological nature, anyway.

                • jim says:

                  Wanting to rise above the material world is usually a cover story for abandoning the Church’s earthly mission, which necessarily results in abandoning its other worldly mission. Dismissing the material world is not in itself necessarily the antinomian heresy, but in practice, it usually is the antinomian heresy.

                  So a bunch of gays enter the priesthood so that they can fuck little boys. Finding Saint Paul’s command that the priesthood should be married, fertile, and successful at patriarchy to be inconvenient, they get together naked on a bed in a great big pile, and plot an announcement that sex, women and family is a material distraction from the divine mission of the priesthood, and that they are more holy than that.

                  The reason that that gays within an organization can plot together cohesively against the organization, the infamous Lavender Mafia, despite the infamous jealousy and backbiting among gays is that they gather naked in a great big pile.

                  While the Satanist lies, cheats, steals, and murders, because Satan endorses him getting ahead by any means that momentarily come to hand, the Gnostic lies, cheats, steals, and murders because he is above mere material issues – being focused on the other world, he is antinomian in regard to this world.

                • Strannik says:

                  For some reason I’m not able to reply to Jim directly, so I’ll do so indirectly. Jim replied to me that;

                  ”Wanting to rise above the material world is usually a cover story for abandoning the Church’s earthly mission, which necessarily results in abandoning its other worldly mission. Dismissing the material world is not in itself the antinomian heresy, but in practice, it usually is the antinomian heresy.”

                  ”Rising above the material world” is not to be confused with some kind of Gnostic hatred of matter. The Orthodox faith has made it crystal clear since the 800’s AD that Iconoclasm is rooted in a Satanic hatred of creation and the material world, and representation of Holy Images is a reflection of that hatred.

                  Since a goodly portion of living the Christian life is ‘love of neighbor”, and since ‘love of neighbor” is a huge component of the religious life in an Monastic setting, the Gospel mission brings together the world of people and slowly works out of them the disordered passions. The material world is not evil, but being sunk in materialism and thus being unable to destroy sin in one’s life is. A person has to do what a person has to do, to do battle against the Devil and the works of darkness.

                  ”So a bunch of gays enter the priesthood so that they can fuck little boys. Finding Saint Paul’s command that the priesthood should be married, fertile, and successful at patriarchy to be inconvenient, they get together naked on a bed in a great big pile, and plot an announcement that sex, women and family is a material distraction from the divine mission of the priesthood, and that they are more holy than that.”

                  Orthodoxy established from early on that priests could be married and does not discourage this at all. Bishops though are usually selected from the Monasteries and are often-like many Orthodox Monks-frequently widowers or husbands whose wives themselves have joined the ranks of the religious. Sodomites are quite rare under these circumstances in any case, because Orthodox spirituality is absolutely irreconcilable with any kind of effeminacy and Sodomy, the Canons of the Church absolutely forbidding such to be priests, and severely punishing those who might be discovered to be as such.

                  ”While the Satanist lies, cheats, steals, and murders, because Satan endorses him getting ahead by any means that momentarily come to hand, the Gnostic lies, cheats, steals, and murders because he is above mere material issues – being focused on the other world, he is antinomian in regard to this world.”

                  This battle against Satanism and Gnosticism, like the battle against any Cacodoxy, is a constant war in this fallen world, but the Orthodox Christian is called to be a Soldier of Jesus Christ.

                • jim says:

                  > > ”So a bunch of gays enter the priesthood so that they can fuck little boys. Finding Saint Paul’s command that the priesthood should be married, fertile, and successful at patriarchy to be inconvenient, they get together naked on a bed in a great big pile, and plot an announcement that sex, women and family is a material distraction from the divine mission of the priesthood, and that they are more holy than that.”

                  > Orthodoxy established from early on that priests could be married and does not discourage this at all. Bishops though are usually selected from the Monasteries and are often-like many Orthodox Monks-frequently widowers or husbands whose wives themselves have joined the ranks of the religious.

                  Widowers who have been successful at patriarchy are consistent with Saint Paul’s command. It is probable that Saint Paul himself was a widower. Men without children, or misbehaving adult children, are contrary to his wise command. That Orthodox Bishops are generally childless and never married smells of the Lavender mafia.

                  > Sodomites are quite rare under these circumstances

                  Are they?

                  Trouble is that even a small number of sodomites, conspiring within a larger body, are apt to wield disproportionate power and influence, the infamous Lavender Mafia. The priesthood, like scouting and teaching, tends to attract sodomite infiltrators.

                  You have an organization that is attractive to sodomites and full of never married men. Sex happens, and if it is not happening with wives, it is happening elsewhere.

                  > in any case, because Orthodox spirituality is absolutely irreconcilable with any kind of effeminacy and Sodomy, the Canons of the Church absolutely forbidding such to be priests, and severely punishing those who might be discovered to be as such.

                  Human nature being what it is, there is bound to be quite a lot of sex happening. If you don’t have heterosexual scandals, priest sleeps with the parishioner’s wife, a lot of sodomy is going on. How many Orthodox priests have been discovered and severely punished? Very few. If very few, it is because the priesthood does not want to discover.

                  If you have a largely single priesthood, there is going to be a fair bit of non marital sex. Who are they banging?

                • Nikolai says:

                  Hey pal, you keep it up with that Traditional Christianity and Jim will have to ban you. Everybody knows that Christ’s teachings were misinterpreted for over 1500 years until King Henry the Coomer started his own church so he could fornicate with his mistresses. /s

                • jim says:

                  I still await your explanation of what Saint Paul actually meant when he commanded that the priesthood be male, married, fertile, and successful at patriarchy.

                  I am not banning you. I just demand that you answer the question.

                  You can argue all you like in favor of the fruity priesthood, but you have to actually disown Saint Paul, or give us the fruit interpretation of his words on the requirements for bishops and deacons, not simply quietly toss him the ditch and assume he issued a fruit encyclical somewhere in the bible in favor of the sodomite Gaia worshiping priesthood.

                  If Saint Paul’s plain and clear words on the topic do not mean what they say, what do they mean?

                  I am not allowing you to simply assume that everyone agrees that Saint Paul endorsed the fruity priesthood as if he had never said what he said. You can argue for the fruity priesthood all you like, but you have to actually argue for it, not follow in Jerome’s footsteps and simply assume that everyone, including Saint Paul, agreed with it. If Saint Paul agreed with it, you have to explain why his words on the topic do not say what they say.

                • polifugue says:

                  Check this out from Tsar Peter:

                  https://infogalactic.com/info/Peter_the_Great

                  “He also sought to end arranged marriages, which were the norm among the Russian nobility, because he thought such a practice was barbaric and led to domestic violence, since the partners usually resented each other.”

                  Looks like Tsar Peter was the Antichrist, a lunatic monster who did his best to destroy traditional marriage. Even if Cominator is right, that whores should be sterilized, they have to go somewhere, and nobody wants a whore as a servant or slave, since they will morally corrupt other people’s daughters and wives. You’re the average of the five people you spend the most time with, and if your daughter or wife spends time with whores, it doesn’t matter what you do, she will become one. Nunneries are a great place to put tragedies, and it’s humane and kind.

                  From what little I know of the Orthodox Church, I know that there is a lot of evil in some of the higher echelons, such as the entryist Bartholomew who supports the Ukrainian schism. I have heard the Greek clergy in this country are liberalized, and certain seminaries have members that proclaim “diversity.” I have not heard (yet) of an Orthodox church in this country that has arranged marriage. However, I have met Orthodox married priests and they are very normal, and I believe that once our worldview is less psychologically difficult, they will be eager to bring back Marriage 1.0.

                  A key figure in Orthodoxy is Father Seraphim Rose, who was a former homosexual who became a Monk. Despite his past ways, Seraphim Rose is universally hated by the liberal entryists in the Orthodox Church. As long as homosexuality remains illegal, and public gays are thrown off buildings, gays in the monasteries, who continually repent their sins for greater holiness, are not problems for society.

                • The Cominator says:

                  1. Why would you keep the whores around your wife or daughter.

                  2. The female herd instinct is only towards social peers not lower status females who women tend to be pretty bad too…

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Nikolai

                  Why is it that Tradcucks cannot answer RedPill on women questions? Questions that the ancient Church Fathers would’ve easily answered.

                • polifugue says:

                  I would not keep a whore near my daughters, as all of them will be homeschooled and locked up until I can find them a man, and will be married off as soon as possible.

                  The problem lies in what is called normalization; if whores are allowed to exist in a society, women will view their behavior as something which is allowed to exist in a society. A whore may not talk to my wife or daughter, but chances are the whore might talk to someone else’s wife or daughter, who in turn will talk to my wife or daughter. My daughter might think that sex outside marriage is evil, but if she talks to someone who talks with a whore, she might pick up a different sentiment from that someone.

                  This is the reason why God said in the OT if a woman is married off and she deceived her father and husband into thinking she was a virgin but wasn’t, physically remove her; because, if she is allowed to exist she will by her existence corrupt the morals of other women in the community. Whores aren’t absolutely low status if they exist, just as gays aren’t absolutely low status if they exist, and women won’t be bad to whores if they aren’t absolutely low status. Women are delicate and need protection, and that protection must be absolute.

                  I noticed tremendous amounts of purple pilling when I was on OrthoTwitter, albeit not as much compared to Catholic Twitter. But holiness spiralling is alive and well; the Jesus prayer “Lord have mercy on me a sinner” is fine, but then tradcucks say “Lord I’m the worst of sinners,” then “I can’t talk about other sinners because I am the worst of sinners,” then “anyone who talks about other sinners isn’t as holy as I,” then “anyone who is morally reactionary is a pharisee,” which becomes “gays buggering each other isn’t a big deal because I’m still the worst sinner in the world.”

                  So the reason tradcucks can’t answer the WQ is because they’re afraid of being a “pharisee,” which is absolutely ridiculous but it’s what they do. You can’t criticize women whoring around because you watched a whore on the internet, apparently, which makes you the worst of sinners. This makes Tradcucks absolute cowards, unable to acknowledge information that would ironically make their vision a workable reality.

                • jim says:

                  > So the reason tradcucks can’t answer the WQ is because they’re afraid of being a “pharisee,” which is absolutely ridiculous but it’s what they do

                  The problem is holiness spiraling Jesus’ commands. Two cheeks, not unlimited cheeks, and “judge not”, but also “be wise as serpents”. In the cynical language of the Dark Enlightenment, one tit for two tats is sound strategy to achieve cooperate/cooperate equilibrium in a world of imperfect information. Zero tits for unlimited tats is not.

                  Women are notoriously influenced by other women. So you have to protect your wife and daughters from bad influences. (A sodomite male friend having much the same effect as a whore friend, but considerably more so.)

                • polifugue says:

                  I agree that Puritan-derived Leftism comes from holiness spiralling Jesus’ commands; the example I used, holiness spiralling the Jesus prayer, is the same technique as zero tits for unlimited tats.

                  But how does this come about in the first place? Methinks it comes from reading the NT independent of the OT – one of the key features of a religion is morality, and if the wonderful reactionary OT is not the basis of the worldview, then Jesus’ commands have to be morals. If “turning the other cheek” is an absolute moral, not something to be taken in context with the OT, then unlimited cheeks must be turned, otherwise ‘turn the other cheek’ is only wisdom, not finite morality.

                • jim says:

                  If anything is an absolute moral, one immediately gets in trouble, since one then proceeds deducing oughts from oughts, which always result in evil and stupid oughts – this is the original error of Jewish legalism, which Jesus so rightly condemned, and which error resulted in the Romans killing or enslaving most of them, and kicking the rest out of Israel.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The problem lies in what is called normalization; if whores are allowed to exist in a society, women will view their behavior as something which is allowed to exist in a society.”

                  Christendom did not ban prostitution. Progressive social democracy did.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  @polifugue

                  Your fears about whores are unfounded, you insist in being theoretical when you have a wealth of experience in your hands.

                  The existence of whores doesn’t really influence women to become whores, if anything it’s the lack of whores because no one is labeled a whore. The existence of a crackhead doesn’t make a favorable statement to become one, rather, people point at the crackhead and children really don’t want crack after taking a look.

                  Notice that sexual liberation starts by refuting the existence of whoredom and trying to reframe it, not by “ascending” whores. Women don’t like to be seen as whores and don’t want to be called whores even today, after all is said and done. If women who have sex outside of marriage were called whores, a lot less women would have sex outside of marriage.

                  The existence of whores in the past didn’t stop women being chaste, however today prostitution is illegal and most women have indeed become whores.

                  In the first place most women don’t want to be whores, that’s a misinterpretation of their shit testing. If women truly wanted to be whores, they wouldn’t stick with the alpha. The fact that they stick with the alpha no matter what confirms that what they actually want is an alpha. “Battered” wives and “abused” women famously never leave their man no matter what. But since men aren’t allowed to be alpha, we get a lot more whoredom than in natural conditions.

                  And that’s the real problem here, being a man in modern society is socially forbidden and increasingly illegal: https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/01/28/woke-west-point-curriculum-denounces-toxic-masculinity/

                  You’ll be able to lock up your daughters because your daughters will enjoy being locked up. Like Mormon and Amish girls, they are getting locked up and arranged married by the thousands and no complaints.

                  Your framing makes it sound like women don’t want to be in chains, when actually women demand to be chained as proof of fitness. The lion that can’t control the lioness isn’t fit to breed her, and a bunch of them might get together to fight him if he is weak. But when a young and ferocious lion kills the old king and then kills his cubs, they go into heat to get bred: he has proved his fitness.

                  If you daughters ever tell you that your chains are oppressive what they are really trying to tell you is that they aren’t tight enough, “wake up pussy”.

                • jack boot says:

                  no one cares what saint paul did or didn’t say because there is no saint paul

                  the apostle paul may or may not have said some stuff. that’s another matter.

                  catholicism in all its forms must be stamped out wherever it is found. failure to do so leads directly to vatican ii in all your nations

                  https://youtube.com/watch?v=wiJGPRHkjgI

                  what a wonderful performance, the puritans would of loved it.

                • jim says:

                  If we don’t call dead people saints, we get Saint Greta Thunberg.

                  We want to restore lost social technologies. Most of the good stuff is in the writings of Saints.

                  Roman Catholicism is dying. The pope worships idols of naked Amazonian fertility goddesses who demand human sacrifice.

                • polifugue says:

                  @Atavistic Morality – just a clarification

                  “Notice that sexual liberation starts by refuting the existence of whoredom and trying to reframe it, not by “ascending” whores.”

                  Is what is meant here is that sexual liberation starts when whore is redefined to “hooker who accepts money” versus “loose woman who doesn’t?”

                  When I was pointing out the problem to a cuckservative, he got confused, thinking that when I said “whore” I was referring to hookers as opposed to loose women. When he realized what I was saying, he got all defensive and called me the usual drivel. In other words, he thought that “whore” was a solved problem since prostitution was illegal, but that women spreading their legs for [X] number of “boyfriends” or worse is fine, since women are absolutely wonderful and could do no wrong.

          • TBeholder says:

            Indeed. Also, a continuum between charity and employment.
            In that many monks found practically useful work to do (in Europe, brewing was the most famous, but before public libraries became a thing, someone had to keep the archives, too). While local churches offered a few reliable and not very demanding jobs.

        • Atavistic Morality says:

          A monastery has nothing in common with “Socialism/Communism”.

          In the first place, monasteries aren’t completely self-sufficient and don’t have anything that resembles an actual economy, so the comparison is apples to oranges. But most importantly monasteries are regulated through a very strict inner hierarchy, and are at the same time part of an exterior and much bigger hierarchy.

          Monasteries are not a community in the same sense that you are implying a socialist country would be, for monasteries are extremely discriminatory institutions that only allow very certain people that follow very specific preset and foreknown rules all under a very strict regulation and supervision of an authority, that is at the same time under the supervision and overseen by an even bigger hierarchy upon which the monasteries depend.

          If I get 9 dudes more like me into a modern Agoge it doesn’t mean anything, just a bunch self-selected hardcore men who willingly engage in excruciating training for no other reason than self-satisfaction and fulfillment through a form of asceticism. A unit is not an army, and the closeness and functionality of the unit is not political theory or social technology.

          A community has all kinds of people, in the context of millions of all kinds of people, socialism proposes certain things under certain assumptions for certain goals.

          Apples to oranges.

          • Not Tom says:

            monasteries are extremely discriminatory institutions that only allow very certain people that follow very specific preset and foreknown rules

            That doesn’t appear to have been the case for much of history, when troublemakers were sent to these institutions, willing or not, to stop causing trouble. Seems more like these rules were very strictly imposed on the new arrivals, not unlike a boarding school or an asylum (but much more humane).

            • kawaii_kike says:

              Do you have specific examples of monasteries being known for housing troublemakers and degenerates? Monasteries are purposefully isolated and known for their strict asceticism. If someone was consistently making trouble then the monks could just kill the troublemakers and claim they wandered off.

              • Not Tom says:

                I don’t know of any examples of monasteries or nunneries that had such a reputation, and yet it was common knowledge that troublemakers got sent to them (c.f. Shakespeare’s “get thee to a nunnery”). Which kind of confirms your suspicion that those who didn’t take well to the cloth tended to “wander off” and never be heard from again.

            • Atavistic Morality says:

              Perhaps, but I can only be certain of what I do know for a fact and I live close to a monastery so I described what I’ve seen.

              In any case, if these people were forced there and then threatened and coerced to follow the rules my argument is even stronger, because it means they were prisoners.

              But I don’t think most people in a monastery were like that, I haven’t read about their inner workings in the past but I know historical figures that were monks and these people were seriously committed to what they said they were committed.

              Perhaps that’s why the troublemakers were sent there, because men with strong determination and beliefs were needed to tolerate such people and mend their ways. I guess it also depends on the Order and the time, some Orders have been famously corrupted at some point in history but then restored by true monks.

              • jim says:

                Monasteries changed when they ceased being the welfare state.

                • Strannik says:

                  Again, the primary purpose of a monastery is the salvation of it’s members and the prayers made on the behalf of others, to almighty God. It’s hard to discuss any higher things of importance when here it seems to come down to stark political utility. And since I’m still having trouble posting a reply to a specific post of Jim’s, I’ll try to address some of his points here;

                  ”Widowers who have been successful at patriarchy are consistent with Saint Paul’s command. It is probable that Saint Paul himself was a widower. Men without children, or misbehaving adult children, are contrary to his wise command. That Orthodox Bishops are generally childless and never married smells of the Lavender mafia.”

                  As I said, most Monks and Bishops in Orthodoxy have been Widowers historically speaking, or had a wife who entered a nunnery if her husband took up the tasks of being a Bishop, which responsibility doesn’t leave much time for family or wife. Bishops who have been unmarried and celibate are not frowned upon however, because Christ Himself was as such. And with His help, anything is possible. Jim then said;

                  ”Trouble is that even a small number of sodomites, conspiring within a larger body, are apt to wield disproportionate power and influence, the infamous Lavender Mafia. The priesthood, like scouting and teaching, tends to attract sodomite infiltrators.”

                  Not when most Orthodox Priests are married or have been married, and the disciplinary canons of Orthodoxy are very strict in this and other matters.

                  ”You have an organization that is attractive to sodomites and full of never married men. Sex happens, and if it is not happening with wives, it is happening elsewhere.”

                  Orthodox Priesthood is not attractive to Sodomites, on the contrary it is absolutely hated with a Satanic hatred by them. Jim then said;

                  ”Human nature being what it is, there is bound to be quite a lot of sex happening. If you don’t have heterosexual scandals, priest sleeps with the parishioner’s wife, a lot of sodomy is going on. How many Orthodox priests have been discovered and severely punished? Very few. If very few, it is because the priesthood does not want to discover.”

                  There’s a Russian saying, that you ”don’t judge the neighbor’s corn by your bushel”, which is to say that absence of evidence can really be evidence of absence to a significant degree. That’s not to say that Orthodox Priests aren’t sinners, but that more is demanded of them regarding accountability. There is not the clerical authoritarianism that defines Papism in Orthodoxy. And then Jim said;

                  ”If you have a largely single priesthood, there is going to be a fair bit of non marital sex. Who are they banging?”

                  As I said, most of these guys aren’t single. I know many priests who obviously enjoy marital life, with numerous children. Orthodoxy isn’t the Roman Church merely without the Pope; we are very different.

                • jim says:

                  > Bishops who have been unmarried and celibate are not frowned upon however, because Christ Himself was as such. And with His help, anything is possible.

                  Well I frown on them, and I am in good company because Saint Paul frowned on them.

                  1. Never having exercised actual patriarchal authority, they tend to be just not very good at it.

                  2. Incomprehension of their female parishioners, a bigger problem now that women are out of control. Incomprehension of their parishioners marital relationships.

                  3. Set a bad example.

                  4. Men who are “celibate” frequently have weird and disgusting sexual preferences that do not necessarily involve genital sex. Perhaps “with Christ’s help, anything is possible”, but a lot of them are not all that inclined to seek that help.

                  5. The Lavender Mafia. Sodomites flock to any occupation that gives them access to young boys. If you have a political organization, Trotskyites and FBI shills are constantly trying to enter, if you have a religious organization Gnostics are constantly trying to enter, and if you have an organization that exercises authority over young boys, sodomites are constantly trying to enter.

                  > absence of evidence can really be evidence of absence to a significant degree.

                  If you are a political organization, and you are not watching for reds under the bed, you will be infiltrated by Trotskyites, as for example the Republicans infiltrated by the neocons. If you have an organization that exercises authority over young boys, and you are not watching for fruits in the bed, you will infiltrated by sodomites.

                  Human nature is universal, and Saint Paul knew that for most men, sexuality is an irresistible force. I am old, and it is still irresistible. You say “an age at which sexuality is merely theoretical”. I am sure I am well past the age you have in mind, many of my friends are well past that age, and I am sure that sex is a resistible force very few of them.

                • Mackus says:

                  I assume that issue of Orthodox bishops being celibate can be explained by the fact that:
                  – they were married, had children from thos marriages, and by the time they became celibate their children were already adults
                  – they become bishops and thus celibate at age age when swearing off sex is somewhat superflous sacrifice.

                • jim says:

                  Well, if so that would be OK, but the trouble is a lot of them are childless.

  12. Strannik says:

    These Scripture verses;

    Ephesians 5:22-33, and Peter 3:1-7, are the foundation of all sacramental marriage, and my own marriage personally. I did not grow up in a home that valued traditional marital roles, but in reaction to this I searched to make such a home for myself and my future wife and children, searched to find an obedient wife and I found her. It was later in my life than I had hoped but still very worth it. I am the leader in our home, yet sometimes early on in the marriage I found myself making mistakes because of the unconscious influences of our Western culture and my family upbringing. Fortunately my wife was patiently but emphatically insistent, waiting for me to take my rightful place every time I almost slipped up. Broadly I can agree with you so far, maybe there’s some specific things I might argue about later, but what I see is pretty close to the mark!

    • Strannik says:

      And to be quite clear, subjection means subjection, service, servitude. A wife and children are to obey the father in all things save obvious sin-and the father shall know or be taught these things, and explain them to his family. The woman and children are to obey the father and husband as they should obey God Himself. Women are rebels, but they know they cannot lead, so their rebellions are almost always a plea for them man to take charge and do what he must do; command, lead.

  13. TBeholder says:

    My model of judiciary is that they were under orders that if any man set foot in the US, the judiciary was to give him lifetime residence, welfare, and the vote, even if he came here illegally and was making a living by robbing and killing. Therefore, since a single judge has abruptly reversed himself, the secret orders have abruptly changed, and henceforth every judge will turn a deaf ear to illegals

    This assumes some sort of centralized shadow government organization.
    But even Progressive movement, for all its swooning for “Planetary Regime”, evolved toward using rules-based distributed systems without a single bottleneck. Like with those insurgency theaters.
    Also, while explicitly conspiring together is generally safe within Fourth Estate (JournoList was discovered, what happened to the participants?), it’s more risky for those with formal power and standing out rather than blending in a crowd of bureaucrats and ghost-writers.
    Thus, not entirely impossible, but it’s more likely to be another case of personal-hide-based controls (Cuius testiculos habes, habeas cardia et cerebellum). Then another judge will find his skin is in the game and gets more singed on that side, and backpedal too, etc.
    If so, “running with the pack” effect will eventually kick in, and ensure mostly-uniform approach, but it will take time to gain the momentum.

    • jim says:

      Cathedral is both decentralized and centralized.

      We have the Climategate files, where we see an instruction on a mailing list from Mann, and everyone falls abruptly into line with zero debate.

      Not that decentralized. Formally it is centerless group of like minded people, but anyone who does not know who has the power finds very bad things happen to him.

      • Not Tom says:

        As the Cathedral’s central lie is female supremacy, we should not be surprised to find that its inner workings are similar to the social dynamics of feminized spaces.

        How do female groups “run”, in general? Everything is consensus, until it isn’t. Everyone is in sync, until someone goes out of sync. Moods and norms determine everything, until order breaks down, which it inevitably does in consensus-based groups, at which point members spend all of their time infighting and show a surprising willingness, even eagerness, to follow orders from anyone who can offer some temporary authority.

        Power vacuums are being created constantly, and someone is always willing to step in to take control. But since leftism is anti-authority or at least anti-formalist, the new authority is fleeting.

        Taking random samples at different times and places will indicate the presence of authority, somewhere – but the balance of power is constantly shifting. Yesterday it was the Carnegies, today it’s the Bloombergs. Today it’s Soros, tomorrow Obama. One day it’s Michael Mann, another day it’s the parents of a shrill, ugly and semi-autistic Swedish girl.

        That’s why you can’t just decapitate the Cathedral. It’s just a never-ending whack-a-mole game. And it’s why the left always eats itself; leftist power, on account of being illegitimate, is inherently unstable. If you’re on the left, you have a new boss every week.

        • jim says:

          The left is not distributed authority, nor a genuine consensus among a large number of people.

          Neither is it a stable secret hierarchy run by a stable secret conspiracy. It is fashion and numerous unstable secret hierarchies run by numerous competing unstable secret conspiracies. Orders come down from above – but who is above is not easy to discern and subject to unpredictable change.

          As you say, the left is feminized.

          This often results in the situation where there are two or three mutually incompatible competing official lines, and good leftist will endorse all of them to be on the safe side, even though they flatly contradict each other. If, as is frequently the case, there is more than one official truth, the good leftist will passionately and sincerely believe all of them, while at the same time instantly forgetting that he ever believed yesterday’s official truth.

          Most of the time there is an instant overnight change from “We have always been at war with Bad guys Eurasia and allied to good guys EastAsia” to “We have always been at war with Bad guys Eurasia allied to good guys EastAsia”. But sometimes both lines are official, whereupon the good leftist passionately believes both of them, refusing to notice any contradiction.

          This mostly happens with revisions of the past. Often when an a switch occurs, three incompatible and mutually inconsistent past histories are promoted (the old line never existed, with two different versions of what the old line used to be, and the old line was changed because of dramatic events that happened when it changed) and the good leftist believes all of them, until two quietly disappear.

          • Not Tom says:

            Right, the current parallel orthodoxies on female biological equality and transsexual biological inequality are proof of this phenomenon. Of course, there will always be epicycles to explain away the inconvenient discrepancies.

            I think judges get their orders from the New York Times, most of the time. Not literally “orders”, of course, but the Zeroth Amendment is a real thing in federal courts. I don’t think anyone needed to tell the judges to issue nationwide injunctions against every single Trump immigration policy; they all just knew instinctively and jumped into action once the prestige press gave them some cover fire by declaring Trump evil and his policies more evil.

            When they abruptly reverse course and bank right, that’s more interesting. One judge suddenly growing a conscience is possible; two judges at the same time, rather improbable. District and circuit judges all across the country suddenly remembering what the Constitution says about executive authority over the borders does tend to stand out as inconceivable, unless there was some hidden mechanism to spread the message: “don’t push your luck”.

            ‘course, that message could have come from the administration itself.

      • jack boot says:

        i think i replied here?? it doesn’t show??

        • jim says:

          You are on moderation because of commie spam.

          I would love to debate a commie, but they seldom debate, just repetitiously pump out formulaic commie talking points. You are better than most commies, but still will not debate.

  14. Not Tom says:

    Looks like Roberts has now started to actively interfere in the impeachment proceeding. Think he’ll crack, or will the CIA get its way and make their leaker’s name unspeakable, even on the Senate floor?

    • Strannik says:

      If Jim’s prediction is correct, I’d think that Justice Roberts would be less liable to blackmail and threats with the knowledge of President Trump’s negotiated support

    • jim says:

      Roberts was always an agent of the enemy, but we are stuck with him.

      Risk is that if he deviates from Clinton precedent in one way, he is likely to deviate in other ways – which could escalate all the way to giving the appearance of legality to a coup, but I think that the possibility of a coup has been forestalled by Trump and Barr working on the praetorians.

      • Strannik says:

        I remember that every single time there was a threat that he’d do the right thing, the MSM would briefly mention the strange circumstances surrounding the adoption of he and his wife’s children, who came from Venezuela I believe. He’d do what the Elites suggested, and the story would disappear.

      • Not Tom says:

        Technically, if he’s being intransigent, the Senate could impeach him (Roberts, not Trump). Not that they would, but they could.

        Although they could also just kick him out and pick someone else to oversee the proceedings. All of these Senate rules are just conventions anyway, not binding laws, and I guarantee if Democrats held the Senate and a chief justice was stonewalling them, they’d do exactly the same.

        • jim says:

          The constitution says “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside”

          And, with adequate military backing, the Chief Justice could interpret “presiding” so broadly as to render the Senate irrelevant.

          • Not Tom says:

            Constitution also says “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

            Which makes it kind of a 2 against 1 thing. If Senate and Judiciary agree, then a military coup would be perceived as illegitimate. On the other hand, Senate + Executive can easily railroad the judiciary. And, I suppose, executive + judiciary could railroad the Senate, though that’s probably rare in a presidential impeachment.

            • jim says:

              I am pretty sure that the reason they were in a hurry to get impeachment in the house through is that they expected presidency plus judiciary to railroad the president plus the senate.

              “No witnesses” is kicking the can down the road (the whistleblower that Judge Roberts does not want investigated is the very impropriety of which Trump is accused) but gets Judge Roberts out of the way fast. As long as he is presiding, he is a danger.

              The Democrats are in a rage because Judge Roberts has not (yet) railroaded the Senate, but there is no way he could do so without the presidency sending some strong arm men to back his authority.

  15. Strannik says:

    Having a similar posting problem with a post of Polifugue’s so here it is;

    ”Check this out from Tsar Peter:

    https://infogalactic.com/info/Peter_the_Great

    “He also sought to end arranged marriages, which were the norm among the Russian nobility, because he thought such a practice was barbaric and led to domestic violence, since the partners usually resented each other.”

    I am not an unbiased participant in regards to Russian Orthodox history, I am definitely in sympathy to the Old Believers, to whom I have familial ties and from study of their positions, generally agree with them.

    ”From what little I know of the Orthodox Church, I know that there is a lot of evil in some of the higher echelons, such as the entryist Bartholomew who supports the Ukrainian schism. I have heard the Greek clergy in this country are liberalized, and certain seminaries have members that proclaim “diversity.” I have not heard (yet) of an Orthodox church in this country that has arranged marriage. However, I have met Orthodox married priests and they are very normal, and I believe that once our worldview is less psychologically difficult, they will be eager to bring back Marriage 1.0.”

    Bartholomew and a few of the other higher clergy in ‘official Orthodoxy’ are definitely Crypto-Papists, with the intention of shepherding the faithful into submission to the Papacy. This sort of thing has been attempted for almost 1000 years now by the usual suspects in the Vatican, but it won’t work.

    ”A key figure in Orthodoxy is Father Seraphim Rose, who was a former homosexual who became a Monk. Despite his past ways, Seraphim Rose is universally hated by the liberal entryists in the Orthodox Church. As long as homosexuality remains illegal, and public gays are thrown off buildings, gays in the monasteries, who continually repent their sins for greater holiness, are not problems for society.”

    Rose was alright to a degree, but he didn’t go far anough, nor could he. As I said, I’m a traditionalist Orthodox Christian, and these days that’s a small remnant who keep Orthodoxy as an entire way of life. And that’s the key.

    • Anonymous says:

      The posting problem is just how replies work on the blog, it’s not possible for anyone to reply beyond a specific depth in order that the text column doesn’t get awfully narrow.

    • Polifugue says:

      The reason why I checked out Tsar Peter was because I wanted to see if there was anything Progressive in what he did, and everything looked fine until I saw he was against arranged marriage in the nobility.

      Ever since Vatican II, Catholicism is dead with the tradcucks being the final spasms of a dead animal after being shot. The fact that the Pope and the rest of the Holy See are Progressives makes the central premise of Vatican I false. When you talk about Bartholomew and the others as “crypto-papists,” the reality of the situation is that they are all but instruments of the holy church of Harvard. See below, the US State Dept. is openly behind the Ukraine schism.

      http://orthochristian.com/118010.html

      Ecumenism, the great evil in the Orthodox Church, is the fruit of a bunch of Progressive entryists who hate God, family, and country. It’s not crypto-papists that are the problem, it’s the Progressive church of holy Harvard that’s the problem.

      You’re right about Rose, that he didn’t go far enough. But then, other than Jim, who does go far enough? I like Rose because of the malice and hate he inspires in entryists. But yes, there are tradcucks out there who pretend to use him.

      • Strannik says:

        Good post! You said;

        ”The reason why I checked out Tsar Peter was because I wanted to see if there was anything Progressive in what he did, and everything looked fine until I saw he was against arranged marriage in the nobility.”

        There’s so much else there on Tsar Peter, I could write a book, but most of the true ones are no doubt in Russian and my skills aren’t too good still in that language. Another progressive faggy thing he did for example was demand Russians dress in western clothes and even taxed them for wearing beards, to encourage them to shave. It’s against the Canons of the Orthodox Faith to shave one’s beard, because it suggests an effeminate male preoccupation with one’s personal appearance.

        ”Ever since Vatican II, Catholicism is dead with the tradcucks being the final spasms of a dead animal after being shot. The fact that the Pope and the rest of the Holy See are Progressives makes the central premise of Vatican I false. When you talk about Bartholomew and the others as “crypto-papists,” the reality of the situation is that they are all but instruments of the holy church of Harvard. See below, the US State Dept. is openly behind the Ukraine schism.

        http://orthochristian.com/118010.html

        Sure they are, but so are the Uniates and the Vatican. Bergoglio was an altar boy for a Ukrainian Uniate priest in Argentina originally. Bartholomew actually literally was trained at the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome, and there’s a long history of this trying to weasel Orthodox into the Latin church by means of such people.

        ”Ecumenism, the great evil in the Orthodox Church, is the fruit of a bunch of Progressive entryists who hate God, family, and country. It’s not crypto-papists that are the problem, it’s the Progressive church of holy Harvard that’s the problem.”

        Ecumenism as adopted by the modern Vatican is a Post-WW2 survival tool, which will be dropped whenever it is no longer useful, which time is rapidly approaching. So the Cathedral is my Enemy today in the West, but the Vatican which helped birth the Cathedral is my Enemy for always. Trump and men like him win, and the Vatican will support them as if they always had supported them. The Vatican is not dead, it’s using it’s own liberals as camouflage, and shielding, for a generation or so.

        ”You’re right about Rose, that he didn’t go far enough. But then, other than Jim, who does go far enough? I like Rose because of the malice and hate he inspires in entryists. But yes, there are tradcucks out there who pretend to use him.”

        I’m sure there’s an overlap of ideas shared by me and Jim, but I’m still reading what he has to say on the rest. On Rose as with others, I get the feeling that some people are given a lot of ”malice and hate” precisely in order to make them palatable to the Right.

  16. jack boot says:

    “trumps economy is good for farmers”

    https://www.fb.org/market-intel/the-verdict-is-in-farm-bankruptcies-up-in-2019

    coal down, farms down, amzn up up up

    whats going on??

    • jim says:

      Coal is up, more coal is being mined.

      Farms are up, more food is being grown. Net farm income is up fifteen percent under Trump, after falling massively and steadily under Obama.

      Mining bankruptcies are lawfare. The left concocts a bullshit lawsuit against a coal company, and the compliant judge awards them a billion dollars in cheerful defiance of the law and the constitution, but because coal is valuable, the coal mine keeps right on going under new management, but under the same name with the same employees, shipping coal from the same mine to the same customers. I have not looked into farming bankruptcies, but if coal bankruptcies are lawfare, I will bet farming bankruptcies are Obama’s “navigable waters of the united states” (WOTUS), which Trump just halted by executive order.

      • jack boot says:

        “Net farm income is up fifteen percent under Trump”

        assuming that’s true it doesn’t mean anything. the big corporate farms will have captured it because the big corporations always capture most of it

        whereas the bankruptcies are overwhelmingly the little guy who couldn’t quite make it work against a soulless bureaucracy managing a gargantuan farm from afar

        the freedom for the independent yeoman to be outcompeted by the industrial agriculture corporate behemoth is the essence of libertarianism.

        • jim says:

          We had this argument already. Most land is family farms, and most farms are family farms. Farmers are proud independent people with dogs and guns.

          Which is why you hate them. When I mentioned that when I went to a party that a farmer threw, he had some nice toys, you flew into a rage.

          Commies hate people who own stuff and use it to create value, because envy. So commies hate farmers, and whenever they have the chance, destroy the farms, murder the farmers, and people starve. It is like blacks burning down the supermarket, and then complaining that they don’t have a supermarket because racism.

          • jack boot says:

            “you flew into a rage”

            this is why we can’t have a conversation. because you lie about people with you disagree. (and run rhetorical circles also)

            and all you have to do to prove me wrong is go back and find and copy paste the comment where i “flew into a rage”. show me the quote and i’ll acknowledge the justice of your claim forthwith

            but you won’t. because we both know the score.

            boomer

            • jim says:

              I know rage when I see it. You love hypothetical farmers who are wage slave peasants, but murderously hate real life farmers who are proud independent landowners with guns and dogs.

      • jack boot says:

        cite your sources. i googled “coal jobs trump 2019” and found a number of articles claiming “flat” or “down” and none “up”

        Coal Mining Jobs — As a candidate, Trump promised to “put our [coal] miners back to work,” but so far not many have regained their jobs.

        A total of 35,600 coal mining jobs disappeared during the Obama years, but as of June [2019], only 2,200 of them had come back since Trump took office, according to BLS figures.

        The outlook for coal miners remains bleak. The Energy Information Administration reports that U.S. consumption of coal reached a 39-year low last year. EIA also predicts that production of coal will fall 9% this year and 7% next year. EIA expects natural gas will continue to displace coal for the generation of electricity.

        i think you’re peddling bullshit jim…

        • jim says:

          > A total of 35,600 coal mining jobs disappeared during the Obama years, but as of June [2019], only 2,200 of them had come back since Trump took office, according to BLS figures.

          Sounds right. As with the debt to GDP ratio, he has stabilized a situation that was heading to disaster. Coal is only recovering slightly because of competition with cheap abundant natural gas released by fracking.

          Trump said coal, oil, and gas. There are now a hell of a lot more energy jobs, but most of the new jobs are in fracking. But the fracking energy jobs, like the coal energy jobs, are created in flyover country, in states that are in play in federal elections.

          White people are flooding out of the giant bicoastal megalopoli, to get jobs in flyover country. Under Obama, the 2019 Census was expected to give the Democrats thirty new seats in the house and the electoral college. Trump has counter balanced ten years of immigration, by white people moving out of solidly Democratic states, particularly California, into flyover states whose votes are in play.

        • Not Tom says:

          i googled “coal jobs trump 2019”

          Oh, well then, case closed! He Googled it, folks! Time to pack up and go home.

    • Not Tom says:

      I don’t follow fb.org but it looks like a shill organization.

      https://www.fb.org/about/overview

      The American Farm Bureau Federation is the Voice of Agriculture®. We are farm and ranch families working together to build a sustainable future of safe and abundant food, fiber and renewable fuel for our nation and the world.

      Sounds a whole lot like “how do you do fellow peasants” to me. But, again, I don’t have the inside track on this stuff.

  17. mobius says:

    You should post these in the morning, so they are not buried in the feed.

Leave a Reply for jim