The namefag problem

In today’s environment, it is impossible to speak the truth under one’s official name, and dangerous to speak the truth even under any durable and widely used identity. Therefore, people who post under names tend to be unreliable. Hence the term “namefag”. If someone posts under his true name, he is a “namefag” – probably unreliable and lying. Even someone who posts under a durable pseudonym is apt show excessive restraint on many topics. Moldbug has not written anything of much value since he was doxed.

The aids virus does not itself kill you. The aids virus “wants” to stick around to give itself lots of opportunities to infect other people, so wants to disable the immune system for obvious reasons. Then, without a immune system, something else is likely to kill you.

When I say “wants”, of course the aids virus is not conscious, does not literally want anything at all. Rather, natural selection means that a virus that disables the immune system will have opportunities to spread, while a virus that fails to disable the immune system only has a short window of opportunity to spread before the immune system kills it, unless it is so virulent that it likely kills its host before it has the opportunity to spread.

A successful memetic disease, a demon, that spreads through state power, through the state system for propagation of official truth wants to disable truth speaking and truth telling – hence the replication crisis, peer review, and the death of science. We are now in the peculiar situation that truth is best obtained from anonymous sources, which is seriously suboptimal. Namefags always lie. The drug companies are abandoning drug development, because science just does not work any more. No one believes their research, and they do not believe anyone else’s research.

It used to be that there were a small number of sensitive topics, and if you stayed away from those, you could speak the truth on everything else, but now it is near enough to all of them that it might as well be all of them, hence the replication crisis. Similarly, the aids virus tends to wind up totally suppressing the immune system, even though more selective shutdown would serve its interests more effectively, and indeed the aids virus starts by shutting down the immune system in a more selective fashion, as progressivism started by only shutting down a narrow range of thought crimes, but in the end cannot help itself from shutting down the immune system totally.

To exorcise the demon, we need a prophet, and since the demon occupies the role of the official state church, we need a true king. Unfortunately there is a persistent shortage of true Kings.

197 Responses to “The namefag problem”

  1. I never thought of that – the SJW hivemind wants to keep the host alive. It would make sense to feed off Western civilization sustainably, but the bug always wants more more more. More gibs, authority roles, unfair marriage laws, HR jobs, chief diversity officers, immigration, sex changes, gay cakes, all of that. So eventually, as in nature, the host falls over dead.
    The bug spread from Europe to America and Australasia, and has so far infected Taiwan to some extent, but where else can it go? The immune systems in Eastern Europe, China and Japan are strong. I don’t think barbarous countries would be suitable hosts.
    I suspect the virus will, like AIDS, mutate into a more moderate form in order to better spread in the future – either to preserve present hosts, or to sneak into new ones.

    • James says:

      That’s what we saw with communism in Russia. Pure communism gave way to socialism gave way to state capitalism, albeit dysfunctional state capitalism where everybody got a house.

  2. Mycroft Jones says:

    The school system is part of the apparatus set up to find potential “true kings” in early childhood and neutralize them. I suppose it is kinder and gentler than the old way of getting Jack the Ripper to actually kill the king’s bastards. Still sucks though.

  3. In conservativish circles over here or within the family I could talk about gays or race fairly freely. But the WQ is still super hard to talk about. And not the what, but the why. The what is fairly okay, you express it the Christian style, wife must submit, husband must love, or maybe in a more romantic style “it is a dance which the man must lead” or something. But the why? How can you tell your mom or to decent conservative grandpas that when she was young / their wives were young, they would have cucked their husbands with any stone cold killer if the husbands would not have been firmly leading the dance? How can you tell them what happens in the absence of strong patriarchy and/or strong alpha husbands without handing out some really grave insults?

    This is IMHO a core problem here. Yes, in the public I cannot talk about gays or race either. But in family or conservativish circles I can, because gays or blacks or whoever are OTHER people over there, you can insult them. But women are everybody’s mother, sister, wife. You cannot just go around talking super insulting shit about them. Especially that little part how Catholic culture tends to see mothers as sacred… a little bit blue-pilled thing, really, but that’s what it is.

    The WQ, and especially the WHY part of the WQ, not the what part of the WQ needs to be reworded in a way that while it might still not be PC and offend liberals, it would not offend conservatives or generic old people who at some limited extent at least do accept male leadership of relationships, but they might be basing it on Biblical basis or tradition, and explain the WHY, i.e. what happens in the absence of such male leadership would seriously insult them.

    BTW I have this generic problem with feminism too. Suppose I am talking with a conservative woman who has a college degree, and does understand kids are more important than college, and does have three kids, and somehow (maybe with hired help) still manages to work her profession, say, a psychotherapist having some clients. Suppose she is actually critical of feminism and does not agree with women putting career above motherhood and not having kids. Should I really flat out tell her you should not have been allowed to go to college or what?

    This is entirely different from the danger of the gay or race questions which are readily solved by not talking in public, nor in private with gays, blacks or liberals.

    • RedBible says:

      Perhaps reframing the WQ into being a strong family vs weak family issue. Most conservatives and christians (that don’t believe in boyfriend Jesus) see the family as an important thing, even if they can’t give you a why they see it as important.

      Women voting undermines the family since politicians can (and will/have) appeal to one spouse (primarily women) and turn them against the other (primarily men).

      A woman how goes to college and doesn’t get a degree saddles her husband and children with a large debt with nothing to show for it.
      If a woman how goes to college and does get a degree, she will have to work full time, removing her from husband and children, or else she will still saddle her husband and children with a large debt with nothing to show for it.

      —–

      Admittedly I think that one do the biggest anti-family things that has been pushed and normalized is “Hating Children”.
      “I’d never want children.”
      “Children are such a mess.”
      “They are so loud and annoying.”
      Etc.
      Of course, such a philosophy has to be normalized in order for gayness to be normalized.

      • Well it’s the government paying for her degree over here, but we are not seeing any better fertility rates than the US for it, in fact worse.

        I think it is not simply career. From my experience, any man or woman needs three years of experience to be considered employable, the first job where one gets it is mostly out of luck or connections. So 18-23 college, 23-26 work, it would be still perfectly possible to get 4 kids in and go back at 32-34 leaving childcare to grandma or something. And over here the government pays for the daycare, too. And yet it does not happen.

        We can also add that in the past women often worked out of necessity, shit jobs like textile industry. And they had kids. The woman chainmakers strike in 1910 was a famous event in the history of British trade unionism. And I think they had kids. There was no lack of kids back then. And no lack women working such crappy jobs, often longer hours than the 35-38 hours a week that is common over here now, being more exhausted, having no washing machines and so on.

        I think it is entirely about if women don’t see their men as alpha or patriarchical societal relationships don’t present to them their men as alphas they just don’t want their seed. Women working is not really a big deal, it is not the most important aspect of the problem.

        • Karl says:

          I agree. The WQ is super hard to talk about, at least in the presence of women. Dancing around the crucial ponts is sometimes the best I can do. In your example of the conservative woman with 3 children who is working in her profession, I’d tell her that she is outstanding, but would have 6 children instead of 3 if she had focused on raising a family instead of going to college.

          • BC says:

            Just talk about in a bold and teasing manner. You’ll get shit tested by women over it, so pass the tests.

            • Karl says:

              The problem is not women I want to game. The problem is in social situations with a group of people including women I do not want to game.

              I was referring to TheDividualist’s example of the married women with 3 children and a college degree. I won’t game her and I won’t say that she did the right thing by getting a degree.

              • BC says:

                All women want to be gamed. However, I don’t see why you’re trying to convince women of anything. Women views are generally shaped by the men they are fucking or by the female herd they’re part of.

                I thought the discussion was around a mixed group and my advice was deal with women objecting to something you were saying to another man.

                • James says:

                  All women may want to be gamed, but that doesn’t mean he wants to game them. Kind of a moot point. That said, big picture, I agree — why try to convince women? Usually that attitude comes from newly redpilled men or men who spend too much time with women.

                  Convincing men of the WQ, though…that’s tough.

              • ten says:

                “Well, if I am going to get 20 kids, and you have one kid, and then in three generations where you and your kids had one kid each, there will be one descendant from 8 of you but 400 descendants from one of me, and my wives, and so only me and my descendants matter because we can and will ignore the lone voice of your heir.

                So social structures and cultures that make women mothers of many children simply swallows cultures that make women have careers and few children, regardless of why and how the women had few children”

                is a line of reasoning that i have made a number of progressive females follow and just go “ah.. aha. but that sucks” without getting upset. It doesnt attack their core beliefs, actually falls in line with a bunch of them.

        • jim says:

          The problem is not the cost. The problem is that university is whore school.

          • furor kek tonicus says:

            as an example, see Terra Majors. she went to an all women college so she could experiment with College Lesbianism

            and still got oppressed by a 13 year old Patriarch.

        • calov says:

          Women always worked, especially before factories; it’s just that the place of production was the home, and the wife was engaged in raising chickens or making textiles or whatever. Women staying at home and not working is the result of having things like nursing homes, vacuum cleaners, washing machines, and gas ovens. Wives staying home full time need to be having a dozen babies, or they need to have some other kind of work. That’s why all the fifties housewives were on “mother’s little helpers” and why feminism took off shortly after, because sitting around the house with not enough work to do on contraception is not good for women.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Would abstraction work?

      -Attraction is based on instinct
      -Men’s is based on youth and fertility
      -This is because mates lacking them lead to line dying out
      -Women’s is based on getting a strong man
      -This is because the weak die or sacrifice their kids (prog behavior)
      -Women gauge strength in relation to themselves (can man boss them around) and others (can man boss them around)
      -Supernormal stimulus is men who reject societies rules and exhibit casual willingness to kill.

      “Should I really flat out tell her you should not have been allowed to go to college or what? ”

      Tell her almost no one should go to college because it is a scam to extract money and to give professors access to hot young chicks by pretending to be important.

      Without college there would have been alternate routes to get into her profession like apprenticeship or testing.

    • The Cominator says:

      I hope you at least openly say that women voting has been a disaster.

      “Should I really flat out tell her you should not have been allowed to go to college or what”

      Unless you are running some alpha game script (and look like Adonis) where you are telling her that f*** objects like her have no need of an education probably not, but tell her she shouldn’t be allowed to vote (especially if she was a Trump voter) not because per se she is the problem but because the mass of women are the problem.

    • Pooch says:

      The message needs to come from a very high ranking alpha that motherhood and feminine virtue is good and careers are evil, as it did from Hitler in 1933.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      > women are everybody’s mother, sister, wife. You cannot just go around talking super insulting shit about them.

      That isn’t the difficulty. Asymmetries between the sexes that are negative for women and can be politely but factually discussed, provided you do rigorously separate facts from interpretations.

      The problem with WQ is the strength of evidence relative to size of social changes that acting on beliefs about WQ would require. Of course, one can argue that the status quo is a massive experiment on thin evidence, that we notice less because it was accomplished in smaller stages (most of which are subject to the same criticism as being giant wild hard-to-reverse experiments).

      In other words, the biology, evo psych, game theory and historical analysis need to be tightened and elaborated in a book or foundational text in order for it to be more than a parlor game of convincing those who are already 80 percent enlightened.

      • The Cominator says:

        An airtight scientific treatise on why female emancipation has been an extreme negative and female suffrage and granting them artificially high status has been a suicidal disaster for civilization would be an extremely worthy goal…

        The evidence is there, but it needs to be put into one book and paper in an airtight way.

    • jim says:

      I from time have told the father of a daughter that university is whore school, and if you send your daughter to whore school she is considerably less likely to give you children. No drama ensued. My views on beating women and that the husband is head of the household are well known in my social circle. Telling people that almost all rape accusations and rape convictions are false, because women seldom complain about actual rape, only failed sexual encounters, has caused undesirable drama.

    • Not Tom says:

      You can’t talk to women about the WQ, because inability to understand shit testing and hypergamy is essential to the actual process of shit testing and hypergamy. It’s why women who are dissatisfied with their husbands can’t ever tell their husbands what they really want; that would be giving the answers to the test in advance, so Gnon has seen fit to prevent women from even knowing the questions, never mind the answers.

      What you can do is talk to the fathers and brothers and husbands about it, and ignore the women, or better yet, don’t invite them to the conversation.

      • jim says:

        What he said.

        The only time I have had undesirable drama resulting from my views on the woman question, is when women were participating in the conversation. These are matters that it is the nature of men to think about and talk about, not the nature of women, because women have a reality blindness to enable them to carry out shit tests.

        • ten says:

          I had a plate until she got a steady boyfriend who just seemed to grasp intuitively everything about women. She’s an idiot, basically illiterate, and i bet she has never heard of any red pill theory ever, but she saw female behaviour with eagle eye vision and spoke about it plainly. “you raped me until i started liking it, then it wasnt rape anymore”, “”no” is just a test to see if you’re a fag”, “her pussy is dry because her boyfriend is too nice to her, he should rape and beat her and then she would love him again”, “girls who dont want to be slaves just cause themselves trouble and misery” etc

          if she got annoyed with me she actually did give me the answers to the tests in advance, in her dumb way. only time i saw this in a woman.

          • Screw Magazine says:

            1. persuade boyfriend to marry plate
            2. ???
            3. evolutionary success

            • Oak says:

              >Marrying an illiterate idiot is evolutionary success.

              • Snowdens_jacket says:

                How many children did the illiterate idiot have with the woman you wanted?

                Do you think it was his idiocy or his illiteracy that attracted her to bare his seed?

                Or was it something else?

                Something else that is easier to have if you are an illiterate idiot?

                • Oak says:

                  Questions make no sense. Read ten’s comment.

                  Actually my comment is questionable as marrying a low-IQ woman probably would be more evolutionarily successful compared to a high-IQ university-educated woman. But it was aimed at Screw’s scarcity mindset.

                • Oak says:

                  *high-IQ AND university educated

          • Snowdens_jacket says:

            The modem definition of rape is not workable, being sex that the woman does not want. As she doesn’t know if she wants it or not until it is happening, and she doesn’t know if she’ll continue to have wanted it or at some point will not have wanted it anymore. All depending on who finds out and if said man passes her shit tests. She may believe she doesn’t want it but mysteriously find herself alone with the man, possibly with alcohol, believing the entire time she doesn’t want him to fuck her right up until he does.

            Even after this she may simply believe it didn’t actually happen. I have had a woman I fucked, who put herself alone with me with alcohol, say to my face that I did not fuck her. She wouldn’t do that. I explained to her that this is the rationalization hamster telling her that she is a good girl who would never do those things that she did. She nodded and said I guess we did didn’t we? And looked very confused. I have no doubt moments later she was thinking there’s no way he fucked me, I’m a good person I’d never do those things that I did.

            That being said it is better optics to use the word fuck rather than rape. Fucking is an action a man does unto a woman. Don’t use have sex or some other passive feminine voice.

            Women who speak like this say fuck. “I wanted to get fucked”, “he should just grab her and fuck her”, “she’s unhappy because he isn’t fucking her”. Blue pilled girls will say, “well maybe she’d be happier if they had more sex” which loses the critical part where he is doing it to her.

            • jim says:

              > The modem definition of rape is not workable, being sex that the woman does not want. As she doesn’t know if she wants it or not until it is happening, and she doesn’t know if she’ll continue to have wanted it or at some point will not have wanted it anymore. All depending on who finds out and if said man passes her shit tests.

              Exactly so.

              And the alternative to the modern definition is the Old Testament position on female sexuality – that women have no rightful agency in sex, that their consent, or lack thereof, is morally and legally unimportant.

              The full dose of the Red Pill implies the full dose of the Old Testament law on sex, marriage, and family.

            • Hansderfiedler says:

              I would use the term “fornicated with,” and let them both be exposed to criminal liability.

              • Snowdens_jacket says:

                No. You sin by thinking that. We fuck them.

                Toss all ten thousand years of our fathers into the dark because we are told to do so!!!!!

                NO

                You. Loser. Pathetic faggot. Burn before the imperishable as we fight. You, dare, to speak to choose to give up.

                Feminist. Weakling. Nobody.

                My grandchildren will say to you, goodbye

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  If you make a habit of fucking girls, your wife, children and grandchildren will all revile you, regardless of the opulence of your legacy. And in the old days, your brothers would have beat the shit out of you.

                • jim says:

                  Blue pill nonsense.

                  Women love preselected men, and put up with adultery no problem. It is inability to commit adultery because other women do not like you that they will not put up with.

                  This reflects biological reality. Men want paternal certainty. Women already have maternal certainty

                  Men care very much about their wives having sex with other men. Wives don’t really care much about their husbands having sex with other women. Darwin 101.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Hansderfiedler

                  “If you make a habit of fucking girls….”

                  The entryist predictably white knights for women…

                  Here’s a question, what should the Age of Consent be?

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  There should be no age of consent. Fornication should be illegal, and girls become marriageable probably around 15, give or take.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  There should be no age of consent. Fornication should be illegal

                  Ha! The rare “there should be no age of consent because every instance of sex is a crime” stance.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  Clarification: Rape should be distinguished from fornication. And seduction should also be distinguished between both. And if one of these crimes is perpetuated on a child, this is an aggravating factor. And what constitutes a child should be a case by case factual determination, not a hard “age of consent.” A 21 year old maiden might easily be considered a child. A 14 year old financially independent prostitute….

                  Whatever the specific facts may be, sex outside marriage is criminal under natural law.

                • jim says:

                  > Rape should be distinguished from fornication. And seduction should also be distinguished between both.

                  The Old Testament makes no such distinction. A woman’s consent makes no legal difference for the man, though she is not guilty of illicit sex if she was compelled.

                  Nor is it practical to make such a distinction, because women in practice do not know whether they are consenting or not and cannot make up their minds as to whether they consented or not until long after the event.

                  Nor is it practical to enforce such a law, as women seldom complain about the male misconduct that other men hope they will complain about. Observe the disaster that is sexual harassment law. Almost every complaint about sexual harassment is in fact a complaint about lack of sexual harassment (she is outraged by the fact that men are failing her shit tests) which suggests that almost every complaint about rape is a complaint about lack of rape.

                  Notice that female outrage over rape tends to focus on handsome millionaire athletes, and ignore hordes of Muslim immigrants. Women are not worried about Rotherham.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  Such distinctions are well known to the English common law, and such distinctions are discernible through reason. Revealed (Biblical) law is a supplement, not a replacement, to the natural law.

                  The enforceability and penalty of natural law crimes, admittedly, is a matter of prudence.

                • jim says:

                  Making the crime of rape “sex contrary to the will of the woman” rather than “stealing the sexual and reproductive services of a woman whose sexual and reproductive services rightfully belong to some other man” violates natural law, because women do not possess that much sexual agency, or rather because their very substantial sexual agency operates below the conscious, rational, and verbal level.

                • Snowdens_jacket says:

                  Only in a world where fathers are giving their daughters to a man of their choosing, not giving their daughters to the machine, hence the fornicator is committing the crime of theft. Thieves should be punished, but in inverted world thieves are celebrated, and fathers look in awe at what a thief can steal. And then fathers say, we must punish the husband I pretended to give my daughter to, and wonder how the thief stole what he wishes he had.

              • jim says:

                Symmetric laws ignore the fundamenal asymmetries of heterogamous organisms.

                Old Testament laws allowed you to do anything you liked to a non virgin with no husband, though if you deflowered a virgin, with or without her consent, had to keep her.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Maybe you covered this already but Paul denounces fornicators in the bible, are fornicators to be interpreted as men that deflower virgins and abandon them?

                • jim says:

                  The specific instance of fornication he calls out is an individual who slept with his father’s wife. He does not say mother, and he does not say widow, hence presumably adultery, old dad, new young wife. On the other hand, he does not say adultery either, so the situation may well have been more complicated and messy than he is inclined to describe.

                  So I would interpret fornication as sexual activities that cause trouble and drama, crapping in one’s own nest. A woman is normally under the authority of some man, and if you have sex with her without taking authority over her, without marrying her, then there is going to be trouble. On the other hand, if a woman is not under the authority of some man, no trouble.

                  One odd omission from his list is panderers and cuckolds, men who are complicit in, or actively arrange, the misconduct of women under their authority, so presumably panderers and cuckolds are included under some other category, which I would suppose to be fornicators. So fornication cannot have meant simply extramarital sex. Must have meant general sexual misconduct, with sexual misconduct being left deliberately unclear.

                  On the other hand, he could have been applying the Old Testament Jewish rule forbidding marrying your father’s widow, even if he married her after you left home. Which rule seems to have been cheerfully ignored in Old Testament times, and is today universally ignored by Christians. But that hardly seems consistent with his statement that this fornication was unspeakable among gentiles. Marrying your father’s young widow was entirely speakable among gentiles.

                  I would interpret fornication as sexual activity that disrupts someone’s household, and that this fornication caused disruption very close to home – that fornication is bad heterosexual activity, where what is bad is intentionally left vague and elastic.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  Fornication is a symmetrical crime to the extent pair bonding is a symmetrical phenomenon. It is deleterious to the commons to have married couples with deficiencies in pair bonding. It produces psychological ripples that manifest in the behavior of children in their interactions with society, depreciating trust in the commons. This is a good reason why fornication is a crime for the man even when the girl is just a prostitute.

                • jim says:

                  > Fornication is a symmetrical crime to the extent pair bonding is a symmetrical phenomenon

                  Pair bonding is not a symmetrical phenomenon.

                  Men conquer, women surrender. Men perform and women choose.

                  The wife promises to honor and obey, the husband promises to love and cherish.

                  Law that treats this stuff as symmetrical is a reflection of the progressive world view and progressive reality blindness.

                  A key that opens any lock is an awesome key. A lock that is opened by any key is a broken lock.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  I must confess ignorance of the technical aspects of the neurochemistry involved in pair bonding. But one thing I know: a man never forgets his first love. And I assume the same is true for a woman.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  The fact that you have a “first love” concept in your mind already tells me that you are a huge faggot.

                  Seriously, what the fuck is that even? “First love” lmao, are you a woman?

                • Not Tom says:

                  a man never forgets his first love. And I assume the same is true for a woman.

                  It’s very interesting to see what the various types of shills and enemies do when they’re cornered.

                  CR just disappears. Fake ragequits every other day.

                  Nikolai and the Tradcats try to escape to high-ground arguments like “Christianity should be solving spiritual problems not material ones”.

                  The wignat/troofer types repeatedly use motte and bailey swaps and refuse to respond or change tactics when called out on it.

                  And you… respond every time with vague platitudes that are irrelevant to the conversation. Such as this comment here, and the one above (“known to English common law… discernible through reason”). Of course these platitudes point the way to falsehoods, because if they were true, we would not have had or needed Old Testament law. They are just vague enough to sound off-topic and thus deter further responses, while also clearly leaving the impression that you conceded nothing. Essentially, an elaborate “let’s agree to disagree”.

                  We don’t really do the agree-to-disagree thing here. There is canon, and there is not canon, and while the canon is not written on stone tablets (yet), you are definitely way outside the canon.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  I am a man who is subject to the passionate appetites like any other man. If you don’t know what I’m talking about, I can only surmise you either lack the requisite experience, or you are in denial because the guilt of your sin is too much to bear.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  What you are is a giga cucklord, the biggest pussy I’ve read in this forum yet.

                  Talking about “first love”, a.k.a, your pathetic teenage oneitis you haven’t gotten over yet, thinking that men follow leaders because they provide them with homes as if they were women, criticizing healthy male sexuality…

                  Yes soyboy, the men following Alexander from battlefield to battlefield for years were known for beating the shit out of their brothers in arms for the constant raping and really wanted to settle down and thought about life like a womanish faggot like you, yes, no doubt.

                  This is why you are a random nobody who can’t even do a pull-up and women repudiate while your president is a giga chad 70 year old mega rich shitlord that grabs them by the pussy and shits on progressive Demofaggots like you in live TV.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  @atavistic morality

                  My best friend was a true alpha. A wrestling champion in high school. His fraternalistic sexual upbringing caused him to only be able to achieve erection in rape-fantasy scenarios, similar to what a soldier who pillages and rapes often experiences when he tries to settle down for a normal life.

                  My friend knew he would never lead such a normal life, and it manifested a demon inside him. He turned to heroin to pacify this demon. He died of an overdose recently. God rest his soul.

                  Anyways, my takeaway is that pillaging an enemy might be fun, but raping their women isn’t all it’s cracked up to be.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Ill take shit that never happened for 500 Alex.

                  1. Rape fantasties tend to proliferate more with the sexually frustrated men than with alpha chads.

                  2. Alpha chads dont get addicted to heroin just cuz (miserable guys yes and crazy chicks) though they can as a painkiller.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  @Not Tom

                  How many times do I have to demonstrate that you are a dunce? “Known to English common law” is not a platitude. The crimes known to English common law are concretely verifiable. They are part of the historical record. They are canon.

                  Likewise, “Discernible through reason” is the canonical phrase defining natural law. It’s straight from Thomas Aquinas, whose works are certifiably canonical.

                  Keep coming at me. I’m happy to embarrass you again.

                • Dave says:

                  “my takeaway is that pillaging an enemy might be fun, but raping their women isn’t all it’s cracked up to be”

                  How would you know? Did you or your friend ever have the chance to take part in either activity?

                • Not Tom says:

                  “Known to English common law” is not a platitude. The crimes known to English common law are concretely verifiable.

                  Your point here appears to be that because it is written down in vague terms on a legal document somewhere, or referenced in a court proceeding, that means it has an objective definition based on facts and reason.

                  And you continue to assert this even after it has been repeatedly explained, and indeed demonstrated with hundreds of real-world examples, that the interpretation of this law is not only completely arbitrary, but most often in socially destructive ways.

                  At this point I have to wonder, have you even read about English law, or anything from Aquinas, or are you just name-dropping because you think it resembles our shibboleths and therefore makes your lunacy sound more credible?

                  English common law is so called because it is supposed to derive from English common practice (precedents), and the overwhelming precedent for most of English history is shotgun marriage, not courtly love. Everything else is just window dressing.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  @Not Tom

                  Bless your heart. By you wondering whether I have studied the English Common Law or read Thomas Aquinas, you have confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt, and to anybody who has, that you most certainly have not.

                • jim says:

                  You have not read Thomas Aquinas. I have.

                  What you have read is twentieth century and twenty first century commies superficially pretending to be Roman Catholics spinning Thomas Aquinas utterly beyond recognition.

                  As for the common law, you do not know what it is.

                  Common law is the old practices of English judges as interpreted by eighteenth century lawyers, largely reflecting ancient custom and old Roman law.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  Jim, please.

                  If there’s anything wrong with my reading of Aquinas, it is with the translation, which I try to mitigate using multiple translations cross referenced with the Latin.

                  Regarding common law, have you red De Bracton? Coke? Blackstone? Maitland?

                  That English common law is derived from a survey of regional customary, manorial, and canon law can be learned from a cursory reading of the Wikipedia entry.

                  But I get it, you’re just sticking up for your loyal dunce.

                • jim says:

                  I have read Blackstone, Aquinas, and Coke.

                  As for Aquinas, if you have actually read him, you read him to force fit him into a Procrustean Marxist paradigm that was already rigidly in place by the time you actually read him.

                  Progs take over existing respected things, kill them, gut them, wear them as a skin suit, and demand respect. And here you are wearing the gutted corpse of the Natural Law doctrine of Aquinas.

                  Corporations, in the time Aquinas as under Charles the second and today, were autonomous entities, hence the complaint of Hobbes that they were parasitic worms within the body of Leviathan.

                  Corporations, in the time of Aquinas as in the time of Charles the Second, were supposed to pursue the public good, but selling hamburgers is a public good as well as a private good. The intent, in the time of Charles the second as in the time of Aquinas, was that the corporation’s private good would be aligned with the public good, that the business model of the corporation would be aligned with the public good.

                  Thus, for example, developing the transistor was a private good of Shockley, a private good of his board and shareholders, and also a public good.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  [*Marxist history deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  I would love to debate you on these topics, but you keep moving on from one Marxist factoid to the next, too many, too fast, overwhelming my and the reader’s bandwidth.

                  Let us stick to one piece of Marxism at a time. I would have responded to your post had you stuck to the corporation, but you threw in the complete Marxist version of modern history, and dissecting it all would just have taken far too long and sent us wandering far too far afield.

                  I am happy to discuss the Marxist version of the French Revolution, but let us first discuss the corporation.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  [*deleted again*]

                • jim says:

                  You are expressing the capitalist account and the natural law account of the corporation from within the Marxist frame “excess profits” and the labor theory of value.

                  No capitalist or natural law theorist would ever use the phrase or thought “excess profits”. Rather, he is going to say, usually truthfully, sometimes stretching the truth a little. “I earned every penny”.

                  So, henceforth applying the rule that I applied to CR to you. Don’t tell us what other people think. You never get it right. Not what Thomas Aquinas thought, and not what capitalists think. Tell us what you think.

                  Whenever you tell us what someone else thinks, that someone else always uses Marxist terminology to express Marxist thoughts from within a Marxist reality. Your supposed capitalist and your supposed natural law theorist are telling us “Marxism is good, right and true, it is just that I like to be one of the bad guys.”

                  Please refrain from holding a debate with an imagined interlocutor who agrees that Marxism is good, right, and true, and he is one of the bad guys. Debate from within the frame that your interlocutor thinks Marxism is an evil lie promulgated with the intent of knocking over the apple cart to grab some apples, and you disagree.

                  You can tell us the Marxist account of the corporation, and let me respond with the capitalist and natural law account.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  Marxists believe in a labor theory of value.

                  Capitalists believe in a subjective theory of value. Where I said “excess profits,” I believe the accounting term is “net profit.” Insidious stuff.

                  But natural law recognizes the existence of an actual, metaphysically real value.

                  Marxists and capitalists both deny such a thing exists. Marxists say the only real value is labor value. Capitalists say the only real value is subjective value. Both say an abstract, ideal, “real” value is nonsense. This is because both are nominalist and materialists.

                  It will be fun to see you if delete this information and then continue to argue with whichever strawman of my argument your bias chooses prop up.

                • jim says:

                  If no net profit, we would not have gotten the transistor, and Musk could not build rockets. No net profit, no industrialization. Lenin famously said that “capitalists will sell us the rope with which to hang them”, but after taking power, found that with all the capitalists dead or fled, no more rope. To reopen the factories and steel foundries, he had to hire foreign experts from American corporations.

                  Natural law has no coherent theory of value – the question is off topic for natural law, so it does not disagree with either theory.

                  Natural law theorists are not in the business of explaining the curious fact that diamonds are more valuable than water, and do not much care why diamonds are more valuable than water. It simply takes for granted that diamonds are more valuable than water.

                  You keep spinning natural law theory as an alternative to capitalism, an alternative that curiously resembles Marxism, but natural law theorists always took for granted that capitalism was divinely ordained from the beginning, or is simply natural, Gnon ordained. It simply never was an issue.

                  The enlightenment was an attack on traditional Christianity and natural law, and was therefore necessarily an attack on capitalism. Hence the French Maximum.

                  Natural law theory does get into issues related to value when dealing with usury, but the Marxist spin on natural law theory related to usury is a pile of utter nonsense. The gist of the natural law theory of usury is that you are not supposed to be able to make a profit by enabling other people to indulge short term time preference. So profiting from the interest on a mortgage on a house is OK, but milking someone’s long term credit card debt is not OK. – the concept is not that profit is wicked, which is Marxist spin on natural law, but that one should pursue profit in ways such that your private profit is consistent with the public good – with which rare exceptions, it usually is. People of the merchant class get rich by creating value, and deserve to get rich by so doing.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  Determination of value is objectively a function of the human law. And the proper purpose human law is to imitate the natural law. Therefore, value theory must be contemplated by natural law.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  Why should human law concern itself with value, except that it has to assess damages when a crime has been committed?

                  A theory of value is just not part of natural law, and attributing a theory of value to natural law is to force fit it into the Procrustean bed of Marxism.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  The only natural law that says “profit is wicked” is the strawman you set up.

                  You deleted my comment above where I clearly explained that profit is perfectly licit after the employer’s duties to his employee are fulfilled.

                  Oh well, it’s your page, your rules, and you control the presentation. It’s been fun. But I can’t defend a strawman.

                  Toodaloo.

                • jim says:

                  I deleted your comment because it attributed acceptance of Marxist theory to both capitalists and natural law theorists.

                  You attributed to the capitalist belief in “excess profits”.

                  The duties you say the natural law theorist demands of the employer are in large part his duties to a serf or a bound apprentice, not to a free employee, thus implicitly attribute to the natural law theorist the Marxist position that capitalists rule.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Determination of value is objectively a function of the human law.

                  Human law, both concrete and metaphysical, recognizes that value is a function of the buyer and the buyer’s circumstances. The property tax assessment can say whatever some bureaucrat wants it to say about the value of my home, but I can’t force anyone to pay that price for it.

                  Is an entry-level car more valuable than 20 years of broadband internet? We can’t objectively answer that question; if you offer a choice between the two as a game show prize, you will find people on both sides. Some people need the car more; some may literally depend on the internet for their livelihood and hardly ever need to physically commute. Because of currency, and reasonably efficient markets, we have price signals, so a savvy winner might realize he can sell the car for slightly more than the 20 years of internet – at least, at today’s prices, assuming he sells the car immediately and broadband prices don’t go up, and his time and labor required to sell the car is worth less than the profit he makes. But even those weak signals only exist because millions of people are making the same decisions every minute of every day, and these transactions are recorded and acted upon by businesses looking to improve efficiency or compete with other businesses.

                  The economic calculation problem was identified a century ago, and Marxists haven’t come up with a solution since then. Instead they hide behind deceptive rhetoric and claim it is actually “natural law”, not Marxism, that believes in socialist calculation. More lies.

    • polifugue says:

      When talking to people outside of Jim’s blog, it’s almost never a good idea to speak directly about certain subjects that are too taboo. I’ve tried talking to people about the woman question, but it always ends up badly. And why wouldn’t it?

      At a fundamental level, from a modern perspective, it’s quite horrifying. The idea that your 12 year old daughter is looking for sex? The idea that your wife (that you married when she was 30) only likes you because she couldn’t get someone better because she was getting old and wanted to settle down? The idea that women having multiple boyfriends throughout their teens and twenties damages their ability to pair-bond? All these ideas, all of which are true, are incredibly painful for most men to come to terms with, especially the fact that there is not much that one can do about it as long as our current priesthood remains in power. So be very careful; in fact, stay away from any particulars.

      I think of it this way. Let’s say there are bandits on the street, killing people and taking their stuff. When we talk to the general public, we don’t say “we’re going to send men armed with metal and chemicals to rip apart their bodies with shrapnel and steel,” we say “we shouldn’t live in a society where bandits get to kill and steal at whim,” because it’s easier to hear.

      So likewise, it’s easier to say “women shouldn’t have sex with men other than their husbands,” or “women would be happier raising children than slaving away at a crushing job,” or “I believe that no one should have to live in a society where degeneracy is openly promoted,” which is a lot more palatable to the listener. It gets the feeling across, and for people outside the Neoreactionary priesthood, it’s all they need to hear. That way, in the future, just as Havel’s greengrocer says “if you’re against mass immigration, do you hate black people?,” we will say “if you support equalism, why do you hate women?” “I’d like to live in a society where women are valued as women, not as men.” Or (MLK’s good twin brother voice) “I have a dream that one day from sea to shining sea men and women will be able to live in peace and harmony with one another. I have a dream that one day my four little children will live in a nation where they will not be led astray into degeneracy but instilled with good character.”

      • Not Tom says:

        At a fundamental level, from a modern perspective, it’s quite horrifying. The idea that your 12 year old daughter is looking for sex?

        This was not even surprising, let alone horrifying, to most men in the 1850s, and many not even in the 1950s. I was 12 once; were you 12? Do you remember girls at that age? Perhaps you remember it differently; girls do sexually mature faster than boys, so perhaps many men project their own clueless adolescence onto the girls they knew at that age. Just admit that you, me, and many other 12-year-old boys were completely hopeless at that age, and the fact that girls tried to engage in sexual behavior (and were often very frustrated) rapidly comes into sharp focus.

        The idea that your wife (that you married when she was 30) only likes you because she couldn’t get someone better because she was getting old and wanted to settle down?

        The average beta male of the 21st century would almost certainly admit this about himself, so why wouldn’t he be able to admit it about his wife? Men aren’t as mentally weak and stupid as you suggest – or if they are, then truly our civilization is already lost and we are going to be replaced by a tribe that isn’t completely retarded.

        The idea that women having multiple boyfriends throughout their teens and twenties damages their ability to pair-bond?

        This isn’t painful, it’s blindingly obvious to every man who isn’t a white knight. It’s practically hard-coded into our DNA to know this.

        Everything you list here is confusing social taboos enforced by the Cathedral with the reality of what men know and believe. Men know all of these things, all the time, they are barely shocking enough to be called purple-pilled. Those same men just rightly perceive that someone may be monitoring or testing them for the crime of wrongthink.

        • polifugue says:

          That’s why I said “from a modern perspective.” I live in an ultra-liberal suburb of NYC, and when I tell people I know about this obvious stuff, they give out total blue-pilled answers. That’s the thing; a, men here are simply that blue-pilled; b, men do know that what I say is true, they just respond with variants of “y-y-you hate women.” They openly say I’m a misogynist.

          You say that these things are barely shocking to be called purple-pilled, but around here it’s like saying “I love Hitler and want to gas Jews.” They reply, “do you hate blacks, gays and women?”

          Also, I’m not even referring to the leftists around town, which I wouldn’t even try to talk to, but the cuckservatives.

          I mean, it’s really nice driving a Mercedes around town, but the people…

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            > They openly say I’m a misogynist.

            To sell WQ, publicize this important truth to men:

            >>> nothing gets you laid like being a notorious “misogynist”

            And nothing gets you notoriety as a misogynist like casually dropping WQ-flavored hatefacts into conversation.

            “Misogyny, for lack of a better term, is good. Misogyny is right. Misogyny works. Misogyny clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Misogyny, in all its forms, for life, for money, for love, knowledge — has marked the upward surge of mankind.

            And misogyny — you mark my words — will not only save your life, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the USA.”

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        > it’s quite horrifying. The idea that your 12 year old daughter is looking for sex?

        What’s horrifying is the enforced retardation of otherwise functioning brains by an orthodoxy that expects a 2 Minutes Hate (or else) at the mere mention of Jeffrey Epstein.

        Everyone at all times wants sex from before age 12 but, rather tragically, not everyone knows that this is also true of the opposite sex until it is too late.

        > The idea that your wife (that you married when she was 30) only likes you because she couldn’t get someone better because she was getting old and wanted to settle down?

        This is not WQ-specific or a redpill, it is obviously inevitable in any matching market such as dating, marriage, jobs, university admission. The WQ redpill is that while a woman can truly settle into a particular job or university that was not her dreamt-of favorite and like it, the same is not true for marriage in the absence of strict enforcement, and what we have today is aggressive disenforcement.

        > multiple boyfriends throughout their teens and twenties damages their ability to pair-bond?

        Not a redpill to men. Roissy posted a dozen studies showing that Mileage is a real thing, but everyone already believed it, talked about it, and acted on it.

        • info says:

          “Everyone at all times wants sex from before age 12 but, rather tragically, not everyone knows that this is also true of the opposite sex until it is too late.”

          I don’t think that’s correct at all. It doesn’t enter our minds at all before puberty at least among males.

          • kawaii_kike says:

            Maybe I’m the outlier, but even though I didn’t fully understand what sex was I wanted it long before I hit puberty. I had sexual thoughts starting in at least 1st or 2nd grade. I was definitely masturbating before I hit puberty.

            • The Cominator says:

              It might be different with blacks, white guys typically don’t think about sex at all until 12 or 13.

            • info says:

              I think the forces behind sex education for 5 to 6 year olds may increase the prevalence of your experience.

              Sick sodomites doing this shit.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        The way forward might be ‘benevolent sexism’ rather than plain arguing.

        If you’re an admirable man, tell them you’d strongly prefer marrying a young virgin and that you want her to mainly run a growing family, not sit in a cubicle. It’s your choice, isn’t it? Smile benevolently but alertly at the women.

        If you’re not admired, then don’t say much, do agree with the right sort of people and don’t be a ‘feminist ally’.

  4. RedBible says:

    A question I have been pondering is: “How a true king is to rise up, and take/seize power?”

    A man calling himself “king” without already have a solid set of followers is a poor path.
    On the flip side, a man refusing to be called “king” means that he is probably a poor choice for king.

    If he chooses to build on the internet, can’t go the truly anonymous route, since no one can build a reputation that way.
    If not truly anonymous, then has to limit what he does and does not say, for both to prevent getting doxxed, and to limit the damage that happens if doxxed.
    If internet but not anonymous, then the self limiting will be even worse.
    But if in the physical space, then can’t use any major media source/method, since it leaves the same problems as the not anonymous internet route.

    So that leaves personal, private, one-on-one communication as the only viable path as I see it, and it’s not exactly a fast method of building up a “kingdom”.

    If someone got something I’m missing or haven’t maybe considered, I’d be “all ears” as they say.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      You’ve essentially outlined the reasons Jesus said “go therefore and make disciples”. That is the only method that can (and has) worked. Look how fast Falun Gong grew.

  5. Mike in Boston says:

    If someone posts under his true name, he is … probably unreliable and lying.

    As you point out with your qualifier probably, this is not always the case. We do not have an honorable earthly king, and yet there are many who speak the truth under their own name. Jim Jatras and Nathan Duffy spring to mind immediately, as well Paul Church (who suffered mightily for it), Brian Camenker (at least organizationally) and perhaps some number of VDare writers.

    Getting earthly power into honorable hands is a worthy goal, but a daunting one. Short of achieving that, would it not be desirable to engineer conditions where there are fewer namefags, but a larger portion of those writing under their own names tell the truth, rather than equivocating? If so, how might that be done?

    • Jan Martense says:

      Ofc it’s not the actual name but the social repercussions of thoughtcrime being associated with your real identity. So if we can eliminate the social repercussions, namefaggism is no longer a problem. Right now I only see two ways of doing this:

      1) Tight knit religious or social communities where everyone you associate with is open to truths. (Like the Jatras and Duffy examples) These would be fantastic but I haven’t seen any actually forming besides Orthodox/ Trad Cath believers and even there unreliably (esp. taking employers into account).

      2) People who have already been doxxed or outed and so have nothing left to lose should be totally immune to namefaggism. Problem is people are cowardly and think there IS something left to lose even when there isn’t. But still, this is a very viable group and several of the VDare writers fall in this category. It’s interesting though because this would seem to suggest self-destructive behaviors like accelerationism and autodoxxing are actually good.

      • jim says:

        Vdare also suffers from the namefag problem, though to lesser degree. They pull their punches, as Moldbug has been doing since he was doxed.

  6. TBeholder says:

    In today’s environment, it is impossible to speak the truth under one’s official name

    Well, Taleb does. But then, he’s a grizzled trader and uses the term “fuck-you money” to explain when it’s not a problem.

    • Not Tom says:

      He’s also a crank who speaks a distorted, self-serving and largely incoherent (in both style and substance) version of “the truth”.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Muh fat tails mugga wugga!

        Fat tails are sometimes important but he is constantly wrong as to when that’s the case.

    • Yetanotherpoorlythoughtouthandle says:

      Bullshit. Everything he says about IQ is a lie by omission or distortion. His We Wuz Foeneeshuns is ridiculoua. The man is misreads every scientific paper that paints Christian Arabs in a bad light. Purplepilled on the IQ question means he is purplepilled on the WQ – he is lucky it hasn’t come up on twatter or he’d get creamed.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        > Everything he says about IQ is a lie by omission or distortion.

        The IQ stuff is wishful thinking, envy and getting high on his own supply. Fooled by his own randomness.

        Taleb is from a high IQ family within an elite that ran Lebanon. He resents it that he and his don’t get the same recognition as nearby Mediterranean populations with whom his ancestors traded and mixed. Apply mumbojumbo on fat-tails and you get his IQ arguments. He attacks the strawman that you can’t use IQ to statistically predict the *literal number of dollars* someone will earn because income is fat-tailed. Obviously there are big enough holes in that to drive a truck through.

    • alf says:

      I’ll pile on: Taleb is a prime example, possible posterboy, of the namefag problem.

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        Taleb is the flip side of the namefag coin. He can speak truth, but cannot recant falsehood because he and his reputation are tied to a single identity.

        The solution to both sides of the problem in online forums is to allow unlimited creation of aliases but have software-enforced noninteraction. No sock puppeting; only one alias per conversation.

  7. BC says:

    Completely off topic: There’s a fantasy book series called the Spellmonger written by a guy who’s somewhat red pilled. Book 4 called Knights Magi is basically a game primer from Roissy’s material in the form of a story about 2 young knights learning to be men. Roissy even makes an appearance in the form of Sir Rose who wrote a book on women.

    It’s not the best fiction around, but I found it enjoyable.

    Here’s a review on the book from the blue haired crowd:

    Reason why? Sexism. This book was so full of it. The main character had the mentality of a 13-15 year old boy. He constantly objectified the female characters in the book. There weren’t even any powerful women in the book. The two most prominent female characters were his girlfriend (I feel bad for her) and his ex-girlfriend. The ex had magical powers but of course she had sex magic and cast spells by having sex. The girlfriend was meek and needed the main character to tell her what to do.

    As a woman I think this book was just gross. I expect this sort of writing from fantasy and sci fi written back in the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s. But come on its 2017 Terry Mancour, women are not objects for mens gratification. Half your audience is female. Do you want to limit your audience?

    Don’t get me wrong if the main character is a sexist pig, ok that’s fine. I don’t have to like the protagonist to enjoy a novel. But put in some three dimensional, positively portrayed women who talents lie in more than just lying on their backs. (

    • Not Tom says:

      I read the entire rant as: “I enjoyed the portrayal of the protagonist as a masculine man, but am annoyed that I can’t imagine myself in the position of his love interests who are more feminine than I am, so please add some more tomboys.”

      Maybe there is actually money to be made from adding a butch character – whom the alpha male protagonist asserts complete dominance over and teaches to be more feminine. Like that Bollywood clip Jim posted a while back.

      • jim says:

        That is the mating dance. Man conquers, woman surrenders. More drama, and less authorial wish fulfillment, if the conquest is difficult.

  8. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Back to top form at last!

    Nothing much to add other than this: it’s a good habit of mind to be agnostic about the ‘really or just as if’ question. There’s nothing at all wrong with adopting the intentional stance vis-a-vis the AIDS virus: you don’t need any scare quotes or disclaimers. Viruses do all the work involved in ‘really’ wanting/’wanting’ things: they behave as if they want things, they change themselves as if they want things, they exhibit all the necessary behaviours to qualify as having wanted something. That’s ultimately all that matters. The question of whether we ought to grant them Real Wanter status, as opposed to ‘merely exactly as if a Real Wanter but actually a kinda ish sorta Wanter’ status can be postponed frankly indefinitely. It’s a distinction that gives us no additional predictive or descriptive power at all.

    • ten says:

      A tiger that wants to eat you can be communicated with and convinced not to do so, and to cease wanting it, with sufficient force. A virus not.

      What is implied in want and will is agency. Machinic movements like viral proliferation does not have animal agency – the case can be made for demonic agency constrained by the machine it inhibits.

      Proper engagement protocols differ wildly.

  9. […] perils of using your real name online, and how SJW parasites use moderation to prolong the life of the host […]

  10. Hansderfiedler says:

    I have had a lot of success talking about these subjects under my real name on Facebook:

    Everything – make a natural law argument referencing the parent’s duty to protect and provide for their children. This principle still resounds with the vast majority of people.

    Homosexuality – frame objections within the teachings of the Catholic Church. Accusations of anti-religious bigotry are still potent shields against criticism in this regard.

    Feminism/patriarchy – frame it in terms of a woman’s freedom to be a stay-at-home mom, which she does not have in this economy because low wages (caused by doubling the workforce) require both parents to work. Talk about the injustice to the child to be raised by strangers.

    Race – abandon white/black and talk about ethnicity a la E Michael Jones (but don’t mention him by name!) This is cutting edge en vogue among progressives and will allow you to slip right in, much to the consternation of progressives who are behind the trend. Add anti-capitalist rhetoric such as “whiteness is determined by the degree to which a person has assimilated into consumer culture” for full effect. The attack on capitalism from reaction is a kill shot.

    • Hansderfiedler says:

      I almost forgot – the best argument regarding gay marriage is ontological: There exists only one type of relationship ordered toward monogamous natural procreation. Redefining marriage cannot change the ontological prestige of this particular relationship.

    • Screw Magazine says:

      NSA has all your data but if you post to FB you deserve what you get

      • Hansderfiedler says:

        One man’s intelligence is another man’s cowardice. Only Dunning Kreuger can tell the difference.

        • Not Tom says:

          Dunning and Kruger (which you misspelled) are two different people, you moron. The “Dunning-Kruger effect” came out of a poorly-designed study on which both of them were authors.

          And one of the rules of internet debate is that the first person to mention “Dunning-Kruger” is usually the one suffering from it. Case in point.

          • Hansderfiedler says:

            *Whoosh*

            • Not Tom says:

              Oh, yes, when caught being a pseudo-intellectual gasbag, it really means you were playing an elaborate prank.

              Do you think you’re fooling anyone? Your 17th-century gentleman act comes across as literally homo, and whenever we see glimpses of your real personality underneath the facade, it’s all tryhard omega sperg – clueless posturing, an obviously low-status person pretending to be high status.

              The reddit post clinched it for me, you either genuinely have no social awareness at all, which would explain your otherwise inexplicably inflated opinion of your own effectiveness, or you’ve constructed this artificial persona for yourself to escape from some even worse reality. Either way, it’s gross, and demeans the status of any group that tolerates you.

              You want to reinvent yourself, that’s fine, people do it all the time, but pick a persona that isn’t a total fag.

              • Hansderfiedler says:

                Perhaps I am an “Omega.” I have always put low priority on social credit. But I am an Omega with a lucrative professional license, property, a submissive wife, and children.

                What you got?

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Hansderfiedler

                  Look everybody! I’m a *Secret King*, I’m Supercereal guys!

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  @R7 Rocket

                  Don’t be jealous. If I can do it, anybody can.

    • Not Tom says:

      The attack on capitalism from reaction is a kill shot.

      gay

      You’re literally proving Jim’s point about namefagging. You are subtly altering all of your opinions to be in line with the hive mind, and will eventually cuck on any issue of import.

      • Hansderfiedler says:

        I might say I enjoy rustling libertarian jimmies as much as I enjoy pissing off progressives. But if I did, I’d just be being redundant.

        • jim says:

          I am shortly going to post an article attacking libertarianism. But attacking capitalism is capitulation to our enemies.

          We intend to revert to the most recent known working social order, the one that gave us science, technology, industry, industrialization, and empire, the social order of Restoration England.

          Puritan England was capitalist, had been capitalist since a brief interruption to capitalism which ended in the twelfth century, and remained capitalist because Cromwell crushed the Puritan extremists, who wanted communism, But The Restoration made the scientific method high status and introduced corporate capitalism and the joint stock for profit publicly traded corporation, which made possible Rand’s heroic entrepreneur, who uses other people’s labor and other people’s capital to advance technology and make it widely available and widely used.

          Without rich people, no mills, no abundant cheap good quality steel, no transistor, no integrated circuits, no computers. Without billionaires, no access to space. You cannot make a pencil unless the boss provides you with custom made tools and tells you how to use them.

          Further upgrades on the known working social operating system will be made carefully, and monitored for unexpected consequences, monitored for the fruits of the tree – which fruits someone usually expected quite loudly, but was ignored.

          • The Cominator says:

            When you say attacking libertarianism what exactly do you mean.

            Left libertarians are commie entryists scum and the modern libertarian party is scum, but right libertarianism the libertarianism of Rand or the Austrian school economists are mostly right but misguided on a few points.

            Hoppean libertarianism is very very close to the neoreactionary position and Hoppe actually understands my position on leftists, that you just can’t leave them around to spread their cancerous and evil ideology and that they must be “physically removed from society”.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Rand is fine on some areas and makes glaring mistakes in others.

              Providing good governance is valuable and doesn’t fall from the sky. Warrior class has a role and value. Her “mystics of spirit” and “mystics of muscle” are exactly merchant class saying that the other classes are unneeded. She’s wrong – both priests and warriors are needed (as are merchants, obv).

          • Steve Johnson says:

            You cannot make a pencil unless the boss provides you with custom made tools and tells you how to use them.

            I, pencil is a libertarian tale about how no one knows how to make a pencil but through the magic of markets lots of people cooperate and pencils get made.

            The reactionary version disagrees – the pencil factory owner understands how to manufacture pencils better than the workers, the lumber company owner understands how to get men to produce lumber in exchange for money, the shipping company owner understands logistics and ships things on schedule even though the parts of his operation don’t have to understand the whole.

            Ironically (or not) the libertarian version of the fable doesn’t emphasize the role of management and entrepreneurship.

            • jim says:

              What he said.

              The entrepreneur has to outsource stuff outside his core competence to the market, which the libertarian version gets right, but he is the business of insourcing his core competence, which the libertarian version ignores.

              Rand, unlike the libertarians, got the insourcing correct, but neglected the problem of defending property rights. You need warriors to actually defend property rights, and priests to give the warriors cohesion and to get everyone on the same page about what rights are rightly defended by what means.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                Rand herself actually talked about priests and warriors – “mystics of spirit” and “mystics of muscle” just ascribed zero (actually negative) value to them.

                Weird for successful societies to evolve giant parasite classes that provided zero value – you’d think that parasitism would have to creep into a valuable niche slowly or it would be rooted out but Rand apparently didn’t think so.

          • Hansderfiedler says:

            Well, there’s capitalism and there’s capitalism, and then there’s also capitalism. My favorite version is the one that causes working men to raise families. Such a thing has made a brief appearance a couple of times throughout history, but it ain’t here now.

            Historically, enclosure was a disaster for the families it displaced who made their living on the commons. JSCs, where limited liability too often means limited accountability, are notorious for courting moral hazard. Manchester capitalism was ghastly. And I don’t think I even need to mention the undesirability of modern global capitalism.

            But feudalism had a pretty nice balance of duties and rights. Imperial Germany was beautiful. And families did pretty well in America under FDR and into the 60s. If I could have my way, I would recommend feudal obligations to incentivize family investment, tax policies that incentivize industrial reinvestment (like FDR), and contests to impress an accountable leader with a vision who holds the power of the purse (like a Kaiser).

            Personally, I prefer a more specific terminology for a more specific ideal economic system. So I am perfectly comfortable joining the left in attacking capitalism according to it’s current and practical, and therefore actual, definition.

            • jim says:

              > Historically, enclosure was a disaster for the families it displaced who made their living on the commons.

              Commie history.

              The commons failed when the hand of the Lord weakened. It only worked when the Lord had unrestricted authority to “stint” the commons, meaning place limits on what peasants and each particular peasant could do on the commons.

              To enclose the commons required a three quarters vote, with an unwashed peasant getting the same vote on it as the Lord, though it is obvious that social pressure and the authority of the Lord had a great deal of influence on how a peasant voted. The peasants voted in favor, three quarters of them every time, because the land they received became one hell of a lot more productive when they had the right to put a fence around it to protect it against peasants with an overly broad idea of what the stint allowed, to use it as they saw fit, and to set their dog on unwanted guests.

              The commies then hated the peasants then, as they hate them now, and have never forgiven the peasants for the enclosures (or for their dogs). They wanted to murder them now, and they wanted to murder them then.

              The highland clearances were the destruction of friendly feudal relationships, caused by sheep being more profitable than taxing potato growing peasants, but the enclosures were the peasants reaching out for private property, and the commies getting enraged by the peasants (and their dogs).

              To this day, commies and their ideological descendants tend to find dogs difficult, just as to this day the ideological descendants of the Puritans still find Christmas offensive. Boris Johnson loves his dog, and his dog obeys him, whereas when Jeremy Corbyn attempts to match Boris with a photo opportunity with a constituent’s dog, the dog is apt to object.

              Dogs just don’t seem to like blacks or commies.

              • Hansderfiedler says:

                Indeed, I wasn’t aware of that. Thanks for the lead.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  You weren’t aware of it because it isn’t true. Your original analysis of common land was correct. The peasants managed it very well; if someone took more than their alloted “right of common” the other peasants used social pressure and legal pressure to boot them out. From the point of view of most production for most people, and giving poor people a chance to use thrift and low time preference to become middle class, the commons were perfect. Enclosure took that method of social mobility away and also lessened overall production. Perhaps from an ease of taxation view, it may be a bit better with enclosure. But even today large corporate farms produce less per acre than when the land is divided up to be worked by small holders. Reading Faulkner in the 1960’s, he said the difference is 2 to 1 in some cases, at least 3 to 2 in the average case.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  The use of the common land was regulated by the Lord – an institution called “stinting”.

                  This regulation was often erratic and inadequate, with the result that the common lands were frequently abused and always neglected.

                  And even if the stinting was always adequate, fact is peasants just like having their own land.

                  For which preference the commies hated them then, and hate them now.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  As for the corporations, they were and are an evil that rots the nation. Corporation is a tool of empire, but like crack cocaine and crystal meth, its long term effects are the “hollowing out”, the dearth described by Polybius, which in turn beset the Roman Empire. It wasn’t Cromwell that ended the socialist tendencies of Puritanism. They tried it, it quickly failed, they moved on. They didn’t double down on Socialism, because Socialism was just one idea of many, and their touchstone is the Bible, Old Testament together with New. Socialism can be read into one or two verses of the New Testament, but when it failed, it was seen this was the incorrect interpretation, and property ownership went back to the Old Testament model. A couple hundred years later, the Mormon branch of their descendants had to re-learn the lesson. And they did.

                • jim says:

                  Corporations gave us industry, industrialization, and technology, and continue to do so. No corporations, hard for Shockley to found the transistor industry. He needed other people’s capital and other people’s labor. He knew how to make transistors, and needed lots of other people’s money and lots of other people’s labor, to make large numbers of reliable transistors.

                • ten says:

                  Are there examples of these medieval middle class mobiles, other than the peasants who voted for enclosure to become freeholders of their own land? Does it even make sense?

                  If common farming outperforms private farming two to one, why did noone between 1200 and 1800 notice? For example the manorial lords would be very interested in this, but their interest went in the opposite direction.

                  Maybe corporations “hollow out” the nation and drive anacyclosis, so what do you want to compete against them with? Handicrafts, gig economy solos, medieval guilds? Will they not just destroy you?

                  Screaming stop at new technology, social and material, protesting for the sake of the people and older technologies trampled beneath does not work. Everywhere at all times the old risks being trampled by the new, if outperformed somehow. It is a very bad reason for luddite communism.

                • jim says:

                  Notoriously, common lands tended to be unproductive, abused, overgrazed, and neglected. Hence the enclosures.

                  Replacing crop farming with sheep grazing, the clearances, did displace tenant farmers from the land, and caused much grief and bitterness, but the enclosure of the commons did the reverse, giving peasants a private property right.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Attacking the existence of corporations is left wing entryism but its been repeated so often its convinced some people who should know better, no corporations hard for rich people to back smart people. The main thing I would change about them is to elmininate all “qualified investor” requirements.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  It’s important to note that incorporation is innate to human nature. Every family is a corporate entity. Natural law theorists do not attack the reality of the corporate corporate entity. They critique the tendency of the limited liability corporation and its predecessor the JSC, to abrogate the duties of the patriarch.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Attacks on corporations are strictly a “hail fellow right wingers” phenomena.

                  Leftist social democracy creates economic problems, leftist shills pose as right wingers and blame the problems on capitalism and corporations.

                  There are some problems with the limited liability company but they mainly are a problem of scams… people charging debt to front corporations and then pocketing the money. Mitt Romney’s whole business model was based on this, but generally these kind of scams are only available to the powerful and well connected (which is why Bain Capital hired Mitt Romney in the 1st place because of who his father was).

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  If every critique of capitalism from reaction is going to be branded as entryism, then the movement has cut itself off from the root of natural law. And the implication that “corporation” is synonymous with “for profit corporation” doesn’t even have a basis in the positive law.

                  A good litmus test to determine whether a person actually knows what a corporation is is to ask for his definition of “corporatism.” If the answer is “rule by for profit corporations,” then you know the person has no idea what they are talking about.

                  I suspect this comment doesn’t apply to good folks such as “The Cominator,” who channelled the honorable Tucker Carlson above and indeed manifested a good faith willingness to criticize modern corporate law from the right.

                • jim says:

                  > If every critique of capitalism from reaction is going to be branded as entryism, then the movement has cut itself off from the root of natural law.

                  Capitalism follows from natural law, and has always existed except when there was tyranny or anarchy, when Kings were too powerful, or not powerful enough to protect a merchant to move goods far from his father’s household.

                  The for profit limited liability joint stock publicly traded corporation is new, is a social innovation introduced in the Restoration. Capitalism is ancient, but corporate capitalism began under King Charles the Second.

                  This innovation gave us empire, industrialization, industry, and technology.

                  Without rich people, no transistors. Without an institutional form that enables rich people to entrust their money to Shockley and the Fairchildren, no transistors.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If every critique of capitalism from reaction is going to be branded as entryism”

                  99.9% of the time criticisms of capitalism ARE entryism the merchant class (which OVERWHELMINGLY supports Trump) is not the enemy the priesthood is. Priestly types almost regardless of the religion naturally tend to hate commerce and merchants and can’t help but harassing them and making it artificially hard for them to operate if they have the chance to do so, its one of many reasons why warriors (warriors/aristocrats look down on commerce as beneath them but they do not hate it the way priestly types do) need to rule and not priests.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  My opinion on this matter is that the modern priestly caste is an offshoot and creation of the recently ascendant merchant class. In the old days, the warriors, upon the advisement of the authentic priesthood (e.g. natural law jurists), kept the merchants in check, allowing them limited privileges and enforcing reciprocal duties. This relationship has been inverted and perverted through the merchant ascendancy.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  The priestly class is Harvard descended. The Rockefellers, Bill Gates, etc, are trying to buy their way in, and not succeeding.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “My opinion on this matter is that the modern priestly caste is an offshoot and creation of the recently ascendant merchant class.”

                  Not historical except if you want to look at Gilded Age foundationer families like the Rockefellers who did play a role in at least funding their institutions and organizations. The modern priest class came out of the law and academia during the progressive era they had nothing to do with the merchant class and viewed them with contempt and hostility.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  Every facet of modern progressivism, from the atomisation of the family to feminism and transgender propaganda, operates in service to consumer economics. It’s basically an epicly proportioned confidence scheme designed to maintain the delicate demographic balance between consumers and investors and combat that system’s entropy.

                • jim says:

                  Communist nonsense

                  Supposedly the capitalist class rules.

                  Obviously the capitalist class does not rule.

                  The capitalist class has never ruled, cannot rule, has never ruled anywhere. We are always ruled by priests or warriors.

                  In some rare cases, Venice in the days of its greatness, the eighteenth century East India Company, Hong Kong in the early days, by Merchant warriors./

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  The current priesthood loves and protects its own merchant class. When it seems like they are making it difficult for YOU to engage in merchant activity, it’s because they are guarding against entryism.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  The priesthood hates the merchant class top to bottom.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Every facet of modern progressivism, from the atomisation of the family to feminism and transgender propaganda, operates in service to consumer economics.”

                  Nonsense, progressivism originated in WASP/Quaker secular decay of their religion then mutated with marxism and catholic and jewish resentment of old stock Americans (WASPs abandoned it rather quickly but the ethnix took over the left) it absolutely did not originate with the merchant class.

                  Second wave feminism originated with a CIA scheme to increase tax revenues by putting women into the workforce though but still none of it came about because of merchants and capitalists.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  Perhaps it is relevant to mention that the Quakers are responsible for the fixed-price system that is the staple of the modern retail bazaar.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  Further up in the thread, Hansderfiedler is engaging in white knighting for women.

                  I asked an age if consent question, let’s see if Hans is going to answer.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Hail fellow reactionaries – I only wish to make us more palatable to the “general public” by opposing greedy corporations and protecting the virtue of whores!

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  Jim said “Capitalism follows from natural law, and has always existed”

                  – Only if you equivocate the definition of capitalism and ignore the current, practical, and therefore actual definition. If all capitalism means is the ability to alienate property and set prices, then there’s nothing wrong with capitalism. Likewise, if all communism stood for was the principle that people should organize along community lines, there would be nothing wrong with communism. But these words are actually defined by their historical usage, and the historical usage of”capitalism” runs shallow.

                  Jim said “The capitalist class has never ruled, cannot rule, has never ruled anywhere. We are always ruled by priests or warriors.”

                  -the capitalist class comes to rule when they can aggregate the capital to hire a professional standing army. This coincides with the introduction of fiat currency, which in itself is an act of sorcery. These are no normal merchants. They are genetic merchant/priest hybrids. And the Harvard people are not only installed by these sorcerer-capitalists, they rely upon them for the very value of the currency upon which their endowment is built. The Rockefellers and Bill Gateses are just middle management. They follow orders, or their money gets taken away.

                  Steve Johnson said “Hail fellow reactionaries – I only wish to make us more palatable to the “general public” by opposing greedy corporations and protecting the virtue of whores!”

                  – I am not surprised that suggesting men should not fornicate outside marriage produces antagonistic cognitive dissonance. Hence the Trad/PUA rift in Nrx.

                • jim says:

                  > the capitalist class comes to rule when they can aggregate the capital to hire a professional standing army.

                  Commie lies. Marxist doctrine that no one genuinely believes, not even Marxists. When a commie tells you such crap, it is like Trotsky, an urban Jewish moneylender, saying “Hail fellow peasant”. In “what is to be done” Lenin implicitly admitted that the doctrine of classes acting as unitary entities was merely a useful lie.

                  The capitalist class cannot rule, cannot hire an army, because it is not one entity with a single will. A priesthood can act as one entity, though it needs synods (peer review) and a formal hierarchy to do so. Warriors can act as one entity, though they need a commander in chief to do so.

                  The “capitalist class” has not got that stuff, not got the organization to act as one entity, and it inherent in the nature of merchants that they are disinclined to organize such stuff, therefore cannot rule, cannot hire an army.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “the capitalist class comes to rule when they can aggregate the capital to hire a professional standing army. ”

                  LOL this is absurd, the Praetorian guard once sold the throne of Imperial Rome at auction once.

                  The guy who bought it didn’t last too long. Money alone does not buy loyalty. A capitalist can generally hire an army from his own country to take over another country if hes allowed to, but merely buying an army to control your own country doesn’t work historically.

                • Not Tom says:

                  A good litmus test to determine whether a person actually knows what a corporation is is to ask for his definition of “corporatism.”

                  Considering that the word “corporatism” is a recent rhetorical innovation coined by political pundits, on both sides but mainly on the left, and corporate law is centuries old, I’d have to say this is one of the worst “litmus tests” ever conceived.

                  I don’t think the current implementation of limited liability gets everything exactly right. There may be, and I hope there are, ways for it to be improved. However, the fundamental principle of a JSC is that the shareholders own it, therefore it must be the shareholders who are legally liable, not the CEO. Since going after individual shareholders is both totally impractical and economically depressing, we don’t do it, we just treat the corporation as a person and force “him” to pay damages. Investors may lose on their investment, but can never lose more than they invested, and this is exactly as it should be, and must be, otherwise no one would ever invest.

                  Where things get weird is LLCs without common stock, or where the founders own a controlling share, but are still able to escape liability. We try to remedy this with the concept of fiduciary responsibility; investors can and do take legal action against controlling owners who deliberately mismanage their investment.

                  If you have a better system in mind, I suggest you take it to the Chinese government; they are evidently very interested in experimenting with different economic models, and would probably pay you handsomely for a system that works better than JSCs, because so far nobody has been able to devise one.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  @The Cominator

                  You’re technically correct, but only because I was sloppy in my wording. I meant to say, the capitalist class comes to dominate the warrior class when they can aggregate the capital to hire a standing army (as should have been apparent from context).

                  To effectuate home rule, they have to use their aggregate capital to also monopolize the media and productive labor. The larger point stands: aggregation of capital is the sine qua non for rule by the capitalist class. Transistors are nice, though.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  @Not Tom

                  At least Google the word and read the Wikipedia article before making my point for me. The word “corporatism” has a venerable history.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Where things get weird is LLCs without common stock, or where the founders own a controlling share, but are still able to escape liability. We try to remedy this with the concept of fiduciary responsibility; investors can and do take legal action against controlling owners who deliberately mismanage their investment.

                  If you have a better system in mind, I suggest you take it to the Chinese government; they are evidently very interested in experimenting with different economic models, and would probably pay you handsomely for a system that works better than JSCs, because so far nobody has been able to devise one.”

                  The Limited liability part of corporation only becomes problematic with companies like “Bain Capital” (private equity companies that run what are for normal people would be called a mafia bust out scam) and they depend on political cover to deem activities that are normally illegal for everyone else to be legal for them and also often for government bailouts.

                  Such companies have people like Mitt Romney as partners because they depend on high level government connections.

                  They also become problematic with banks and insurance companies in some circumstances,,, with banks I suggest doing what the Chinese would do… if the government has to bail you out those people at the bank responsible for the mess (and also the credit rating agencies people who absolutely all should have been killed because they were the ones rating all those junk securities made up of unemployed NAM mortages to be AAA) should just be executed.

                • Not Tom says:

                  At least Google the word and read the Wikipedia article before making my point for me. The word “corporatism” has a venerable history.

                  Ok buddy, here you go. I Googled it – specifically, I used Google’s Ngrams:

                  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=corporatism&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccorporatism%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Ccorporatism%3B%2Cc0

                  Google says it starts in the 1930s, peaks for a while in the 1940s before starting to fade again, and then massively spikes in the 1970s. This is very consistent with it being a left-wing phenomenon, and specifically communist propaganda.

                  So let’s hear it. What’s your latest deflection going to be? Are you going to say that by “Google it”, you didn’t actually mean Google? That books, unlike Wikipedia, can’t tell us the whole story? Or that commies in the 1930s are just as “venerable” as Charles II? Go on, this will be good!

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  They also become problematic with banks and insurance companies in some circumstances,,, with banks I suggest doing what the Chinese would do… if the government has to bail you out those people at the bank responsible for the mess (and also the credit rating agencies people who absolutely all should have been killed because they were the ones rating all those junk securities made up of unemployed NAM mortages to be AAA) should just be executed.

                  Talking points straight from our enemy.

                  “It was the careless banks” – banks that *didn’t* loan to NAMs got bought out by banks that did – using money provided by USG. “Carelessness” was mandatory.

                  “It was the ratings agencies” – banks used the ratings agencies because they’re legally required to hold securities with specific ratings as certified by accredited ratings agencies – of course the banks are going to lobby the ratings agencies for fake ratings. The rating agencies weren’t defrauding their customers – they were providing the service of certifying bad debts as good.

                  The thing they don’t want said is this: “USG mandated that there would be money for houses for NAMs and it predictably blew up”.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  @Not Tom: there are hits in English from the 1700s (you only searched from 1800). The Italian form, corporativismo, is even more frequent prior to 1930. Either way, it’s not “a recent rhetorical innovation coined by political pundits, on both sides but mainly on the left,” which is what you originally said.

                  But otherwise, nice try.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The government mandated a certain amount of NAM lending, but some banks did it way more than others. Many banks decided it was better to go all in divide the short term profits among themselves and let the taxpayer deal with the explosion.

                  Bank of America which itself did very little subprime lending would have been completely fine if the government didn’t force them to buyout Merill Lynch, JPM was fine. Citigroup otoh not so much.

                  Shitlibs started the problem but there were people in the banks and especially the credit ratings agency that were absolutely corrupt and dishonest and should have been hanged.

                • Not Tom says:

                  there are hits in English from the 1700s (you only searched from 1800).

                  There literally aren’t. Here’s the graph going all the way to back to 1600:

                  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=corporatism&year_start=1600&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccorporatism%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Ccorporatism%3B%2Cc0

                  Or from 1600 to 1800, just to prove that the spike prior to 1980 isn’t crowding out relatively small volume from earlier:

                  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=corporatism&year_start=1600&year_end=1800&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccorporatism%3B%2Cc0

                  The number of mentions prior to 1800 is zero. Not approximately zero, not “might as well be zero”, but literally zero. Which means you literally lied. Not a mistake, not a bad assumption, simply flat-out lied. Did you think no one would notice?

                  And as Jim is fond of saying: one lie, all lies. You are a liar, here to spread lies, and when caught in your lies, react by spinning even more lies.

                  The Italian form, corporativismo, is even more frequent prior to 1930.

                  The same graphs in Italian:

                  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=corporativismo&year_start=1600&year_end=1800&corpus=22&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccorporativismo%3B%2Cc0

                  The stepwise function suggests exactly one book using this word being published in 1762, and another in 1782. But there is something wrong with Google’s data here, because the book supposedly from 1762, Il Consiglio di Stato, has the phrase “…un richiamo esplicito ad alcuni aspetti (es.: il corporativismo) del fascismo mussoliniano” and makes references to dates in 1991 and 1992, so this book was evidently not published in 1762. And despite the apparent blip in 1782-1785, Google can’t actually find any matching books in that date range, so presumably that is also some sort of glitch.

                  Which leaves us with the run-up in the late 20th century:

                  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=corporativismo&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=22&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccorporativismo%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2Ccorporativismo%3B%2Cc0

                  The conclusion is obvious: corporativismo is associated with Mussolini and the Fascist movement, which is just a different flavor of leftism. In both English and Italian, the word did not exist before Marxism became fashionable.

                  Got any other tricks up your sleeve, shill?

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  Jim said “The capitalist class cannot rule, cannot hire an army, because it is not one entity with a single will.”

                  -Unless a single banking family has its hand on the capital faucet and uses that to coordinate the actions of the class. Such coordination is demonstrably possible. The Hapsburg family coordinated the actions of an entire class of people for nearly 1000 years

                • jim says:

                  The Hapsburg family was warrior rule, not merchant rule. Kings are warrior class, not merchant class, and when they cease to be warrior class (King Louis’ switching from nobility of the sword to nobility of the robe, which was a move from warrior class to priestly class) they fall.

                  Warrior rule naturally tends to rule by the commander in chief, priestly rule to rule by a synod of bishops – thus the complaint that Trump is deviating from America’s foreign policy. Hang on a minute. Who gets to decide what America’s foreign policy is? The commander in chief or an unelected committee from Harvard?

                  Harvard being an institution founded to be the central body of the state religion of New England, as the Vatican is the central body of Roman Catholicism, which now is the central body of the state religion of the US hegemony, and has dangerous ambitions to be the state religion of the entire world.

                  Harvard’s foreign policy is to conquer the world with nuclear fire. Trump’s foreign policy is to spin off the unprofitable parts of the American empire.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The Hapsburg family coordinated the actions of an entire class of people for nearly 1000 years

                  That Habsburgs (again with the spelling!) fought off the much more powerful Ottoman Empire in two major wars. This is what you call “merchant” class?

                  The Austrian and Austro-Hungarian empires may have been more isolationist than expansionist, but they were obviously – obviously – run by warriors, right up until the moment Woodrow Wilson decided to bulldoze the last remaining monarchy in Europe in order to spread his insane democratic ideology.

                  How can one person be so wrong about everything? A broken watch is correct twice a day, but apparently you actively adjust yours to make sure it never is.

                • Hansderfiedler says:

                  @Not Tom

                  That’s strange. I’m getting multiple English language hits between 1700-1800.

                  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=corporatism&year_start=1600&year_end=1800&corpus=18&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccorporatism%3B%2Cc0

                  Likewise, in Italian, from 1700-1900,

                  https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=corporativismo&year_start=1700&year_end=1900&corpus=22&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2Ccorporativismo%3B%2Cc0

                  The ngrams are informative. The few times the word was used in English prior to 1900, it does seem to be in reference to for-profit corporations. Interesting.

                  And I’m not competent to analyze what these Italians are talking about in the 1800s

                  But the historical consensus nonetheless seems to be that D’Annunzio borrowed, or perhaps derived, the word from the Catholic Church, particularly Leo XIII’s “Rerum Novarum,” which uses various words derived from “corpus” to describe a politics where the state is a body with constituent class organs working in concert.

                  http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/la/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html

                  And there is a rich history of “Corpus” and its derivatives being used to explain politics in old and ancient Latin treatises.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, corporations have been around for all of recorded history.

                  The joint stock publicly traded for profit corporation, which is responsible for the rise of technology, industrialization, and all that, has been around since King Charles the Second, though in his day they were building canals and conquering the world, rather than building the internet.

                • Not Tom says:

                  And there is a rich history of “Corpus” and its derivatives being used to explain politics in old and ancient Latin treatises.

                  Which would be good evidence that corporations, and the general concept of incorporation, are very old, like capitalism itself.

                  Not an argument for ancient widespread recognition of the concept of “corporatism”, which is just capitalism as seen through a Marxist lens.

                  Incorporation is old. Joint stock corporations are a comparatively new innovation. And the Marxist word “corporatism” is thoroughly 21st-century satanism.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Republican Rome and the early Empire at least had something close to joint stock corporations with the publicani, a business would be owned by a single slave but the slave himself would have shareholders in who owned him.

          • Poochman says:

            What if reverting to the last known good doesn’t fix problem. If we are able to revert to Restoration social tech, what prevents the Puritan holiness spiral from remanifesting itself again? A new patch may need to be introduced.

            • jim says:

              I propose an inquisition. Instead of thirty nine articles of faith we will have a smaller number of articles of faith promulgated by the archbishop, and some additional Inquisition articles that are targeted to particular heresies, promulgated from time to time to address particular heresies, and are only required when there is the smell of that heresy.

              The Spanish inquisition used to offer suspected crypto Jews ham, but no one suggested that eating ham should be required of all good Christians.

              The thirty nine articles contained good stuff to exclude the Puritans of the time it was promulgated, but as Puritan beliefs were subject to rapid mutation, ceased to be effective against new variants that heresy.

              Articles of faith need to be unchanging, but articles of faith targeted to exclude particular heresies have to change as the heresies adapt.

              The inquisition should not attempt to purge the entire society – too big a job and too much collateral damage. It should merely make sure that all high status people in all quasi statal jobs adhere to the faith, and the rest of society will convert or converge soon enough.

              • Pooch says:

                It occurred to me that there must be a Church preaching the faith you propose (Christianity from 1000 years ago). Is there any Christian sect that exists today that can be used? If not, a new one may need to be started sooner rather than later for it to grow in time to be useful for the restoration.

                • jim says:

                  All large organizations get converged. Any church larger than a certain size is run by social justice warriors and the gay mafia. Individual pastors are often OK. I had no difficulty finding a pastor to conduct an old type marriage ceremony.

    • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

      > Accusations of anti-religious bigotry are still potent shields against criticism

      Where gay outranks God, attacking religion to uphold gay is virtuous.

      You are selling soft substitutes and evasions, not actual WQ, GQ, HBD.

      To sell the real thing, and especially when talking to women should you try that, you need to clearly and openly distinguish facts/math from interpretation/speculation/opinion. “Women voting is disastrous” is a conclusion, not an objective fact. Jim’s graphs of fertility collapsing the minute women are slightly loosened are facts.

      • Hansderfiedler says:

        The trick to martyrdom is to die blamelessly. There are a few topics I won’t touch publicly because they are unsavory. If I died on those hills, it would be an ignominious death. Nobody would care. But if you are doxxed for promulgating authentic Christianity – this is a truly white martyrdom.

        Now I have no problem publicly referencing fertility statistics. I don’t see how that can really get anybody in trouble. But decorum requires it to be done sensitively and impersonally, unlike the “greatest philosopher in the world,” who recently used a derivative argument to demean a famous lady of a certain age on Twitter. That just made him look like a mean person.

        In the end, there is only one political argument truly worth making, and that is for the restoration of the traditional extended family structure (i.e. authentic patriarchy). The authenticity of any political pundit, public or anonymous, is measured by the degree to which he advocates for the restoration of the traditional family.

        I recommend public advoccy.

        • jim says:

          We need a prophet who is prepared to stick out his head for martyrdom.

          But observed behavior of namefags is that they tone down the red pill and its disturbing implications, the most disturbing implication being that the Old Testament got sexual law, family law, and marriage law right, and all societies have succeeded and survived to the extent that they let patriarchs impose something much resembling the Old Testament law on women.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            The prophet must come from God, because those who stick their heads out are being deplatformed, jailed, and worse. Even those who did come from God, suffered such fates. Jeremiah. Isaiah. All of Jesus apostles. And many in modern times.

        • Not Tom says:

          > “authentic Christianity”
          > abandon white/black and talk about ethnicity
          > cutting edge en vogue among progressives
          > add anti-capitalist rhetoric

          OK boomer.

        • Snowdens_jacket says:

          You can try public advocacy and I have. But people will breathe the air they are in like the water a fish is swimming, and proclaim they are holier than thou, as they aren’t sheep, but anyone who doesn’t celebrate the air they breath is a sheep. Bah, you’re a sheep. Be aware almost everything anyone ever accuses is projection, and let them tell you their weaknesses.

          Why not just create the old testament patriarchy and heirarchy yourself? I’m doing so. It means a great withdrawal from the public institutions but, of course it does. It means creating a family, and leading that family, and hiding that you are doing that so as to not bring undo attention and destruction. It means a wife who calls you my lord, and children who obey. Most of all it means creating the means to pass down the knowledge you have. Their is the written word.

          It would be an ideal to be able to insert said knowledge into those around you but the ego, pride, and a mass of sluts free for all prevents men from submitting to you. Every man must think he is the leader, else the leader will monopoly all the sluts. Hence they will raise men who submit to the machine, but think nothing of it as no one has any responsibility under the machine, and they can see no man assigned responsibility, it is all process, hence they believe no woman will see it either. Alas

          But their is nothing stopping you, or me, or anyone reading this from building a true family and being a true patriarch. Know we are ruled by far, and that far has turned near against us. We can turn them back. Easily. They will be forced to try to get you to play their game and then poke your head up in that game so they can bring the medium to destroy the threat you pose. So just don’t do it. Play if you want, but play it as stupid. They expect stupid so play right into it.

          Their is nothing stopping us from bringing back patriarchy, from restoring heirarchy, from solidifying the natural order again. You just do it. You create it from your own will, the will of a man. The other day I was explaining to my property, my wife, what our grandchildren will do. She exclaimed, “but that’s illegal!”. And I say back, when has the law of man been what I obey?

          • Hansderfiedler says:

            I advise all young men to condition marriage upon securing an oath of Pauline submission from their prospective bride. Failure to comply should be a dealbreaker. A sane woman should be eager to accept these terms in exchange for the economic freedom to be a stay at home mom. This contract is ultimately unenforceable, but a sacred oath tends to go a long way nonetheless.

            Similarly, how does one obtain the loyalty of other men? Simple. Provide those men the means to raise a family in exchange for useful service, and they will eat from your hand.

            These are the kinds of things we should be publicly teaching. Why? To create a political base. Why? To make these tasks easier for poorer men, for there is plenty of economic and political friction making such accomplishments out of reach of most otherwise willing and able men. And because to obtain political ground, eventually the worthy patriarchs are going to have to pool resources, swear mutual oaths, and select a leader from amongst themselves.

            • jim says:

              I conducted my marriage according to pre-1928 Anglican ceremony, where the bride promises to honor and obey, the groom promises to love and cherish.

              See my recent post on marriage.

              Women do not really like the marriage ceremony that first wave feminism gave them.

            • Not Tom says:

              A sane woman should be eager to accept these terms in exchange for the economic freedom to be a stay at home mom.

              Women aren’t libertarian faggots. A sane woman is eager to accept those terms from someone she perceives as alpha, and never in a million years from someone she perceives as beta, no matter how much “economic freedom” he can offer her.

              The Pauline oath is a requirement, but the oath is primarily symbolic, it is an indication that the woman has already submitted to her soon-to-be husband. That is its value. Modern women are apt to treat any “request” for such an oath, especially if framed as an economic transaction, as an excuse to launch a nuclear shit test, which could have been avoided by simply imposing it forcefully on the prospective wife.

              • Hansderfiedler says:

                Hypergamy is a real phenomenon. It is a manifestation of disordered passions possessed by all women. Before the PUA movement, we just called it “daddy issues.”

                When a good father invests time to teach his daughters to prioritize financial stability over social status these issues can often be avoided. But even a hypergamous girl will eventually come to prioritize financial stability over social status, settling for those “beta bucks,” albeit after she has “hit the wall.” Of course, this late timeline is nonetheless a far cry from “never in a million years.”

                You’re an idiot.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Women know what they have access to, and once they hit the wall, no longer have reliable access to alphas. That is why they settle into loveless marriages with betas and often cuckold them. AFBB does not mean “alphas, then betas”, it means both at the same time, using betas for resources while reserving sex exclusively for chads.

                  Hypergamy isn’t “daddy issues”, hypergamy is biology and psychology, it is the sexual programming hardwired into all women. By spinning it as learned behavior, you peddle the blue pill, and implicitly push for supremacy of the father over the husband, like that fool who was ranting about it here a few months ago. (IIRC he called himself Doug – are you the same guy?) But more importantly, you implicitly promote the lie that men – daddies – are responsible for the destructive behavior of women.

                  You talk as though you’ve been around forever in the manosphere and PUA scene, but that’s obviously a lie, like everything else that comes from you.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  This Not Tom person sounds like part of the problem. Humans have the ability to overcome instincts, and social pressure can keep instinct in check. Patriarchy and father influence is definitely key.

                  I promise you, “Not Tom”, most men cannot keep their marriages together if the woman’s father opposes it. If the woman’s family and social circle support the marriage, even a gamma has a fighting chance at becoming a productive member of society.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts.

                  When women transfer their allegiance from one male to another sufficiently alpha male, they do so wholeheartedly. When daughter runs off, or is abducted, daddy cannot do much unless the state backs him.

              • Snowdens_jacket says:

                Sane woman? A woman is a product of emotion and instinct, and she will place herself around men and hope one t abducts her and then keeps her. When he does not keep her she is offended. When he does try to keep her, but to do so by whining or demanding she obey, she will act out even more by placing herself around other men even more and hoping one will keep her, after they take her.

                You will keep her by letting her know, hey I’m going over here. You either follow, or you don’t and you get left behind. The male problem is he starts to go, looks back and she’s walking the other way, and he goes running back. He should smirk, know his value, shake his head and keep going. If he does? And it’s real? She’ll look back, take a step, look again, take another step, look again and realize. And she’ll run back to you, crying, babbling, “I’m sorry I’m sorry”.

                Women want to be taken from their father and they will be. Modern father’s problem is they aren’t giving his daughter a set of choice. As you do to a child. You don’t ask a child, “what do you want?” I have children. You ask them, “do you want this, this, or this?”. Fathers no longer do that. As fathers have grown an uncomfortable relationship with their daughters of ownership that they have never had with their wives. So fathers, unconsciously, push their daughters into relationships with subpar losers as they say I walked around the college campus with my daughters hand on my arm and I stood tall. Then they say, she’s doing so good in college. He wants her to fail. And come back to him the way he came back to his fake wife. The only womanly love he’ll ever hope to feel and he does this without ever realizing that is what he is doing.

                A father’s duty is to give his daughter away. Failing that she will run away anyway. Without the power of the state, and even at times with it, she will still run to her new father. Her lord. Should he be able to keep her, by her following him, which she will do by following him and then not following him to see if he will follow her instead.

                Women are loyal beyond belief to a man that leads, orders, and demands it the only way we can. Follow or don’t. Order her and then she either does, or she does not. Tell her what to do, and she either does, or she does not and you leave her behind.

                The song, if you love her let her go, if she follows she loves you. If she does not follow? Well, that was a fun time, I’ll make sure every new girl gets to hear this story about you. I liked that girl, look heres a cute picture of her, she was a sweet girl. Here’s us dressed up at Halloween. But she told me what “we” were doing to do with MY money. So I said, see you later.

                Their is nothing more embarrassing than the weakness on display when I’ve gone to dinner with a church friend, who starts trying to talk his wife into submission with Bible quotes the moment he comes in the door. And his wife serves a cold dinner with venom in her eyes, and later that night comes to sit on my lap right in front of her husband. I can only imagine later that night he’s still busy crawling back to her mumbling scripture.

  11. The Cominator says:

    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/474589-trump-greeted-with-cheers-at-120th-army-navy-game

    Looks like we have the lower ranking officers is it only the flag corps that really needs to be purged…

    • BC says:

      That jives with leftists are talking about when it comes to a military coup on reddit. They’re saying the brass is on their side but don’t mention jr officers or the troops.

  12. […] discusses how progressivism is like the AIDS virus. He also discusses Good and Evil. From the […]

    • Hansderfiedler says:

      One and the same. I’ve refined my metaphysical arguments somewhat in the intervening years.

  13. Dave says:

    O/T question: Andrew Anglin’s done a slew of articles recently condemning pornography and masturbation because, he alleges, it’s very bad for a man’s physical and mental health to ejaculate more than once or twice a month. Is that true, or is Anglin just trying to increase his readers’ testosterone levels so they’ll overthrow the government and re-establish white patriarchy?

  14. Every time I see a new scientific or technological breakthrough I think of Jim now and his insistence that science is over because a google car crashed or some shit. People being put in suspended animation and quantum computing breakthroughs were just two such cases in recent days. But oh noes the google car crashed and mankind is doooooooomed

    • jim says:

      No one has been put in suspended animation, quantum computing cannot do anything useful, no one has a roadmap to getting it to where it can do anything useful, and I will believe in self driving cars when trucking companies start using them.

  15. ERTZ says:

    “If someone posts under his true name, he is … probably unreliable and lying.”

    “There are only two ways of telling the complete truth – anonymously and posthumously.” – Thomas Sowell

Leave a Reply