Merry Christmas

Peace on Earth, and goodwill to all men.

And, this being a reactionary blog, I remind you that peace on earth requires adherence to the Peace of Westphalia.

The forever war in the middle east is a violation of the Peace of Westphalia, because it is fought to teach nine year old schoolgirls to put a condom on a banana, and to ensure that more women than men graduate. if it was fought to slaughter those that allowed Al Quaeda on their territory, would not be a violation of the Peace of Westphalia, no matter how many were slaughtered.

169 Responses to “Merry Christmas”

  1. Mike says:

    God bless Jim, gather with your family and cherish what you have. Lord knows that it might be gone soon in our Clown-World.

  2. simplyconnected says:

    Merry Christmas to all you brilliant autists.

  3. jewish pedophile says:

    Merry Christmas to Jim and the ascendant Jimian community.

  4. Baron 'GLOSOLI' Munchausen says:

    Clearwater Beach, Florida

    It was early in the morning when I, a 50-year-old unemployed schizophrenic incel and the founder of a popular (single member) “Doomsday End-Times Apocalypse” cult, was lying in bed and leafing through my one and only KJV Bible as I always do around sunrise. Suddenly, an eerie passage caught my eye. 1 Samuel 16:14: “But the Spirit of the Lord departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord troubled him.” I had a bad feeling.

    Briefly, I glanced at the clock on my dresser beside the bed. It showed: 06:66. “Oh no, fuck. It’s happening again. The surreal twilight zone has descended on me once more…” I closed my eyes tightly, and waited. “Maybe everything would proceed pleasantly this time,” was my wholehearted hope.

    When I opened my eyes, there it was. Hovering right above me was a Luciferian spawn, striking in its wickedness. With body and limbs of a humanoid skeleton, and the head of a jackal, it was reminiscent of Anubis, the Egyptian god of the dead. (As an avowed Gaia-worshipper, I’d say that I’m quite reluctant to mix national pantheons, but whatever) Its eyes were fiery red, both frightening and mesmerizing, and its mouth breathed green vapors that warped into the shapes of snakes and skulls! I felt like I couldn’t keep looking at it; nor could I look away.

    At once, it started whispering in a low-pitched, robot-sounding voice some unpronounceable words into the ether.

    “HRZN WHR CRVTR.”

    “HRZN WHR CRVTR.”

    “HRZN WHR CRVTR.”

    And so it went, each iteration growing a bit louder. “What the Hell is it trying to tell me?” I pondered. “It must be some kind of message. Must be! I may converse with demons, angels, and apparitions on a daily basis – but I’m not crazy. Not at all. It has to be an important sign from God, for sure.” Soon enough, I could no longer withstand the intensity of the vision. Overcome with absolute terror, my entire body became paralyzed, frozen in a state of mortal dread. I slowly started to lose consciousness, feeling that everything is fading away – everything, that is, except Anubis’ blazing, piercing eyes.

    When I woke up, I had to get to the bottom of the ordeal. By way of telepathy, I tried to communicate with the jackal-headed entity, whose presence still somehow lingered despite its seeming vanishment. Shortly thereafter, the meaning of that infernal encounter became clearly decipherable to my mind.

    “Aha! I think I get it.” Is there anything beyond the reach of my genius? I opened my mouth, and in a fit of glossolalia, repeated the words: “HRZN WHR CRVTR.” Boom. It hit me like thunder from the sky.

    Horizon.

    Where.

    Curvature.

    “[Look at the] horizon. Where [is the] curvature?”

    I rushed down to the beach. For several hours straight, I gazed at the horizon. I looked, and looked, and looked. There *was* no curvature. None whatsoever.

    “That dirty old geezer Jim is gonna hear about it. He and his gang of fools will mock me, but I know that deep inside, this Atomic Truth-Bomb will devastate every fiber in their bodies! They will disregard me as a lunatic, an asylum escapee on the loose; they will try to point out inconsistencies or inaccuracies in my story. Doesn’t matter. I will show them, to the best of my ability. They will know truth from above… and from below.”

    Earth’s Flat, motherfuckers.

  5. eternal anglo says:

    Looking back on the year, I reflect that Jim’s blog (literally) puts hair on one’s chest. I don’t know how much of that is from lifting iron and how much directly from the worldview itself.

    This Christmas eve my grandmother gave me a hat which belonged to her father. It is a wide-brimmed, heavy felt farmer’s hat. The red earth of Rhodesia is still ingrained in its creases. It has press studs for folding up the brim to aim down the sights of a rifle.

    This was the hat of a man who owned land, an armed freeholder, who worked with his hands and his mind, who personally used violence in defence of what belonged to him, also a warrior who served his nation, a cheerful patriarch, a benevolent master, an honest settler-capitalist who tamed the land and made it bring forth riches.

    And with any luck, we will win, and when I pass it on to my grandsons, that is what it will continue to be – on Mars or in the asteroid belt.

    God bless you Jim, and Merry Christmas to all of you!

    • Koanic says:

      That was depressing, but the Mars bit turned it around. Not all red soil is created equal, much like the races of man. May the spirit of Mars give us the Dark Continent and the Red Planet both!

    • Wear it well brother. May it shade the sights of a rifle once again.

      I inherited nothing but an old name and an old glory. Old names must be refreshed from time to time with great deeds.

      Vivat Rex to all

  6. vxxc says:

    Merry Christmas Jim and to all….

  7. glosoli says:

    “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among those with whom he is pleased!”

    Not to all men.

    Not to many men at all.

  8. S.J., Esquire says:

    Merry Christmas, Jim.

  9. BC says:

    Merry Christmas all.

  10. R7 Rocket says:

    It’s a good thing that the Syrian Christians are finally enjoying their Christmas Mass.

  11. Charles Neumann says:

    Merry Christmas, Jim and all fans of Jim.

  12. Anonymous 2 says:

    God rest ye merry gentlemen, as applicable.

  13. Steve Johnson says:

    Merry Christmas Jim and the Jim commenter community.

  14. pyrrhus says:

    Merry Christmas Jim!

  15. SidingsOfConcreteAndGlass says:

    peace on earth and mercy mild, God and sinners reconciled. Joyful all the nations rise, join the triumph of the skies, with angelic hosts proclaim, Christ is born in Bethlehem. Hark, the herald angels sing, glory to the newborn king.

  16. Frederick Algernon says:

    Merry Christmas to you all, in particular to you Jim.

  17. vxxc says:

    Trump: Shutdown until Wall.

    Merry Christmas to us all!

  18. Neurotoxin says:

    Merry Christmas, everyone!

  19. Ad Hoc Reason says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Unresponsive and incoherent.

      Your argument is missing some steps. You don’t explain how your evidence relates to your conclusions. You simply assert that something is self evident, though what is self evident and why it not apparent.

      You may be making some presuppositions that are unlikely to be shared by readers on this blog. I will allow your argument through if you add sufficient explanation for it to be intelligible.

      Perhaps you have in mind some alternative explanation for the war in Afghanistan that you assume is self evident. It is not.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Some of us might have enjoyed picking apart that stupid argument about Afghanistan.

        I’m not going to miss you. You’re my sole NYResolution.

        • jim says:

          If you are not willing to pick it apart, obviously not stupid.

          You know perfectly well that we are in Afghanistan to impose our state religion, whose sacrament is abortion conducted as a satanic parody on the Eucharist, on Afghans, and that you will not admit this shows you to be an agent of our state religion. “Moderate” Islam is cucked Islam, whose adherents fail to reproduce and have families, just as current year Christianity is cucked Christianity, whose adherents fail to reproduce and have families.

          And, in fact, it is working, rather to my surprise.

          • Ron says:

            Moderate Islam is logistical support of Jihad Islam. It works bc it does what it is supposed to do. Establish the non combatant supporting environment with which Islam draws its conscripts and third party experts as well as a population through which the Jihadis can both hide and recruit from.

            There is no moderate Islam, there is only Islam.

            • jim says:

              Progressives don’t care that moderate Islam murders Christians. They rather like that moderate Islam murders Christians. They care that moderate Islam teaches nine year old girls to put a condom on a banana.

          • yewotm8 says:

            You can’t just leave out the opium like that. We were sold on the war through “Taliban are evil”, but there was significant incentive to invade in order to restore the country’s opium production that was largely shut down by the Taliban after they seized power.

            • jim says:

              So, according to you, are we fighting to prevent opium, or ensure opium?

              And any opium related story that ignores fentanyl is out of date.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                The “beauty” of the Marxist view of events is that no matter what happens *someone* is going to make money somewhere as a result. You then reason backwards and claim that was the reason.

                If Afghanistan stops producing opium then opium producers elsewhere and producers make more money – therefore the war was for that reason. If Afghanistan makes more opium then that’s why the war happened. If it makes the same amount of opium ownership of the production isn’t going to stay exactly the same so *that’s* why the war happened.

                There’s no possible outcome that falsifies the Marxist view.

                • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                  I must have missed the part where naked pursuit of self-interest became “Marxist”.

                  Because that’s exactly what’s happening, you buffoon.

                  In the case of opium specifically, consider the following:

                  1. American intelligence is well-known to derive large portions of its black budgets from drugs and drug smuggling. Fucktonnss of money.

                  2. In 2000 most of the world’s opium came Afghanistan.

                  3. The Taliban take over and swiftly and easily shut down production.

                  4. America invades and production promptly resumes. and in fact skyrockets.

                  5. Then a decade and a half of mumbled news stories (and images) showing American soldiers LITERALLY guarding poppy fields.

                  The soldiers aren’t getting that cash. But someone is.

                  Were there peripheral reasons for invading Afghanistan? Yeah, probably. It’s sitting right on literally trillions of dollars worth of other stuff.

                  I don’t know who’s getting all that cash but I know it isn’t the taxpayer or the Treasury.

                  p.s. next time instead of “marxist” just call me a heretic instead. it’s more honest. and accurate.

                • jim says:

                  This presupposes what is to be demonstrated – that the Afghan war is somehow in the interests of “The Capitalist Class”, that shutting down opium, or sponsoring opium, somehow benefits capitalists – which proposition is transparently insane. Afghanistan has nothing that capitalists care about. It has something that the priestly class (judges, academia, public intellectuals, what the Chinese call “the Knowledge Faction”) care about very much. Old type conservative Islam in power.

                  If the CIA is smuggling opium, it is not to fund the CIA, but to fund “moderate” Islam, because “moderate” Islam tends to be funded by opium growers – it is smuggling for religious reasons, not for profit, but as a way of covertly funding the good guy Islamic terrorists against the bad guy Islamic terrorists, not smuggling for CIA profit, but for profit for their preferred version of Islam.

                  If the CIA wants off the books money, just ask Soros. Soros buys up worthless debt, then the “IMF”, aka the federal reserve, aka the American taxpayer, buys up the debt at face value giving Soros an immense profit, then Soros sends the lightly rinsed US government money off to US government purposes.

                  I am a capitalist. Suppose I want to profit from opoid addiction. I am going to manufacture fentanyl, which means that my source of supply is a “cook” – a lightly armed organic chemist near me, rather than a heavily armed Afghan peasant with a bunch of heavily armed friends and relatives far away from me. speaking a different language, and adhering to a heavily armed religion different from my own.

                  If I am a capitalist who wants to profit from addicts, I am going to enthusiastically sponsor anything that shuts down opium production, so that I can profit from fentanyl production. The CIA is in a good position to smuggle stuff, but it is in a good position to smuggle Fentanyl also. It smuggles opium to fund good guy terrorists, not to fund itself.

                • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                  Justifying wars to “teach girls to put condoms on bananas” is a new dimension of willful stupidity because no one gives a fuck about any of that shit. it’s just what you (female emancipation) to a subjugated population. Like in the incident described here by E Michael Jones: https://youtube.com/watch?v=hT1yxmWSqG4

                  nor is it uniquely jewish, it’s just a general phenomenon.

                • jim says:

                  Every long, destructive, stupid war, is a holy war. That is why the peace of Westphalia bans this stuff.

                  Why should anyone doubt that Afghanistan is a holy war, that our ruling priesthood is waging religious war for religious reasons in order to enforce our ruling religion on the entire world? The Taliban tell us it is a holy war at every opportunity. Why should we doubt them, why is it improbable?

                  Abortion is a holy sacrament. Nine year old girls putting a condom on a banana is a holy sacrament. And to these sacraments they have recently added the holy sacrament of twelve year old boys forced to wear dresses and forced to sit on the lap of a transexual. The Afghan war is being fought to force Afghans to perform our sacraments, like almost every similar war, though different wars tend to be about different sacraments.

                  Muslims are “moderate”, no matter how many Jews, Christians, and Alawites they murder, provided they perform our sacraments. And if you are a “moderate” Muslim, the CIA will reward you by smuggling your opium. If an immoderate Muslim, the CIA will drone you and spray your opium with poison. The Taliban fights because they say one cannot perform our sacraments and be a good Muslim, while “moderate” Muslims say one can perform Muslim and progressive sacraments both, and still be a good Muslim. But in fact, Muslims who perform progressive sacraments tend over time to diminish their performance of Muslim sacraments, Iran being Exhibit A.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  If moneyed interests controlled America’s armies, they would be a hell of a lot more interested in oil than in opium, and they would be one hell of a lot more competent at controlling it. Why aren’t the arabs savages in the desert on the fringes of a petrocolonialist patchwork? Why is America not putting the ludicrously weak Venezuelan government to the sword and replacing it with ExxonMobil? Why is development in Antarctica forbidden?

                  I wish America’s armies *were* controlled by moneyed interests!

                • jim says:

                  Steve Johnson telling me that US armies are fighting for “Capital” is reminiscent of a flat earther trying to explain that when I phone my grandkids at noon with the sun shining down on me, the sun has just set on them, and a 9/11 troofer showing me a video of World Trade Center building seven falling and telling me it suddenly goes into free fall for no apparent reason.

                  Yes, if the US army was fighting for “capital”, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia would be divisions of Exxon Mobile. That the war is in Afghanistan, rather than Venezuela, shows that it is about performing holy sacraments, not profit.

                • Ad Hoc Reason says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for assuming Marxist Class theory is true, and obviously true to everyone, agreed to be true by everyone.

                  We have heard all that before far too many times.

                  If you want to argue Marxist Class theory, if you want to provide evidence for it, you are free to do so in the comments, and I am eager to debate with a Marxist who does so.

                  For no Marxist in the entire history of Marxism has ever argued, rather than merely assumed, Marxist history and Marxist class theory

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Steve Johnson telling me that US armies are fighting for “Capital” is reminiscent of a flat earther trying to explain that when I phone my grandkids at noon

                  What I’m saying is that no matter the outcome Marxists are going to claims that the result vindicates Marxism – the implied conclusion that I thought was pretty clear is that this shows that Marxism is bullshit.

                  No more opium out of Afghanistan? Well then the other opium producers were the beneficiaries.

                  More opium? Then CIA benefits by getting a cut.

                  Same amount of opium? Then the general shifts in ownership that happen over time as fortunes rise and fall are actually a sinister pattern of CIA allies coming to own the opium (rather than CIA choosing to attempt to ally with rising local powers).

                  The Marxist tries to make it look like the result was planned but has an equally (which is to say also not very) plausible case for saying that any other result was to the benefit of “the capitalists” – simply because of the way an economy functions. *Someone* is going to make money in every circumstance – unless everyone is dead economic activity will continue.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Same old pattern: call people ‘Marxist’ because as fellow right-wingers they’ll be shocked and appalled that anyone dared to consider THEM horrid Marxists.
                  If they don’t surrender in shame on the spot, misrepresent what they’re saying and if that doesn’t trick them into defending a position they never adopted in the first place, just censor them.

                  I see (((you))) Jacob.

                • jim says:

                  I call you Marxist because you are trying to divide your enemies on the basis of insignifcant economic differences, sow division in our ingroup on the basis of tiny economic differences, because you assume Marxist Class theory and Marxist Economic theory as self evidently true and keep telling us we already agree with it, and because you are trying to get us to ingroup our outgroups, and outgroup our ingroup.

                  Going after Domino’s pizza is the Trotskyite going after the peasant with two cows. Domino’s franchisees are not killing white people in the streets for being white. They are not burning white people alive to deter them from building far from enemy vote banks. And the pizza of my local Domino’s franchise is a whole lot better than the kebab of my local kebab joint, quite apart from the fact that when your imported male military age asylum seekers come to murder me and my children, the guy who owns the local kebab joint is going to side with the people coming to kill my children, and the guy who owns the local Domino’s joint is going to side with me, because race and religion trumps these very minor economic differences.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling us what Victor Davis Hanson thinks.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. Your evidence fails to support your claim.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >I see (((you))) Jacob.

                  This kind of vile antisemitism reminds me of the Holocaust!

                  Also known as the Shoah, the Final Solution, the Aktion Reinhard, the Worst Thing That Ever Happened, the Only Genocide That Ever Happened, “The Great de-Jewing,” “Jew-Be-Gone” (“Now with 100% more Zyklon B! Gets those stubborn Jew parasites other household democides miss!”), the Holocau$t, the Holocau$$$t, the Holocau$$$$$$$$$t, the H$l$c$$st, the Holo-hoax, the Hoax-ocaust, the Holo-fraud, the Holo-con, the Con-ocaust, the Holo-spoof, the Spoof-ocaust, the Holo-prank, the Holo-jape, the Holo-caper, the Caper-caust, the Holo-lampoon, the Lampoon-ocaust, the LOL-ocaust, the TROLLOLOL-ocaust, “The Passion of the Christ, Part 2: Jesus’ Revenge,” the Six Million, the Three Million, the Two Million, the Eleven Billion Zillion, the “oy vey, Adolf, there you again, always wit’ the gassing, you’re going to give your mother a heart attack, why don’t you just find yourself a nice Jewish girl already, now eat your latkes and let’s move to Florida and vote Democrat forever,” and probably several other terms.

                  (Plagiarized for your amusement)

                • Koanic says:

                  Hollywood has been making Shoah shows for years. Personally I am looking forward to the Greatest Shoah on Earth!

                • Mike says:

                  Ok, this is epic.

              • Halion says:

                Merry Christmas!
                The occupation of Afghanistan can have two compelling reasons, beyond what is discussed in this blog:
                1) Own an outpost in the rear of China.
                2) Weaken Iran by means of opium trafficking (I understand that drug trafficking has caused a civil war of low intensity there).
                Greetings.

                • jim says:

                  Those reasons make a lot more sense than evil capitalist overlords, but come on. Girls schools and girls schooling are absolutely central to the war. If we wanted Afghanistan for non religious reasons, why do we keep pissing on the Taliban’s religion? If we wanted Afghanistan as a base near China, why piss off the majority religion of the country?

                  The Taliban keep talking about the laws of God. Pretty sure we could have a base near China’s back fence without rubbing the Taliban’s noses in the violation of the laws of God.

                  And they are absolutely right. The policy we impose on Afghanistan is a violation of the laws of Gnon, and an attack on their capability to have families and children. They are completely right to resist.

                • pdimov says:

                  The theory advanced was “CIA wanted opium production to resume”, and I find your describing it as “evil capitalist overlords” both disingenuous and devoid of counterarguments.

                  I’m not saying it’s correct, but it has the advantage of answering the question “why Afghanistan, specifically”. Your girl/banana theory doesn’t; there’s nothing special about Afghanistan as far as girls and bananas go.

                • jim says:

                  > there’s nothing special about Afghanistan as far as girls and bananas go.

                  Obviously there is something special about Afghanistan as far as girls and bananas go: Highest fertility rate in the Muslim world, indicating more successful control of female feral sexuality than anywhere else in the Muslim world, indicating the least converged Islam in the Muslim world.

                  If the war was happening in Venezuela or Saudi Arabia, obviously that would be ExonMobile plotting to convert them into ExxonMobile divisions. That the war is happening in Afghanistan makes it obviously holy war, obviously fought to impose the holy sacraments of our state religion: Abortion on female demand irrespective of the opinions of the mere husband, nine year old girls putting a condom on a banana, and now, the latest holy sacrament of our state religion, twelve old boys being put in dresses and sat on the laps of transexuals.

                  Venezuela is where the oil is, Afghanistan is where the heresy is.

                  If fighting for profit, would go after the weak and ineffectual government in Venezuela, not the infamously tough as nails Afghans.

                  Venezuela is where the oil is, Afghanistan is where the heresy is. Therefore war on heresy, not war for profit.

                • Koanic says:

                  > and now, the latest holy sacrament of our state religion, twelve old boys being put in dresses and sat on the laps of transexuals.

                  Afghanistan is well ahead of us there, so we should be able to declare victory and depart in good order.

                • jim says:

                  The Taliban’s view on this latest holy sacrament is well known. The Taliban originally seized power because some warlord was sodomizing some boy. They have the death penalty for men lying with males, as with a woman, and they enforce it.

                  It is not so much that the Cathedral want little boys sodomized, as that they want sodomy of little boys to be treated as holy and sacred. Despite, or because, of all the men sodomizing boys in Afghanistan, it is not treated respectfully.

                • Koanic says:

                  Fascinating. Sounds like these Talibani are more American than the Americans, what with their righteously patriarchal defiance of foreign tyranny and perversion. I am tempted to make a donation, but only if they promise to hit NY and DC again!

                • pdimov says:

                  “Obviously there is something special about Afghanistan as far as girls and bananas go: Highest fertility rate in the Muslim world, indicating more successful control of female feral sexuality than anywhere else in the Muslim world, indicating the least converged Islam in the Muslim world.”

                  OK… so how about Boko Haram and “our girls” then? Michelle Obama even tweeted a picture. Yet nothing happened.

                  https://twitter.com/FLOTUS44/status/464148654354628608

                  It’s almost as if nobody cares about girls.

                • jim says:

                  War there, war in Afghanistan.

                  Plus Boko Haram, like the Saudis, has yielded on female emancipation. Not as much as feminists want, but a fair way. They were droned until they went along with the poz. They backed off and started emancipating women, as a result of the US campaign of genocidal terror against them, their wives, and their children.

                  Taliban are the only people left who defend the family structure that we practiced in the eighteenth century, and Muslims practiced in the nineteenth century.

                  Supposedly everyone naturally and spontaneously comes to female emancipation and all that because of modernity and all that, and if they don’t, blue helmet forces are sent to murder them.

                  Supposedly the Cathedral operates by soft power, but when soft power fails, hard power ensues.

                • pdimov says:

                  The New Yorker article is entertaining, but where in it do you find female emancipation?

                • jim says:

                  > The New Yorker article is entertaining, but where in it do you find female emancipation?

                  “We usually dismiss Boko Haram as anti-women and anti-girls, but they knew that a powerful recruitment strategy was to tell women that, ‘If you join our group, you can have whatever role you want,’ ” she said.

                  Recall what Saint Paul had to say on that. That is not a recruitment strategy, that is appeasement of the Cathedral.

                  It is similar to the numerous articles New Yorker articles on Saudi Arabia failing to emancipate women. Saudi Arabia is failing to emancipate women because it only graduates two women for every man, compels men to defer to women with an insufficiently humiiating and degrading way, and sometimes leaves sons with their fathers rather than destroying their lives. Also not enough late stage abortion of much wanted children on female whim.

                  Any organization that pretends to put women on the front lines is totally pozzed. Boko Haram gives women the honors of a soldier on the front lines, it performs the holy sacraments of a Cathedral, like an Christian burning incense to the emperor because otherwise he would be thrown to the lions.

                  Boko Haram resisted the poz. The cathedral exploded with the most terrible and extraordinarily savage murder and terror. Now Boko Haram submits to the poz, and the murder and terror has eased up considerably.

                • pdimov says:

                  You’re quoting from what Tyler Cowen quoted. Read the whole thing. A woman taken as a slave became the favorite (fourth) wife of a senior commander and was then treated with respect, therefore Boko Haram treats women with respect. Fairy PR tales. I can only wonder who pays for them (Nigeria has employed Levick in the past for $1.2M), or why.

                • jim says:

                  I read the whole New Yorker article. Reads to me like an official announcement that Boko Haram have capitulated to poz and female emancipation sufficiently that genocide is no longer on the table.

                  You may be reading it from the frame that anything that smells of Islam is to be extirpated. Nah, provided that Islam allows some poz, Catbedralites figure that soft power will eventually move it to 100% HIV positive. Worked on Iran and Saudi Arabia. Boko Haram now allows sufficient poz, that the rest is likely to follow by means well short of genocide.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*censored*]

      • Ad Hoc Reason says:

        I don’t even remember what I said, except that I probably called you a moron. Which is true. And I’ll do so again: you’re a moron.

        If I were you, and I just had to censor stuff, I’d censor falsities, which is to say: deliberate untruths. I haven’t stated any falsities, and so you haven’t bothered to make a factual counter-argument, because you know and I know that if you deigned to descend from the realm of rhetoric into the realm of fact, you’d get the metaphorical piss knocked out of you and look to all third-parties like a total loser.

        I derive intrinsic pleasure from insulting you, or I wouldn’t post at all. Because you value freedom of speech less than the possibility of looking like a total loser on your own blog.

        Your prerogative. But you could at least be honest about it. To yourself most of all.

        • jim says:

          I don’t censor opposing views. I don’t censor insults. I don’t even censor lies. I censor you not because you lie, but because the lies are repetitious NPC spam and I don’t want to waste space with repetitious refutations of repetitious NPC spam. It is not even that you repeat yourself in slightly different words, it is that you would force me to repeat myself in slightly different words.

          Your lies are:

          1. You tell us what we think, and supposedly we think that Marxist class theory and Marxist history is true
          2. You tell us what neoreactionaries think, what the Dark Enlightenment thinks, what the alt right thinks, what ironic and unironic Nazis think, and what they supposedly think is that the capitalist class is the enemy, socialism is the best thing since sliced bread, and Marxist class theory and Marxist history is true.

          And I censor your stuff because I have already allowed these lies through one hundred times, and refuted them one hundred times.

          Hitler was a socialist, and his socialism ruined the German economy, running out of other people’s money at the worst possible moment, but he did not think the German capitalist Class was the enemy. That is what makes it obvious you are not a Nazi but a commie trying to pass as a Nazi. Not only do you not think what Nazis think, you don’t even know what Nazis think. Your spiel is “Hail fellow lover of evil. I love evil even more than you do.”

          Someone who believes the world works the way the left tells us it works is unlikely to genuinely conclude he should be against the left.

          • Mike says:

            This is off the subject but I was wondering, do you see the Peace of Westphalia as promoting a genuinely more peaceful world, or just a world that when it does fight wars, fights them for the correct reasons?

            Because it’s not as if the world of Westphalia was peaceful so I am curious what your take on this is.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              Yes.

              (The latter being even more important than the former of course.)

            • jim says:

              Holy wars are generally bloodier and more destructive than wars fought for sane reasons. Peace of Westphalia is that nations agree warriors determining the state religion is legitimate, and one nation imposing its state religion another is illegitimate.

              When I say “warriors determining the state religion” this is what I mean.

          • Ad Hoc Reason says:

            On the contrary, you are lying about me and things I have said.

            I will make this as clear as possible: I’m not a religious person. I don’t believe in any ideology whatsoever. I don’t believe in capitalism, socialism, democracy, monarchy, aristocracy, oligarchy, etc. Nothing.

            I don’t hold ideological opinions, meaning opinions I can’t be reasonably certain, based on good evidence, are true. I therefore neither believe in supernatural entities nor disbelieve in supernatural entities.

            I don’t even believe that there is a “left” or a “right”, which seem to have no consistent meaning whatsoever, even when the same person is using the same words across time.

            The closest I get to believing in anything is that Charles Darwin was a genius unparalleled in history surviving the burning of the Library of Alexandria and the Younger Dryas celestial impacts, that the scientific method is the best process we have for refining the world to something knowable, and that with 2019 nearly upon us every authority everywhere is generally lying to everyone in SUCH a grotesquely Orwellian fashion that the truth is more ascertainable than it has been in a long time because a photonegative is almost as good as a resolved photo.

            I dare you to engage with any of these things I have claimed about myself. You could, for example, quote any instance of me having violated them. You won’t, but you could.

            • jim says:

              And yet you presuppose Marxist Class Theory, Marxist Economics, and Marxist history.

              On race and sex, you hold the full progressive delusions, including your extraordinary denial of the racial character of acid attacks, and of ethnic cleansing.

              On Global Warming you reject and deny the scientific method – you don’t believe any of the things you tell us you believe.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*Deleted*]

          • jim says:

            Deleted for telling us what Victor Davis Hanson thinks.

            I have never heard of Victor Davis Hanson, and upon looking him up, I predictably found that it is not what he thinks.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Yes it is.

              You censored the link but it’s the most recent one on his blog that Social Matter has linked in TWiR 23rd December.

              He points out that global corporations are fully liberal and full beneficiaries of and participants in The Cathedral. (He’s more conservative than reactionary so he doesn’t use that term but it’s your ‘shibboleth’ lol)

              They’re up to their necks in it, so he says, so I guess he’s a Marxist, right?

              • jim says:

                Yes, I agree that Socialist Matter are a bunch of commies who want to murder everyone like me.

                The rest of them, however, you are lying about.

              • Mike says:

                Even if what you said was true CR, according to the theories and philosophies put forward here on this blog, the only reason that the global corporations seem to act this way and seem to be a part of the regime is because culture is downstream of power and the power in the world (the progressive United States government) wants to spread its ideology universally and so forces everyone to go along with it.

                If the corporations try to not be progressive, they are very quickly forced to be progressive, as Jim has shown with real-world examples. Corporations only seem to benefit now because if they defect from the state religion they are hit with punitive actions which are obviously less ideal than just accepting the status quo and employing women, diversity quotas etc, etc, etc.

                Does this mean that I find global corporations attractive in the present day and age? Well not really due to all the pozz they push in my face. BUT, that’s the thing, I realize that the only reason they push the pozz is due to ideology coming from on high, not their own convictions.

                Basically, no one has a right to get angry at capitalism for pushing pozz. If you want to criticize it, go at it from some other angle like “capitalism destroys local languages” or “capitalism creates a soulless mono-culture” or something else. I’m sure we will disagree with that as well, but the argument for pozz is transparently false and virtually indefensible.

                • pdimov says:

                  “If the corporations try to not be progressive, they are very quickly forced to be progressive, as Jim has shown with real-world examples.”

                  There’s an argument to be made that corporations recently tend to go above and beyond the minimum necessary to avoid punishment for nonprogressivism. They are being woker than needed, too woke.

                • jim says:

                  Again, let us consider the great minority mortgage meltdown:

                  Obviously Countrywide was being woker than other banks – and was rewarded by being enabled to take over those other banks using depositor money. Countrywide was indeed run by true believers – who gained power as a result of state action rewarding true believers. Angelo Mozilo gained power as a result of a program empower minorities in banking – which in practice tended to deliver power to people political activists such as Angelo Mozilo. He was allowed to unload his dud loans on government agencies, though was never able to unload all of them.

                  Banking takeover contests, instead of promising the shareholders payouts, promised the regulators higher levels of holiness, and Angelo Mozilo was the holiest of all.

                  Conversely, Bank of Beverly Hills was destroyed by the regulators, not for failing to make million dollar loans to cat eating wetbacks with no income, no job, and no assets, but for making such loans with gritted teeth and doubting that they were a good idea.

                  Moving forward to destruction of Star Wars. The company that produced the subtly reactionary “Duck Tales” obvious is not pozzed. It, however, gave Star Wars to a woman who made no secret of the fact that she hated Star Wars, hated the fans of star wars, and wanted to make them cry, because she threatened to Kavanaugh the the board. And then the production of Star Wars was pozzed.

                  Similarly, the board of Google is certainly pozzed. Are they more pozzed than they need to be? Well, HR threatened them with a lawsuit if they failed to fire Damore, and conspired with leftists to set up grounds for suing Google, so they are not a whole lot more pozzed than they need to be.

                  Yes, Countrywide Bank was enthusiastically pozzed, and Google is enthusiastically pozzed, but they are not the cause of the poz.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “There’s an argument to be made that corporations recently tend to go above and beyond the minimum necessary to avoid punishment for nonprogressivism.”

                  That what happens in purity spirals (or as Jim says holiness) everyone tries to stay ahead of the purges.

                  Of course historically you actually tend to be better off being an open heretic…

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Pdimov,

                  Those corporations run by True Believers do indeed go above and beyond with pushing the poz. Leftists always want to be lefter-than-thou, and some leftists happen to be quite rich. On the other hand, corporations run by apolitical people or by right-wingers (secret or otherwise) don’t go overboard with poz-pushing. They signal political correctness and hire some women and non-whites, but whenever possible, pursue profit sans ideological overtones.

                • pdimov says:

                  Maybe. My theory is that the recent trend is caused by “demographics” as all recent trends are. Namely, once you put enough women in management, suicidal wokeness follows. But I could be wrong.

                • jim says:

                  > Once you put enough women in management, suicidal wokeness follows

                  Suicidal Wokeness follows because once you have enough women in management, they instinctively perceive customers, employees, and shareholders as betas, and want to destroy them and make them go away, thus run the company into the ground in acts of destructive, vicious, hateful, and stupid hostility to customers and employees.

                  But how is it that you have any women in management at all? I recall very recently, there were always precisely zero women in management.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Maybe. My theory is that the recent trend is caused by “demographics” as all recent trends are. Namely, once you put enough women in management, suicidal wokeness follows. But I could be wrong.”

                  That is PART of it but the women are more lower level Cathredral commisars then makers of decisions.

                • pdimov says:

                  In my theory, the commissars push for women being put in management and executive positions, and the suicidal wokeness is a second order effect of that.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, quite so.

                  But a more accurate account of the same phenomenon is that the commissars push for women being put in management and executive positions, and then women in management naturally and spontaneously pursue corporate suicide, driven by the same instinctive revulsion for betas as drives a woman married to a beta husband to destroy her marriage, the family assets, and her children’s lives.

                  And, in the current environment, corporate suicide is apt to take the form of suicidal wokeness.

                  If you fail a shit test, your women will turn on you, and when the corporation puts women in management, it has failed a shit test.

                  As I am fond of saying, if women had a shit test that would reliably cause betas to catch fire and die horribly, and reliably cause alphas to beat them with a big stick, they would use it all the time.

                  This glass ceiling shtick is a shit test that reliably causes beta male corporations to die.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  There’s an argument to be made that corporations recently tend to go above and beyond the minimum necessary to avoid punishment for nonprogressivism. They are being woker than needed, too woke.

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJtrLKGZZFg

                  What does is say about someone who finds out the minimum level of wokeness and only does that, huh? Kinda feels like they don’t really believe in wokeness, doesn’t it?

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so. Bank of Beverly Hills did the bare minimum of million dollar loans to cat eating no hablo English wetbacks with no income, no job, and no assets, as if they secretly suspected that this was a bad idea, and the regulators destroyed them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for endless repetition and obstinate stupidity. Like a flat earther, a Marxist makes an obviously absurd argument, and then responds to rebuttals by repeating himself a zillion times

            • simplyconnected says:

              Incidentally, what’s your take on Victor Davis Hanson?.

              He seems very reasonable and thoughtful, but I still can’t understand why he thinks it’s a good idea for the US to assimilate very different populations. Not doubting his good intentions, but may be wishful thinking on his part, perhaps simply not possible. (But he may simply be saying those things to not get unpersoned).

              • jim says:

                Havel’s Greengrocer.

                No one can speak the truth under his own name.

                Whosoever speaks to you under an identity easy to find and destroy, necessarily lies.

  20. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Merry Christmas. Keep on questioning and keep on reacting.

    You people are 90% of the way there. You harbour some odd biases when it comes to holding the business community accountable but as odd biases go, these aren’t infinitely toxic.

    • jim says:

      You are telling us that Nazism is the truest form of reaction, and progressivism the truest form of Nazism. You are not only no reactionary, you are no Nazi.

      I expect that on another blog, you are telling conservative Muslims that “Moderate” Islam (the Islam that American soldiers are getting killed trying to impose on Afghanistan) is the truest form of Islam, and progressivism the truest form of Moderate Islam.

      Nazis are commies, commies are Nazis. We are not Nazis and not commies.

      Hitler stopped the Nazi left wing singularity, and stopped it from going insane, just as Cromwell stopped the puritan left wing singularity, and kept it reasonably sane, and Stalin stopped the communist left singularity, and kept it from going totally suicidal.

      Nazism is leftism of the 1930s, and is right wing only because the current left has moved on. We are fans of the rightism of 1660, and complain not about Hitler purging the Jews, but about him purging the German aristocracy – If we were Germans, we would be seeking the restoration of the form of rule Germany had in 1900. I seek the restorati

      Unfortunately no one is yet in a position to stop the progressive left wing singularity. In the discussion over wildfires, it became obvious that urban leftists want rural whites to die in a fire. You people want us gone, you are instituting policies to get rid of us, and are increasingly comfortable with policies that get rid of us in horrifying ways.

      • Ron says:

        It is destruction of competitors due to the innate insecurity that God cannot provide

        From a material standpoint Jim, he is more consistent than you are. Ultimately in a material world you will run out of room for your descendants. He is simply ahead of you in trying to murder / castrate all his male competitors.

        Unfortunately for him and those like him, there is no “reasonable “ cutoff point for killing off ones sexual competitors, hence the leftwing singularity does not stop until there is no one left to kill. The holiness spiral only works as it does bc it is a rationalization for the chimpanzee desire to castrate / murder competing males / tribes. If an animal was aware of its actual purpose it could theoretically limit it. However humans are souls in specialized apes, and so must contend with a conscience when the animal desire manifests. No one wants to go around admitting they want to kill bc of perceived resource limitations for progeny. So they invent reasons to bypass conscience restraints. Since they are already bypassing the conscience restraints via lies, they create neural pathways that are attractive to the mind to use bc of the conflict avoidance between conscience vs animal desire. And so they repeatedly use it again and again, and it gets worse and worse, leading to the holiness spiral.

        In reality, God can do literally anything He likes. It is even LESS difficult for him to rewrite the physical rules than it is for a programmer to change a number. His stated intention is that He wants us to do what is both theoretically easiest and practically hardest. Talk to Him in self introspection to acertain that our actions are in line with His will. This requires great thought, extensive training, separation of the self from desires, to learn to use desires in moderation (requires extreme prayer and work. Anyone can fast, try adhering to a healthy diet), control of ones emotions etc etc

        • jim says:

          Hence, the worse the reality testing, the greater the evil. Thus communists enormously more evil than Nazis, Nazis more evil than the darkly enlightened, because their purported virtue comes cheaper.

          Observe that as progressives get further and further out of contact with reality, their evil gets greater and greater, as for example their support of wildfire policies that burned eighty five rural whites alive.

          Communists were originally more evil than progressives, because Class theory was more deluded than that all men are created equal. But as progressives accumulate more delusions, they become more evil, because their ever greater purported virtue becomes ever more detached from reality.

          • Mike says:

            Oof I did not interpret the Commiefornia wildfires that way, now I’m feeling stupid. I more just thought of them as the inevitable result of too much settlement and development in land everyone knew was prone to burning, much like New Orleans with Katrina.

            If I’m going to play devil’s advocate here I’ll say this, havent plenty of “good” progs been burned alive and forced from their homes due to Commiefornia’s retardation since the 80s?

            • jim says:

              Fire is an inherent part of the Eucalyptus life cycle. To prevent wildfires, have to engage in massive human intervention – regular and heavy handed fuel removal and cutting, or deliberately set fires when the weather is calm so that they will not be dangerous. As Trump said, various people do the former, Australia always does the latter. Choosing not to do either was choosing wildfire at a time of high winds.

              If you try to build outside the cities, you will find that the government very much does not want you to. They want to you to build close to an imported vote bank. Legacy Americans are being driven out of the places they have built, and not allowed to build in new places. Refusing to restrain wildfires, and criminalizing private action to restrain wildfires, is one of many many measures to prevent white people from building away from Democratic party vote banks.

              • Indeed. Even the Injuns cleared and burned to prevent bigger fires because huge fires are natural, and natural != good for people. California’s pine forests have pinecones that do not ever release their seeds unless subjected to bonfire-tier heat.

                Leftists, for their many faults, are not stupider than Injuns. Their purported ignorance is willful hostility.

                • Mike says:

                  Ya this has been a supposed “conflict” within US Forestry for a long time now. Do we allow forests to burn mostly on their own because that is their natural process and not allowing them to burn will fuck them up? Or do we micromanage the hell out of them to protect our property snd lives?

                  Originally of course, I dont think either of these plans involved “Let’s just let the fires burn totally out of control at the worst time of year and disproportionately affect rural people”.

                  Now of course it needs to be said that sometimes a wildfire will get out of control even if we try hard to prevent them, that’s just nature. When it happens over and over though (and is always blamed on climate change lmao) then ya, not buying it.

        • Koanic says:

          > Ultimately in a material world you will run out of room for your descendants.

          False. White people do not overpopulate.

          • That’s not true. The Malthusian boom/bust cycle of prosperity followed by war, pestilence, and famine was at play for a very long time in the West. Only way to circumvent it is imperialism. Britain has a population boom, Britain sends surplus population to the colonies, becomes world power. France has a population boom, then France has a food shortage and Louis XVI’s civil servants use it as an excuse to regicide him and his nobility, France in decline ever since.

            Industrial agriculture has simply raised the carrying capacity of the land higher. Whites not reproducing today is the collapse of patriarchy, we should ideally be brimming with surplus population and conquering other lands and Mars to keep our trad families with 8 kids from starving. Civ is like a shark, move or die.

            • Koanic says:

              I believe we’ve turned the corner on the white overpopulation problem, technologically. Some forms of patriarchy might bring it back, but those forms are suboptimal. The Biblical Institutes of the Law describe a system of Jubilee rests and cyclic living off the land which prevent wanton reproduction beyond the land’s carrying capacity. With modern contraception, I doubt whites would be so shortsighted and unaesthetic as to breed themselves into polluted slums.

              • Samuel Skinner says:

                Those who don’t breed will be outnumbered in the end by those who do.

                Getting everyone to work together and you’ll find people use restrictions on breeding to attack their enemies, politics will devolve into control of the rights of breeding, factions will form and collapse will occur.

                There is no way to order things to be perfectly stable.

                • Eli says:

                  Evolution (incl cultural) and development of technology are, generally, responses to resource-constrained environments under population pressure. Remove population pressure and those become misdirected or regress.

                  Anyone advocating explicit limits on reproduction by also setting an honest example with himself — is a cuck. A cuck — all other things being equal — similar of the kind who advocates for female empowerment or one who advocates for socialism outside extended family level.

                  Why is that? Because one advocating female empowerment begs to become a literal cuckold (hence, can be termed “suspected cuckold”) as well as, in effect, promoting general cuckoldry.

                  One advocating globalist socialism and honestly contributing to this idea himself without direct status reward is partial cuckold (directly in proportion to his contribution) and also promoting general cuckoldry by wasting resources on random trash-people.

                  One who advocates limits on reproduction from a top-down approach, be it universal or some-kind of bureaucratic metric (eg IQ or whiteness etc) wants to, in effect, stifle the most innate drive of humans: not just horizontally-wise but also vertically. As such, he promotes cuckoldry not merely for himself, his contemporaries and their descendants — he promotes cuckoldry for his own and others’ *ancestors* as well.

                  Hence, this is probably worse than classical cuckoldry.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Those who don’t breed will be outnumbered in the end by those who do.

                  You are speaking from the frame of someone living in a wholly atomized and centralized environment, in which there are zero barriers to entry between the several US states.

                  Under the Law, land is inalienably patrilineal. The overpopulators can only impoverish themselves, not everyone else.

                  > There is no way to order things to be perfectly stable.

                  Another straw man. The Law is not perfectly stable, it is antifragile. For example, after the near-destruction of Benjamin, it was rapidly regrown, because it kept its land.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “Under the Law, land is inalienably patrilineal. The overpopulators can only impoverish themselves, not everyone else.”

                  Unless they decide to conquer new lands. Or technology increases carrying capacity.

                  “Another straw man. The Law is not perfectly stable, it is antifragile. For example, after the near-destruction of Benjamin, it was rapidly regrown, because it kept its land.”

                  That only works as long as you don’t live in an area anyone else wants. Once empires come knocking, being antifragile just buys time until you die.

                • Eli says:

                  >conquer new lands

                  … or burrow underground. The long-term future of living for humanity is, generally, subterranean. The carrying capacity for this planet, Earth, is tens, if not hundreds, of TRILLIONS of people, existing in layers underground.

                  This is after controlled fusion power becomes available, of course. Imagine having entire countries, entire economies working underground. Yes, I include agriculture also: powerful sunlike sources of light allowing for year-round growing season for all crops etc. But that’s not all! Entire natural ecosystems will be brought underground, for preservation, relaxation and entertainment: together with rivers, lakes, and waterfalls.

                  A little taste:
                  https://youtu.be/U4cDjwsVFhg

                  What bothers me is how small-minded, faithless, and lacking excitement in tech and human ingenuity many people who consider themselves “intellectuals” are.

                  The longterm potential of civilization is bright. I don’t know whether it will be humanity-derived or from another planet, but living civilization will prevail and occupy the Universe.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  That sounds just like skyscrapers, but with even worse heat, constant need for reliability and higher odds of driving people crazy. I don’t think you can wring trillions out of it.

                • Eli says:

                  (Btw, I don’t think that tens/hundreds of trillions is a number achieavable within the next several millennia, more of in a scale of millions of years. I *do* think that a 100 billion people is definitely achievable within a millennium after really controlling fusion. But I am cheating here, because I’m assuming that above-ground living option is also exercised. Been to UT? AZ? NV? CA? Sahara? Gobi? Etc etc? Astonishing amount of viable desert!)

                  Yes, underground heat management will, eventually, become the primary concern deep enough/populous enough. It will require a lot of energy to resolve and new devices and systems built, systems to circulate excess heat out and devices to irradiate heat out to space. But it will be resolved (I can try to find you some links, one from MIT, as I recall)

                  And again: at first, only the first kilometer of land will be occupied, where heat won’t be a major concern: this should translate to at least two livable subterranean levels, more in some and less in some.

                  Au contrare, with regard to skyscrapers, I believe that some subterranean communities will opt for a farm and barn-like living arrangement. It will be possible. It might not be the cheapest option, but it might be both preferable and viable for some. A great majority might end up living in a combination of living arrangements reminiscent of towns. Or those of city boroughs like Brooklyn, with city downtowns for work and parks both inside and outside the livable zone.

                  In this view, the developer of space provides huge cavern space with an artificial climate. Then the people who buy a (subterranean) parcel are free to build whatever they want, as long as it conforms to the zoning requirements. Not different from what exists today. Furthermore, if the developer of the overall space is a sovereign-enough entity, there might be almost no practical limitation as to what the buyer might end up building there and his living arrangement. A bit similar to incorporated vs unincorporated land.

                • Average Frog says:

                  Eli – what would the purpose of a 10’s of trillions of people be?

                  Quality over quantity. Always, in everything. Can’t escape biology, as Jim said above, only justify it’s conflict with consciousness.

                  And also..huge population as it is now lowers quality of humans. Multiply that by any factor.. not going to have the technology, enough people of sufficient IQ to create technology, enough people of sufficient IQ to manage the masses of those with lower..

                  Or, you just implement eugenics – increase average IQ. But then, question becomes “Why do we want to live in each others pockets” , population will limit itself.

          • Ron says:

            Koanic, you can believe whatever you like, but God’s first command to humanity is to Be Fruitful And Multiply. Anyone who plays with this concept tends to find themselves with emasculated native male population and females who curiously vote to import swarthy savages that believe in selling them naked in chains at a slave market.

            • Koanic says:

              The command was spoken at the moment of minimum population density. It is perfectly obvious from many other passages of the Bible written at different times that natalism is either neutral or negative, depending on the historical context. The idea that the Bible commands 9 kids per family is as false as the idea that the New Testament discourages childbirth. Autism is real.

              • aculturate says:

                I think everyone here will be happy to see this new Dominos ad: https://www.ispot.tv/ad/dFwL/dominos-dinner-bell-pizza-night-hero

                Can proles keep their wives in line if they’re perfectly /comfy/ except the faceless computer, or their autism, says they’re not allowed to have another? Homer couldn’t just tell Marge that he was perfectly happy with 2 and a job at the bowling alley and the only reason Maggie isn’t Barney’s is that situation only persisted for a single episode.

                https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/do-it-for-her

                • jim says:

                  I support this Domino’s ad. Patriarch’s hot wife is working, so he orders the family pizza and summons the family home. including the working wife, who skips out of work early, telling us that family meal is more important than her job.

                  Dual income families are bad, because wife certain to get up to mischief, but a dual income family can afford pizza from time to time, and should do whatever it takes to prevent dual income from getting in the way of family meals. So the patriarch is doing the right thing, and the ad shows his family, including his hot working wife, responding appropriately.

                  And I support this Homer meme. I am at this moment trying get a girl pregnant, so, the meme resonates with me. She is asleep in bed a few feet from me as I type on my laptop, and we have a calendar tracking fertile periods on her phone.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                Psalm 128:3

                “Your wife will be like a fruitful vine within your house; your children will be like olive shoots around your table.”

                If that’s not natalism, don’t know what is.

                • Koanic says:

                  Sure, there are natalist passages in the Bible, and also anti-natalist ones, depending on the context. Anyone who suggests the Bible is for maximum childbirth at all times hasn’t read it.

              • Ron says:

                Cain didn’t care about that reasoning Koanic, he still murdered Able. And unlike us, he experienced direct prophecy, his awareness of God and reality makes us look like bacteria. He still fucked up. Which means the desire to murder for the sake of perceived resource constriction / expression of power over insecurity, exists regardless of resources or facts. I am telling you that your mind is fooling you like it does to us all.

                God has absolute control. The material world is a complete illusion. It’s entire purpose is to create a simulated sense of lack. We are meant to use this “lack” as a conversation starter with the Creator. That’s my job, your job and everyone else’s job. If the illusion wasn’t total it wouldn’t be worth anything. Yet it is an absolute illusion.

                Each soul perceives reality and need uniquely. Which means each souls prayer is absolutely unique. Which means each soul can request an aspect of good from God that only it can do. Which is why each human being is so precious. To request a good that only it even knows how to request. We do not EVER have “too many people”. What we have is too much confusion, bc not enough of us are begging God to save our insane selves.

                You have to get over the material perception. I wont pretend I have. If you knew me you’d know I’m a total wreck. But it’s still the truth.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  This is so true it hurts. I keep fighting it, trying to reason my way out of my predicaments and into a Better State. All of my earthly efforts, successes and failures alike, only serve to distract because I refuse to submit to GNON. I will keep trying. I don’t know who to turn to. We are looking for churches but the pozz is ridiculously insidious in every “house of god” we’ve attended across 3 distinct faiths. I feel like I’m drowning in a baby pool I filled myself.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Not what we said.

          Deleted for telling us what we said.

          When you tell us what we say, it is never what we said.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      CR,

      If you want to make a semi-plausible Nazi apologia here, you should go with “Weimar was priestly leftism, Nazism was (in relative terms) warrior leftism, thus Nazism was saner than Weimar. Jews fundamentally view themselves as a “kingdom of priests and a holy nation” according Exodus 19:6, and Nazis were a moderate leftist reaction to an excessive radical leftist Jewish priestly holiness spiral, thus Nazis had not really been villainous, until they themselves went around knocking down all of the apple carts in order to grab some kosher apples.”

      Of course you won’t say that, because you’re an apple-cart-knocking priest.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Deleted for telling us what the Daily Stormer thinks. It is not what they think. I completely support the Daily Stormer position on this issue. I completely oppose your version of the Daily Stormer position on this issue.

          If you want to argue for the British Government’s socialist measures, tell us that you favor the British Government for such and such reasons, not that Daily Stormer supports the British Government for such and such reasons.

          If you come out arguing in favor of the British Government, then I will pass it. If you tell me the Daily Stormer supports the British Government, will be deleted. Yes, Daily Stormer are socialists, and I will argue with them about that. But they are not your kind of socialist, and not the British government kind of socialist. If you want to support the British Government, tell us the British Government are good guys, and I will argue with you. Don’t tell me Daily Stormer thinks the British Government are good guys. I will delete your comment.

          Not falling for “Lets you and him fight”

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            I’ve remarked before that you’re as bad as The Guardian.

            You’re actually worse. You’re willing to not only lie cheat and censor, you’ll actually censor then lie about the post that was censored, leaving the poster unsure of what they’re supposed to defend themselves against, given that you’re saying they said something they definitely didn’t say.

            In this case, something about the British government, but nobody knows what because you censored then replied.

            For the record, no sane person has much at all good to say about the British government. If I had to be as generous as humanly possible, I’d say they probably know more about the likelihood of civil unrest and so on than they’re letting on, and some of their policies are patches over an already bad set of decisions going back decades.

            That’s extremely over-generous. An equally plausible explanation is that they’re doing all the mad things they do because they’re bastards who hate us all.

            As for the Stormer, I might not endorse every single thing coming out of that platform, but I endorse 90% or more and Andrew Anglin strikes me as one of the most insightful writers working today, not to mention easily the most heroic. I’m certainly not misrepresenting him.

            Again because you censored then replied, I have no means to know what precisely you’re accusing me of based on what precisely I’m supposed to have said, so perversely I find myself having to restate my position, which opens me to accusations of repetition (by design of course) which justifies further suppression.

            You’d make an excellent priest. That’s not a compliment.

            • jim says:

              I did not censor the link. I censored you attributing to the link, to Andrew Anglin and to the Stormer views that were the opposite of the loudly and frequently expressed views of the stormer.

              Feel free to give us the link again – without material that would compel me to defend a group I don’t particularly wish to defend.

              He is a nazi and you are a commie, and you keep telling us that he is a commie. He is not.

              What he proposes to do about food in that link is entirely sound and reasonable. What you propose to do about food would involve murdering everyone like me, followed by famine and mass murder.

      • jim says:

        CR’s position is always and unvaryingly that we should ally with the priesthood against our real enemy, our real enemy being “capital” – capitalists reified as a single being.

        Thus the Trotskyite tells the peasant with one cow that his real enemy is the “kulak”, the peasant with two cows, and that the peasant should therefore ally with the Trotskyite Jews from the big city to kill his neighbors cows. “Hail fellow member of the oppressed classes. Jews are oppressed too you know”

        And the peasant with one cow then helps the Jews from the big city kill his neighbors cows.

        Meanwhile the Trotskyites are telling the Orthodox Jews “Hail fellow Jews, we are suckering these Christians into allying with us Jews, and when we have them fighting each other, we will destroy them”

        And so the Jews help the peasant with one cow kill the cows of the peasant with two cows. “Hah hah, says the Trotskyite, “Hail fellow Jews. Now that this Christian is socially isolated, we will take his seed corn. ” So they kill the cow of the peasant with one cow, then they pour petrol over his children and set them on fire to force him to reveal where the seed corn is buried, then they force him to dig up the seed corn, and then they kill him.

        Then the Trotskyite, who never really cared about the seed corn, grabs one of his fellow Jews, and tells him he is a capitalist hoarder and oppressor of the masses, and tortures him with pliers and hot irons into revealing where his gold coins are. And having obtained the gold coins, tortures his supposedly fellow Jew some more, in the hope that there are more gold coins, but since there are no more gold coins his fellow Jew expires under torture.

        Then the trotskyite points out that all the noble work he has been doing for the oppressed victims of capitalism makes him holier than Stalin, and Stalin piously concedes his superior holiness, but finds some excuse to kill the Trotskyite before the Trotskyite is in a position to kill Stalin.

        The leftist who tells you “Hail fellow member of the oppressed, lets knock over this apple cart and grab some apples”, is very likely after your apple cart and your apples. Thus they announce they are friends of the American working class, who should ally with them against evil billionaires, while seeking to destroy the working class in favor of an imported vote bank living on crime and welfare – hence spotted owl, global warmng, Paris Treaty, wildfires, and TransPacific Partnership.

        Leftists were always telling us that the TransPacific Partnership was a plot by our evil capitalist overlords seeking cheap overseas workers, but it was Obama and the Democrats pushing it, and Trump and the Republicans that killed it.

        Notice how Carlylean Restorationist always denies that the financial stress suffered by the white working class has anything to do with the imported vote bank living on crime and welfare. No, it is Domino’s pizza selling a family meal of pizza to the man with a working wife that is causing the financial stress.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I’d never censor anyone for telling me what they think I think. With that in mind, since it’s not yet 2019, a few corrections and agreements:

          “CR’s position is always and unvaryingly that we should ally with the priesthood against our real enemy, our real enemy being “capital” – capitalists reified as a single being.”

          I’ll let your eccentric use of reification slide because it’s not important.
          My position has always been that the Sovereign is sovereign, not the priesthood, and that when it comes to commerce, two rules apply:

          1. The priesthood has nothing to do with it; they can mind their own business
          2. The sovereign will sometimes come to believe that some activities are a net detriment to society. Those activities will not be guided or regulated, they will simply cease.

          As for aggregating capitalists into an amorphous blob, that can be legitimate sometimes so I’ll tentatively agree with your analysis there, except for the usual caveat: the above applied – the sovereign MAY conclude that something needs to be shut down, but he also might not. In fact most of the time he most certainly won’t, so in that specific sense, obviously capitalists are handled on a case by case basis and not as an amalgam.

          “Thus the Trotskyite tells the peasant with one cow that his real enemy is the “kulak”, the peasant with two cows, and that the peasant should therefore ally with the Trotskyite Jews from the big city to kill his neighbors cows. “Hail fellow member of the oppressed classes. Jews are oppressed too you know”

          And the peasant with one cow then helps the Jews from the big city kill his neighbors cows.”

          Nice story. Has nothing **at all** to do with King Henry VII telling Domino’s Pizza it’s no longer trading in Britain.

          [Jim then goes on to tell a charming story about how Trots are the *real* kikes and the reader’s invited to use the term ‘Trotskyist’ for the person who says the King may very well shut a few businesses down if they’re doing bad things in his domain, over which he is sovereign.]

          [Jim then tells another story about the TPP and how leftists (presumably leftists like people who say the King is sovereign and can just shut businesses down if he so wants in his own bloody country lol) say this and that… none of which really relates to my position at all – in fact I don’t think I’ve said a word about TPP. I expect if we had a true leader with actual sovereignty, trade deals would look rather different to this very American-revolutionary-styled document that enshrines the rule of laws over men. A sovereign enshrines the rule of men over laws, so pretty much the opposite really.]

          “Notice how Carlylean Restorationist always denies that the financial stress suffered by the white working class has anything to do with the imported vote bank living on crime and welfare. No, it is Domino’s pizza selling a family meal of pizza to the man with a working wife that is causing the financial stress.”

          I’m not going to provide citations so I’ll just flatly deny this. I’ve moaned about immigrants quite a few times, as you’d expect of a ‘vile racist’ 😀
          Net migration of unskilled workers is the worst possible thing for the native working class and especially the native WHITE working class who always go to the back of the queue.

          Nevertheless it’s true to say a lot of people are wasting a LOT of money at Domino’s Pizza to buy their overpriced toxic crap, and the *simplest* solution would just be to shut them down entirely, thereby cutting off their advertising, their status, their connections to the Cathedral and everything else.
          We do not in fact have a similar problem with independent pizza houses, only the corporate chains. People generally buy pizza from little kebab businessmen when they want one, and the only change in a healthy society would be the businessmen wouldn’t be kebabs.

          Anyway the reader gets the picture – ASSUMING Jim doesn’t declare “no I will not let you tell us what you think – I KNOW what you think far better than you do”…………. hmmmm something smells funny.

          • jim says:

            > I’d never censor anyone for telling me what they think I think.

            You keep telling everyone that they accept the official religion, no matter how many times or how vehemently they deny it. This forces people to repeat what they said, which is a waste of bandwidth. If I allowed this through, we would forever be going around in circles.

            > > “CR’s position is always and unvaryingly that we should ally with the priesthood against our real enemy, our real enemy being “capital” – capitalists reified as a single being.”

            > I’ll let your eccentric use of reification slide

            My use of reification is standard.

            > My position has always been that the Sovereign is sovereign, not the priesthood,

            Your “sovereign” intervenes in every detail of every person’s life to enforce superior holiness, thus to enforce the superior status of what I am calling “the priesthood”. He is the sovereign of priests, the high priest, not sovereign of warriors, not the King. He creates a holy society according to holiness standards of the set that drink Coke Zero in a Prius – which is not our tribe, and not our standard of holiness.

            > > “Thus the Trotskyite tells the peasant with one cow that his real enemy is the “kulak”, the peasant with two cows, and that the peasant should therefore ally with the Trotskyite Jews from the big city to kill his neighbors cows. “Hail fellow member of the oppressed classes. Jews are oppressed too you know”
            > >
            > > And the peasant with one cow then helps the Jews from the big city kill his neighbors cows.”

            > Nice story. Has nothing **at all** to do with King Henry VII telling Domino’s Pizza it’s no longer trading in Britain.

            The guy that owns the pizza parlor (remember Domino’s is a franchise, it does not actually own the Domino outlets) is the peasant with two cows. We are the peasant with one cow. You are the person from a very alien culture, who claims he is one of us, while in fact being part of a very different culture that speaks very differently to the way we speak. The guy who owns my nearest Domino’s is a nice guy – my race, my religion, my culture, talks as I talk. You talk like a British academic. You want to destroy him. You want people like me to conflict with people like me, while people like you rule over people like me. “Capital” is not a faceless blob that rules the world. It is the guy who owns the place where I buy pizza. He is a small businessman who has spent a lot of time working for other people, and I am a smaller businessman who has spent a lot of time working for other people – I am the peasant with one cow, he is the peasant with two cows. You tell me he rules the world, and is oppressing me and yourself. I don’t think so.

            > > “Notice how Carlylean Restorationist always denies that the financial stress suffered by the white working class has anything to do with the imported vote bank living on crime and welfare. No, it is Domino’s pizza selling a family meal of pizza to the man with a working wife that is causing the financial stress.”

            > I’m not going to provide citations so I’ll just flatly deny this. I’ve moaned about immigrants quite a few times, as you’d expect of a ‘vile racist’ 😀

            But you are a vile racist – you supposedly hate immigrants for no good reason out of sheer evil causing you to wish to harm people different from us, just as we vile racists supposedly do while denying the problems that immigrants are causing for natives, ignoring or denying the way the world is actually working.

            You tell us we are vile racists who hate people different from ourselves and want them to suffer for no good reason, and tell us that you are one of us, that you also hate people different from yourself for no good reason and want them to suffer even more than we want them to suffer.

            You think we are vile racists, and tell us you are one of us. But we are not vile racists, and you are not one of us. You are unable to emulate our shibboleths correctly, because our shibboleths are part of our description of the world, and you are in denial that the world is that the way that it is.

            > Net migration of unskilled workers is the worst possible thing for the native working class

            In your account of the world, they are imported to work, and are in fact working, that they come in expecting to assimilate, and are in fact assimilating.

            > Nevertheless it’s true to say a lot of people are wasting a LOT of money at Domino’s Pizza to buy their overpriced toxic crap

            Domino’s pizza is a whole lot healthier than the crap that Coke Zero in a Prius people eat – no soy, lots of saturated fat, and lots of protein. Saturated fat is a health food, the cleanest burning fuel. Too much fuel is a problem, but if you are eating the correct amount of calories, it is better to obtain about fifty percent of your calories from saturated fat, thirty percent from protein.

            Everyone I see eating Domino’s pizza, can afford it.

            What they cannot afford is housing, healthcare, and ever longer educational attendance. And the reason that they cannot afford housing is that the vote bank imported to live on crime, welfare, and voting left drives white people out of the places that they built, and whites are forbidden to build new places.

            The recent wildfires in California reflect a policy of burning alive whites who build new places. You want us to build close to the imported vote banks. You want us burned alive. And that is why you will not mention ethnic cleansing of whites, nor the difficulty in obtaining building permits. We are both being forced to flee the places we have built, and prevented from fleeing. We resent the obstacles to building, we resent being burned alive a lot more than we resent people who come here to work for a living.

            H1Bs, people who come here to work, are a problem, but they are not the big problem. The big problem is that we are being displaced. You will notice that Trump brought the H1B program to a screaming halt, and no one much cared, neither his enemies nor his supporters. H1Bs are causing pressure on wage and work opportunities, but they are not beating up our children and driving us out of our homes.

            > and the *simplest* solution would just be to shut them down entirely, thereby cutting off their advertising, their status, their connections to the Cathedral and everything else.

            We do not in fact have a similar problem with independent pizza houses, only the corporate chains. People generally buy pizza from little kebab businessmen when they want one, and the only change in a healthy society would be the businessmen wouldn’t be kebabs.

            Domino’s is the little kebab businessman. Except that the man who owns the local Domino’s is white and talks like me, and the man who owns the local kebab joint is brown and talks funny. Further, pretty sure that when your imported terrorists come to murder me, the kebab man will identify with the terrorists, lining up on the basis of race and religion, rather than lining up on the basis of who works, and who lives on crime and welfare.

            García Zárate murdered Kathryn Steinle on the embarcadero because she was white. The people who voted to acquit him, voted on the basis of racial, ethnic, and religious identity, not on the basis of economic identity, and if a Muslim murders me, the guy who runs the kebab joint will vote to acquit. That is the problem, not the quality of pizza. You are telling us to outgroup the man who owns the pizza joint, who will be on my side when your guys come to kill me, and ingroup the man who owns the kebab joint, who will be on your side when your guys come to kill me. This is similar to the Trotskyite telling the peasant with one cow to ingroup the Jews from the big city, and outgroup the peasant with two cows, preparatory to killing both peasants and taking their stuff. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*deleted*]

              • jim says:

                repetitious, and repetitiously attributes to me beliefs almost the opposite of my frequently and forcefully stated beliefs.

                Rebuttal would require me to say all the same things all over again.

            • The Cominator says:

              “H1Bs, people who come here to work, are a problem, but they are not the big problem. The big problem is that we are being displaced. You will notice that Trump brought the H1B program to a screaming halt, and no one much cared, neither his enemies nor his supporters. H1Bs are causing pressure on wage and work opportunities, but they are not beating up our children and driving us out of our homes.”

              I got very much f***ed over by them out of engineering school and was very very happy with Trump for ending it. But you are right that the capitalists don’t much care and didn’t care.

              I think H1Bs are more a cathedral lobby policy so people blame the capitalists, much as they often use jews to do their dirty work so if something goes wrong they can blame the Jews.

              • pdimov says:

                “I think H1Bs are more a cathedral lobby policy so people blame the capitalists…”

                Since Silicon Valley “capitalists” openly advocate for H1B, this would imply that Silicon Valley is a Cathedral front. (A statement with which I won’t necessarily disagree.)

                Unz doesn’t seem to think so; in his opinion it’s all very natural: http://www.unz.com/runz/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-and-others/

                • The Cominator says:

                  To a large degree it is.

                  Twitter definitely glows in the dark, that Trump used twitter so successfully and was too high profile once he became a problem has to fill them with particular rage.

                  Google has glowed in the dark since at least 2013 though perhaps not originally.

                  Zuckerberg’s problems probably have a lot to do with him resisting direct spook control. He doesn’t want to be just a frontman and thinks overt censorship is bad for business.

                  But as for the capitalists lobbying for it… they haven’t lobbied very hard. Didn’t push back much against Trump ending it. The worsts “capitalists” types who aren’t believing leftists in general in regards to immigration are the Koch brothers (my father actually used to know one of the two active ones and another one who isn’t an active Koch brother)… I don’t understand why they care about open borders but they apparently do.

                  Sheldon Adelson otoh whos business actually uses low skill immigrants (which the Koch brothers businesses do not) was totally willing to drop the issue after meeting with Trump.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  The politics in Silicon Valley are a mixture of Bernie Bro Communism and — may Allah forgive me for even uttering that phrase — “Left Libertarianism.” That’s the Grey Tribe discussed by Scott Alexander and Pax Dickinson, of which both are members. Yes, Silicon Valley much preferred Clinton to Trump.

                  Does that mean that the Cathedral is in control of Big Tech? Yes and no.

                  Yes, in the sense that USG is as deeply embedded in Silicon Valley as it is in Hollywood, if not more so; California is similar to Washington, D.C. and New York in this regard.

                  No, in the sense that there has always been, and will always be, a conflict-of-interest between priests who value holiness above all else, and who view the status of the priestly complex as supreme to that of all other classes, and, on the other side, capitalists and techie-nerds who (respectively) value money and tech above all else, *even while* espousing and perhaps sincerely believing in the state religion.

                  That conflict manifests in the Cathedral always being “concerned” that Silicon Valley may contain the seeds of counterrevolution – which, as a matter of fact, it does.

                • pdimov says:

                  Well, Zuckerberg is still very visible at https://www.fwd.us/founders/. It’s true that fwd.us hasn’t achieved much.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator I’ve shown you dozens and dozens of names of people who wholeheartedly agree with the Kochs, whether it’s the people behind fwd dot us or whether it’s vetted and approved capitalists like Harry’s Razors and Eric Sprott.

                  People on the dissident right are not the same as libertarians but many (such as yourself and the host) believe they’re on the same basic side as libertarians and ultra-pro-business types.

                  This is a huge mistake. Open borders are beloved of libertarians for the exact same reason as free trade and the love runs just as deep.

                  Nationalism and libertarianism are completely incompatible, which is not to say that you shouldn’t advocate for a low regulation, small government environment: of course you should; but just don’t expect capitalists/libertarians to ever agree with you about tariffs (unless they benefit personally) or especially immigration control.

                  You say capitalists are unenthusiastic about having workers trained overseas then imported ready-made, rather than having to train people themselves. Seems unlikely to me. It’s just the kind of cost-saving measure people in business love. Margins are much smaller than people generally think and it’s much harder to make money than is widely assumed, so you’d better believe they lobby hard for continued downward wage pressure and offshoring of the training burden.

                  David Ricardo was disastrously wrong, and I say that as someone who greatly admires Sudha Shenoy’s talks at Mises University. She’s absolutely right about the international division of labour and so was he, but neither of them face up to the fact that in the age of easy transportation of goods and even easier transportation of people and ideas, there’s nothing preventing that division of labour turning into a simple race to the bottom. Don’t like paying wages for your call centre? India’s been training up its own technicians.

                  Any capitalist who adopts a parochial perspective is putting himself at a suicidal disadvantage.

                • jim says:

                  > people on the dissident right are not the same as libertarians but many (such as yourself and the host) believe they’re on the same basic side as libertarians and ultra-pro-business types.

                  We are on the same same side as Koch and company, in the sense that they are the enemy of our enemy, and in the sense that when we are in power they will cheerfully serve us, as they today not quite so cheerfully serve those in power.

                  Many years ago, my supposedly pozzed boss, had me deal with a social justice warrior, and wordlessly indicated approval of how I dealt with her. I assume the reason his signal was wordless, was because if either of us spoke out loud about what was happening, he would have had to fire me.

                  We both acted as if spies from the secret police, aka HR, were listening at the door.

                  Therefore, pretty sure, that when we are in power, everyone is going to swear they were Havel’s Greengrocer, for having gotten drunk with a few capitalists, I know that one hell of a lot of them are Havel’s Greengrocer.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Koch’s are acting genuinely strangely in bribing Republican politicians to be for mass immigration. They are at the foundationer level wealth where its really really hard for the Cathedral to fuck with them and Adelson who is not as powerful as they are (who dropped any support for open borders immediately after meeting with Trump) is not acting as they are.

                • jim says:

                  Cheap labor, as CR says, and also an effort to not appear to be right wing.

                  Certainly capitalists promote H1B immigration for reasons of self interest, as every engineer is painfully aware, but the massive importation of people to live on crime and welfare, women to live on child support, and men to live on crime and their numerous girlfriends, is not explicable by capitalist self interest. If the import of people from third world shitholes was good for capitalists, capitalists would be doing great in third world shitholes.

                • The Cominator says:

                  CR MOSTs genuine capitalists (not cronies and not foundationers) are /ourguys.

                  Koch’support for open borders is genuinely strange. They are prettymuch at the foundationer level and they support right wing economics but are militantly in favor of left wing immigration policy. They are powerful enough that their beliefs are probably genuine… its strange.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Censored for repetition.

                  You confidently assert that poz is in the interest of “capital”, making arguments you have posted before, and which have been rebutted before.

                  Why was the ever changing latest version of poz not in the interest of capital from 1660 to a few years before the current year?

                  H1B immigration is a net positive for capitalists, but it is not a net positive for capitalists to be taxed above the Laffer limit to fund the bastard spawn of a horde of people living on crime, welfare, and voting socialist.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Your argument has been rebutted far too many times already, and you simply ignore the rebuttals and repeat the argument.

                • Simon says:

                  Can Caloric Restrictionist please provide a basic description of his worldview and why it is justified.

            • The Cominator says:

              “García Zárate murdered Kathryn Steinle on the embarcadero because she was white. The people who voted to acquit him, voted on the basis of racial, ethnic, and religious identity”

              Jim some did but most were Cathedral fanatics who acquitted him because Trump made a lot about the case.

              There were a lot of Asians on the jury, 30 and probably 20 years ago most Asians in the US would be inclined to be MORE merciless about blacks or hispanics murdering whites then whites themselves would be because they would know full well that predatory minorities who murder whites would just as easily murder Asians.

              Sometime in the Dubya era the West Coast Asians got very very pozzed for reasons I don’t entirely understand…

              • jim says:

                When whites looked they were in charge, Asians reliably voted against blacks and hispanics murdering whites.

                When hispanics look they are about to be in charge, Asians reliably vote in favor of blacks and hispanics murdering whites.

          • jewish pedophile says:

            >I’ve moaned about immigrants quite a few times, as you’d expect of a ‘vile racist’ 😀

            You have suggested prohibition against alcohol on 3 different occasions as a means to prevent the increasingly prevalent acid-in-the-face attacks in London, without mentioning or even hinting at the ethnic background of the perpetrators of the acid attacks, implying white Englishmen are doing it.

            So, vile racist.

            1) Who is throwing acid in people’s faces in London?
            2) Do these people happen to practice a certain religion that, “coincidentally,” prohibits alcohol? If so, could it be that a prohibition against alcohol should not be applied against white Englishmen?

            Bonus question to challenge your vast intellect:

            3) If Bill can handle X, while Bob cannot, why should both Bill and Bob be deprived of X, rather than just Bob?

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Suspicious-styled commenter writes:

              “You have suggested prohibition against alcohol on 3 different occasions as a means to prevent the increasingly prevalent acid-in-the-face attacks in London, without mentioning or even hinting at the ethnic background of the perpetrators of the acid attacks, implying white Englishmen are doing it.”

              That’s a lie. I do support alcohol prohibition under a range of circumstances, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with the acid attack problem.
              The solution to the acid attack problem is twofold:

              1. Clamp down on the perpetrators: summary executions, curfews and community retribution – a heavy hand, if you will.

              2. Close the borders and incentivise peaceful repatriation.

              As for the tail end of your remark, you’re getting pretty desperate, ‘not Jim’ – that’s intellectual dishonesty of a whole new order.

              This personal who totally isn’t the host goes on:

              “1) Who is throwing acid in people’s faces in London?”

              Not necessarily who you think. It’s a scum problem and to a large extent a black problem. When the victims are women, it’s usually a Moslem problem, but it’s all the above.

              “2) Do these people happen to practice a certain religion that, “coincidentally,” prohibits alcohol? If so, could it be that a prohibition against alcohol should not be applied against white Englishmen?”

              Prohibition of alcohol is highly recommended for white Englishmen in a variety of circumstances. Nobody has any problem with rich civilised people drinking port at the gentleman’s club but most public drinking venues should be clamped down on mercilessly.
              Far from exempting the best people, the people society’s there FOR, it’s precisely those best people who are being exploited and harmed by the alcohol-entertainment industry.

              This is an emergency and we need martial law and draconian clampdowns on the excesses of global capitalism. Freedom’s a luxury we simply cannot afford just now.

              The irony of this person, totally not the host, accusing me of an egalitarianism that he himself rejects is so exquisite it’s hard to put into words:

              “3) If Bill can handle X, while Bob cannot, why should both Bill and Bob be deprived of X, rather than just Bob?”

              If Bill is white Englishmen and Bob is the assorted visitors who need to go back to where they came from, the short answer to your question is that people who care about this nation simply don’t give a damn about Bob.
              If Bill is a high agency, high IQ Englishman and Bob is someone at or below the 50th percentile in those things, the short answer is that people are not equal and cannot be expected to perform equally well just given adequate opportunity: that is a Whig myth and it’s precisely that myth of the equal capacity of all men that needs to be fought viciously and ruthlessly if we’re to restore a state of order in society.

              • jim says:

                > > “1) Who is throwing acid in people’s faces in London?”

                > Not necessarily who you think. It’s a scum problem

                Commie liar.

                > Prohibition of alcohol is highly recommended for white Englishmen in a variety of circumstances.

                Only by people who want to surrender to Islam and by old type puritans.

                I nave never in my life seen a white drunk male get fighting drunk, and I have seen a great many drunk people. I am unusually peaceable when drunk. No alternative but to turn the other cheek when I am wobbly on my feet, plus it just makes me friendly and tolerant.

                The puritan argument for prohibition was that evil males caused women to behave badly by plying them with strong drink – but they eventually abandoned that argument because women supposedly never ever behave badly.

                The problem of drunks is 100% a problem of female drunks and of nonwhite, non east Asian, drunks.

                In America, it is primarily a problem of Native American and Hispanic drunks. Alcohol is a race and sex problem, and if you cannot see what is in front of your face, you are blinded by political correctness. Women and people of certain races definitely need to be banned from alcohol. White males definitely don’t need to be, and anyone who talks about the problem without talking about race and sex is lying or driven mad by political correctness.

              • jewish pedophile says:

                You did not really answer the 3rd question, which is the very heart of the matter and hits right at the difference between your worldview and the Carlylean one.

                Bill can handle X.

                Bob cannot handle X.

                Why should *both* of them be deprived of X rather than just Bob?

                Your position is an evasion:

                >If Bill is a high agency, high IQ Englishman and Bob is someone at or below the 50th percentile in those things, the short answer is that people are not equal and cannot be expected to perform equally well just given adequate opportunity: that is a Whig myth and it’s precisely that myth of the equal capacity of all men that needs to be fought viciously and ruthlessly if we’re to restore a state of order in society.

                Yes, perfectly correct, and here I am asking you why Bill should pay the price for Bob’s character by himself losing access to X, rather than it being made sure that Bob stays out of trouble by depriving *him* of access to X.

                • Koanic says:

                  If slavery is banned, all freemen are slaves.

                  Those who cannot handle their special substances, should be owned by those who can, not by the State.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Exactly, Koanic. That’s what CR, ever a collectivist (commie), is in denial of.

                  He never suggests that the Bobs should be the slaves of the Bills. Rather, he wants both types to be equally deprived of X, Y, and Z, (where X, Y, and Z all happen to be provided by private businesses,) because both the Bills and the Bobs are supposedly victimized by “excessive capitalism.”

                  It’s almost like he isn’t really a Carlylean – just looking for pretexts to nationalize or shut down businesses…

                • jim says:

                  Carlylean Restorationist:

                  > > If Bill is a high agency, high IQ Englishman and Bob is someone at or below the 50th percentile in those things, the short answer is that people are not equal and cannot be expected to perform equally well just given adequate opportunity: that is a Whig myth and it’s precisely that myth of the equal capacity of all men that needs to be fought viciously and ruthlessly if we’re to restore a state of order in society.

                  jewish pedophile:

                  > Yes, perfectly correct, and here I am asking you why Bill should pay the price for Bob’s character by himself losing access to X, rather than it being made sure that Bob stays out of trouble by depriving *him* of access to X.

                  Particularly when X is something that every white male can handle, as near to all of them as make no difference, and one hell of a lot of nonwhites and women cannot handle.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “I am asking you why Bill should pay the price for Bob’s character by himself losing access to X, rather than it being made sure that Bob stays out of trouble by depriving *him* of access to X.”

                  It’th not faiiiiiiiir!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! /tantrum

                  Because we live in a society and when that society’s dysfunctional, sacrifices need to be made until order’s restored.
                  Your atomised individualism and protestations of the rights of the competent and devil take the hindmost is a HUGE part of the problem.

                  Sure, you and I (well, I anyway) don’t turn into psychopathic criminals just because there’s a bar in town that opens 24/7 and refuses to accept responsibility for its patrons’ behaviour once they step outside their door.

                  But so what? Plenty of others DO turn into psychopathic criminals and the answer is to simply shut the place down.

                  We need a massive dose of martial law and restricted freedom, probably for a good long time to come. This problem has been growing for hundreds of years and idiots like you think you can just cut off welfare, wag your finger and tell Johnny Sinkhole to pull himself up by his bootstraps and somehow, magically, he will…… or if you’re Roberto, just let him die in the street and people will willingly step over him.

                  At best you’re misguided fantasists with no understanding of history of human nature.

                  At worst you’re “fuck you Jack I’m alright” – why should IIIIIIIIIIIIII have my freedom restricted just cos of THAT guy? It’s SO UNFAIR MUMMY!

                • jim says:

                  > Because we live in a society and when that society’s dysfunctional, sacrifices need to be made until order’s restored.

                  What you propose is the opposite of order. It is anarcho tyranny, of which we already have terrible levels, and rapidly increasing levels. Superior people should not be subject to rule by their inferiors. The inferior should be subject to rule by the superior.

                  You think the priesthood, the people who drink Coke Zero in a prius, are the superior. We think the guy who owns the local Domino’s pizza, who is a nice guy both when drunk and when sober, is the superior.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive.

                  If we are misrepresenting your position, you need to clarify your position.

                  I complain and delete your comments when you tell us what we think, but then when we tell you what you think, I censor your response, which is unfair, but really, when someone calls you a leftist, it is not enough to tell us how rightist you are. You have been telling us how rightist you are for some time, and it is repetitious and unbelievable. Address the reasons why it is unbelievable, rather than just telling us to believe it.

                  Try again. If you give a response that acknowledges why we attribute these beliefs to you, I will let it through.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  >At worst you’re “fuck you Jack I’m alright” – why should IIIIIIIIIIIIII have my freedom restricted just cos of THAT guy? It’s SO UNFAIR MUMMY!

                  We want to restrict people’s freedom where it is sensible and right to do so. Catatonic Responsiveness, a cat lady with a Y chromosome, wants to do it just for kicks.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  No CR, the superior should not sacrifice his liberty for the inferior. The exact opposite should happen. Your inability to grasp that is why you’re a leftist.

                • Koanic says:

                  > we live in a society

                  Whenever a Prog starts talking this way, I develop a desire to alter the pronoun so that it no longer includes the both of us, preferably with a rusty boxcutter.

Leave a Reply