Cathedral imperialism revealed

We hear Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt discussing what role which people will play in the post coup Ukraine government, revealing that the Ukraine “opposition” are puppets, entryists, cogs in the Cathedral machine, loudspeakers for microphones held in Harvard.

They discuss what orders they will give to which Ukraine politicians, and what jobs they will assign to which Ukraine politician, like the CEO discussing new employees with HR, revealing that the “Unrest” in the Ukraine is a Cathedral plan to install a puppet regime.

Presumably this phone call was tapped by the Russian KGB, and then released by them to Youtube.

Trouble is, Cathedral puppet regimes have generally been disastrous, most infamously in Zimbabwe, Rwanda, the Congo, and Haiti.

This is not the colonialism that Neoreactionaries favor for the same reasons as North Korea is not the monarchy reactionaries favor.  Good imperialism is order supplied from outside.  Cathedral Leftism is disorder supplied from outside.  The old colonialism would punish, subdue, or enslave the worst elements of society.  Cathedral imperialism, most infamously in Rwanda, encourages them to run amuck.  Rhodesia was the old colonialism, Zimbabwe the new imperialism.

Hurrah for the Russian KGB!

It is interesting that the ambassador wets his pants in fear while speaking to Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, and his conversation implies he expects other leading lights in the Ukrainian protest movement to react similarly.

He is an ambassador. He should be able to maintain a polite, unimpressed, poker face under any circumstances. I am not an ambassador, but I can retain a polite, entirely unimpressed, poker face under very dire circumstances. What sort of an ambassador can be heard to wet his pants in fear? That man could not play poker.

Our ruling elite is, once again, revealed to be garbage. You don’t make weaklings ambassadors. Were the ambassador ever to speak with Putin, Putin would instantly know the truth.

Tags:

255 Responses to “Cathedral imperialism revealed”

  1. Ambassadors are political appointees, usually donors rewarded plum spots for political loyalty and money. They are entirely the puppets of the permanent State Dept bureaucrats.

  2. Anissimov says:

    >Russian KGB

    Ahem…

  3. Jokeocracy says:

    “Fuck the EU”.

    😀

  4. spandrell says:

    Hurrah indeed. This was classy. They should do this more often.

    • B says:

      They can’t do it more often, because it reveals a source of intel which will now be shut off. The fact that the Russians were willing to sacrifice such a valuable channel suggests that either a) they are desperate, b) they have multiple redundant channels, c) they figure that this leak is a surefire way to collapse the Ukrainian insurgency and prevent the Arab Spring scenario.

      • jim says:

        I have long known, and probably most of the Dark Enlightenment has long known, that there is a lot Cathedral Entryism, that most purported political activity comes from puppets. Now, everyone knows it, that State Department stooges are everywhere. That is worth paying a high price for. It is a major blow to Cathedral soft power.

        • B says:

          Russia is not playing for the Dork Enlightenment. Russia is playing for Russia, or rather, its elites.

          If you want stooges, look at Yanukovich, whose record includes doing jail time for stealing hats and misspelling the word “professor” on his resume.

          • Red says:

            >Dork Enlightenment.

            And jews wonder why no one likes them. They can’t help but shit on the goyim every chance they get.

          • B says:

            Are you saying we are…racis’?

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              The Palestinians should be given nuclear weapons.

              • jim says:

                You are an idiot. If the Palestinians had nukes, would use nukes on us, not on Jews.

                If you want Islam to be your friend, no alternative but conversion. And even then all the other slightly different variants of Islam will want to kill you.

                That is why the Rohingya are having so much trouble. Not only do Buddhists want to wipe them out, but all the other variants of Islam want to wipe them out even more – and for good reason.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  Or, they won’t use them at all, but kahanists like B (who is proud to be a racist bigot, even though it’s the Current Year) will have their arrogance finally stamped out of them, their fantasies crushed, and they’ll never solve their Arab Problem, as surely as Sweden won’t solve its Arab Problem.

                  (“We Jews have always been white people” – excellent, let’s talk about the stain of white privilege)

                  When the Arabs become a majority in Palestine/Israel or about to become a majority, the Jewish males will either be forced into figurative and literal cuckoldry by Abdul the dominant Bull, or they will simply abolish democracy altogether in favor of authoritarianism, in which case they will be held to account for their staggering hypocrisy.

                  Showcasing Jewish hypocrisy, and supporting Palestine ironically or non-ironically, are efficient ways to hasten the end of the Jewish Problem. Because a cornered animal doesn’t play any games, and when the Jews stop messing around, when they encounter authentic opposition (which right now they do not), perhaps — maybe — they will come to their senses and figure out who their allies are, and who their enemies are.

                  So, in the meantime, the Pallies should be immune from defeat. Recognizing their sovereignty over their territories, their right to self-determination, and their right to secede from the zionist tumor, are therefore to be rendered preliminary conditions. Here’s a caricature of B trying to shoot down mother Palestine, in vain:

                  https://latuffcartoons.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/apartheid-woman-vs-mother-palestine-israel-wonder-woman-mondoweiss2.gif?w=590

                  The shitskins have way better aesthetics than the kikes; Carlos Latuff may be a mouth-frothing leftist, and not even a real Jew-hater, but I appreciate his work; not being a white male, he’s not nearly as talented as Bougas or Garrison, but he’s done a good job nevertheless.

                  Really though, the “best” Jews in and around the alt-right miss no opportunity to spit in your face – for no reason, as this conversation from 2014 demonstrates, and as many others do as well.

                  It’s actually quite perplexing, given you’re much more of their ally than their enemy, at least relative to other bloggers. Do you see any other ethnicity treating its allies and semi-allies with such disdain? The aforementioned Palestinians — may Allah give strength to their warriors and avenge the blood of their martyrs — do not show the same contempt to their own fucking supporters as do the Jews. Evangelical Christians are despised by Jews, despite their ridiculous and slavish zionism; then again, who *isn’t* despised by the Jews?

                  B asked sarcastically if he’s a racist. Actually he isn’t, rather, he is a religious bigot par excellence, but the fundamental problem is his improper discrimination: he hates blacks, yellows, and browns equally, as long as they are goyim, but whites he hates with an unparalleled passion, simply because Jacob hates Esau. He hates whites so much that he even likes the mud Jews moreso than he likes Ashkenazim like himself, who have some white admixture. (In a sense, B is a self-hating Jew)

                  He would claim otherwise and mention that he served alongside whites — in a neocon war lolololol — but as Hitler would say, when you press the knife against the purulent wound, all the pus comes out.

                  Read his comments, and show them to the Jews on Twitter who have now decided that they are “white” and “have always been white.” Jews hate whites. Jacob hates Esau. These are the facts.

                  Blaming everything on the Jews is wrong, and you have falsely argued that this is what I am doing, and actually disabled the comments on one of your posts because I argued forcefully that Jews are to blame *even though* there are other problems, which I have also written about at length.

                  But Jews really are a bunch of arrogant pussies and chest-thumping sissies (no paradox, just look at them), cowardly whiners and histrionics who are yet characterized by unwarranted boastfulness, a syndicate of glorified dweebs, a collection of maggot-like weaklings with a penchant for bloodlust, dwarves who feel like giants – and I am sick of this shit.

                • jim says:

                  Allying with Jews will get you insulted and cheated.

                  Allying with Muslims will get you killed.

                  Don’t ally with Muslims, don’t support Palestinians. And if you convert to Islam, which may well become necessary in the near future, only ally with your particular type of Muslim.

          • Zarf says:

            Spandrell and Red are both Jew-hating filth.

            • jim says:

              Jews caused and cause real problems, as well as making great contributions to our culture and civilization. Need to be able to discuss these problems. B. argues that is not the Jews fault, that circumstances imposed on them by others frequently lead to some Jews, quite a lot of Jews, engaging in bad behavior, which is obviously also true. We need to be able to discuss these problems in a courteous and respectful manner. “Dork enlightenment” is not respectful, neither is “Jew hating filth”

          • B says:

            You, Moldbug, Spandrell, etc., deserve respect as individuals. Does the DE, as a movement composed of “guys writing blogs about how everything sucks”, most of whom, according to Spandrell, “think we’d be better off if Hitler won the war”? Does Stormfront also deserve my respect?

            What contribution to anything has this movement made? It seems to me that since it was officially declared a movement (which was a mistake,) the discourse has slipped a standard deviation down the IQ scale, and the signal-to-noise ratio has dropped. Before it was a movement, it was mostly individuals creating content. Now, it’s mostly hangers-on parroting the party line as best as they can understand it.

            Not only has most of the influx been parrots, but when the lines got drawn, great individuals producing actual useful analysis got left outside them, like William Lind and John Robb. What is respectable about that?

            What function is the DE currently serving (as a movement)? Other than creating a pre-revolutionary condition by making a general set of ideas acceptable at the expense of dumbing them way down, of course.

          • B says:

            And by the way, the least respectable thing about the DE is its antisemitism, which mirrors EXACTLY the NAM narrative about “we oppressed.” Of course, when NAMs whine about it, the DE’s answer is “might makes right, deal with it, say thanks for the clean drinking water.” Which is fair and logical-but what happens to that logic when it comes to the Jooos? Time for an unprincipled exception!

            • jim says:

              I don’t understand what you are saying.

              Sounds like you are saying that Jews secretly rule the world, and are doing a pretty good job. If Jews secretly rule the world, they are not doing a very good job.

          • spandrell says:

            >B

            You know perfectly well that neither here nor at my blog, hell 90% of NR blogs aren’t spouting the line that white europeans are poor victims of the evil Jews.

            Yeah we got a lot of commenters like that, some smarter than others. I’m perfectly fine with avoiding the topic as it bores me but you guys won’t shut up either will ya.

            And when I say we’d be better off with Hitler winning and not Stalin is that we wouldn’t have gay parades, Africans all over the West and all that. Obviously we’d trade 10 million Jews, bad bureaucracy and all the crap that Nazism meant to have Europe free of Cathedralism and the NAMs they import.

          • B says:

            >You know perfectly well that neither here nor at my blog, hell 90% of NR blogs aren’t spouting the line that white europeans are poor victims of the evil Jews.

            I know nothing of the sort. Reading between the lines, it is a recurring theme.

            >Yeah we got a lot of commenters like that, some smarter than others.

            Why is that? SOMETHING attracts them.

            >And when I say we’d be better off with Hitler winning and not Stalin is that we wouldn’t have gay parades, Africans all over the West and all that.

            Actually, had Stalin won, you wouldn’t have any of that stuff…for a while. Stalin’s USSR and that of his successors were quite conservative in that sense. Eventually, prosperity leads to loss of asabiyya, which leads to degeneracy.

            >Obviously we’d trade 10 million Jews, bad bureaucracy and all the crap that Nazism meant to have Europe free of Cathedralism and the NAMs they import.

            Obviously. Wait, obviously? How many Europeans have died since WW2 from NAMs? A few thousand? How many would the Germans had killed, had they won? And that is without the projection of imperial decline in a Nazi-run Europe. And for that, you’d trade my people being murdered? Wonderful.

            See, the DE is projecting when it blames the Jews for the decline of Western civilization for their national profit and out of general malice. In reality, a big part of the DE would, if it were up to them, destroy the Jews for marginal benefits, if any. This is basic projection.

            I would like to point out that this was not really a factor in the first generation of the DE blogs, before the DE emerged as a popular movement. But as it became more popular and more defined as a “movement,” with a name, core principles, etc., it moved down the IQ curve and to a lower common denominator. What’s easier to read, UR or Thrasymachus? What’s easier to summarize and pitch? Throw in the Game stuff, for more popular appeal-“it’ll get you laid!” Now you have a full set of chimp incentives.

            I predict that, if this process continues apace, the lowest common denominator will continue to drop, and the “neoreaction” will be reduced to Golden Dawn and other pigfaced ethnopopulist movements. Which is exactly what happened with the Right in post-WW1 Germany-it went from Von Salomon and Malleczewen-Reck to the genossen. The current DE leadership is, of course, preferable to the Cathedral’s leadership-they are both dorky, but the former is not corrupt (yet) and smarter. The leadership of a DE another standard deviation down the curve, with incentives to spread around, will be worse than that of the Cathedral, and especially from the perspective of the Jews (and anyone else who’s not down with the sickness, including the early DE leaders.)

            • jim says:

              Reading between the lines, it [antisemitism] is a recurring theme

              This is the Dark Enlightenment. We don’t write stuff between the lines.

              DE is projecting when it blames the Jews for the decline of Western civilization for their national profit and out of general malice.

              I have not noticed the Dark Enlightenment blaming Jews for the decline of western civilization. The dynamic is that Massachusetts conquered the world, not that Israel conquered the world.

              Jews were to blame for the civil rights movement, hence the propensity of civil rights activists to bleach their hair orange, but Jews were not to blame for the civil war.

              Jews rule Hollywood, but they don’t rule broadcast television, and broadcast television is worse than Hollywood.

              Don’t overreact to people making fun of orange haired civil rights activists. We hate everyone, we don’t pick on Jews.

          • B says:

            >We don’t write stuff between the lines.

            Everybody writes stuff between the lines.

            >I have not noticed the Dark Enlightenment blaming Jews for the decline of western civilization. The dynamic is that Massachusetts conquered the world, not that Israel conquered the world.

            This is your dynamic and Moldbug’s, and Foseti’s. The first wave blogs. It is not what I see over at Thrasymachus, Theden, etc. I recently read a fully reproduced piece of Soviet-produced agitprop purporting to be guidance issued by the Zionist Israelis to the Russian Jews in the 1950s, urging them to destroy the Russian race by conspiring against it and interbreeding with it.

            >Jews were to blame for the civil rights movement, hence the propensity of civil rights activists to bleach their hair orange, but Jews were not to blame for the civil war.

            So says you. In the next iteration, we will find out that in fact, they were, or that the Civil War was not as bad as the civil rights movement.

            >Jews rule Hollywood, but they don’t rule broadcast television, and broadcast television is worse than Hollywood.

            So says you, but in the next iteration we will find out that Hollywood leads broadcast t.v., the NYT leads Hollywood, the Ivies lead the NYT and the Jews lead them all.

            >We hate everyone, we don’t pick on Jews.

            So says you, but by the time this filters down to the masses and down the intelligence gradient, it will take the time-honored form. And I have family and friends back in the states who will be the victims (none of them are Cathedral employees except in the broadest sense, by the way.)

            • jim says:

              Jews were to blame for the civil rights movement, hence the propensity of civil rights activists to bleach their hair orange, but Jews were not to blame for the civil war.

              So says you. In the next iteration, we will find out that in fact, they were, or that the Civil War was not as bad as the civil rights movement.

              So you are blaming the Dark Enlightenment for thoughts that some people might think in future – and thus conforming to the stereotype of Jewish neuroticism and paranoia.

              Of course Jews have a good excuse for being paranoid, but it is still rather irritating. You have your own army now, no longer dependents. You can afford to leave the paranoia behind. Conversely, if retaining paranoia, you forget that you have your own army and your own land.

              Dark Enlightenment is reality based. Anti semites are inclined to make write very long books accurately depicting every bad thing done by any Jew anywhere ever, but such accounts are not reality based, not because the accusations are false, but because they ignore a lot of other bad things, such as the civil war. To start blaming Jews as the major source of evil, the Dark Enlightenment would need to move left, a long way left, would need to start accepting a whole lot of crap it currently rejects.

              If someone blames the Jews, he is saying that anglosphere movement left was just fine up to 1920, 1950 or so, but then it was bad.

              But that is the whole thing that the Dark Enlightenment rejects, we reject the program that we will accept every past movement left as unchangeable reality, and then attempt to call a halt to further movement left.

              The Jews cannot be the major cause of the movement left after 1930, 1950 or so, because we say the problem goes right back to “all men are created equal”, and the emancipation of women. To blame the Jews for it all, we would have to stop blaming all the stuff that happened in the nineteenth century. That would be pretty much the opposite of neoreaction. If we accept all the stuff that happened in the nineteenth century, not reactionaries any more.

          • B says:

            All I’m saying is that once you define something as a popular movement, there is a certain trajectory it takes to grow (assuming it doesn’t die.) That trajectory involves taking the initial truths and coating them in chimpbait. I am seeing chimpbait emerging.

            >Dark Enlightenment is reality based.

            Every major popular movement is reality-based, at first. Then it covers itself in chimpbait to gain popular support. This is a lot easier than the alternative, educating more people to the truth. Unfortunately, a barrel of honey+a cup of shit=a barrel of shit.

            • jim says:

              I am seeing chimpbait emerging.

              I am not seeing chimpbait. I am seeing your neuroticism and paranoia emerging. The Golden Dawn symbol is not a swastika, but a meander, which identifies not with Hitler, but with Metaxas, who fought Hitler when the commies supported Hitler. Further, Golden Dawn is populist, and the Dark Enlightenment is not.

          • B says:

            >The Golden Dawn symbol is not a swastika, but a meander, which identifies not with Hitler, but with Metaxas, who fought Hitler when the commies supported Hitler. Further, Golden Dawn is populist, and the Dark Enlightenment is not.

            Yeah, yeah, come on. If they had a swastika pointing the other way for their symbol and said, “you know, it’s an ancient Indoeuropean symbol,” you’d say, “bullshit.” It’s the same iconography. When a guy with a thing that looks like a Red star talks about throwing the chains of capitalist oppression, you know that a crushing communist bureaucracy with severe punishment for dissenters is in the works. When a guy with a thing that looks like a swastika talks about the Aryan race and throwing off the international loansharks…

            >Sounds like you are saying that Jews secretly rule the world, and are doing a pretty good job. If Jews secretly rule the world, they are not doing a very good job.

            Some Jews are in high Cathedral places, having gotten there by playing high-IQ games and turning their back on their Jewish identity and their people. They are doing about as good a job as possible given the retarded ideology of the framework. Replacing them with those of other races with lower IQ without replacing the ideology will lead to reduced performance (see: the Clinton cabinet vs. the Obama cabinet.)

            • jim says:

              Yeah, yeah, come on. If they had a swastika pointing the other way for their symbol and said, “you know, it’s an ancient Indoeuropean symbol,” you’d say, “bullshit.”

              But is not a swastika pointing the other way. You are reading between the lines, which is unfalsifiable. Golden Dawn is ethno nationalist, and you are ethno nationalist, and suddenly, exactly as people complain, you will not tolerate any other group being ethno nationalist other than Jews.

          • reakcionar says:

            B,

            Whatever some commenters or the “parrots” of the movement (myself included) say, the very core of the DE idea seems to be truth with no compromise and no euphemisms.

            DE blogs tell Americans that the creation of their country was just another criminal movement to the left. They tell Protestants they should accept that their own religions were the seeds from which the leftist weeds grew over time, Catholics that their new pope is a fraud and women that their brains are wired by evolution to wreck civilization. Agree with it or not – pretty extreme ideas, bitter pills to swallow.

            Why is it any different to notice that Jews are disproportionately involved in Cathedral activism for a long time already? If it attracts some Stormfront dimwits in the comment section, that doesn’t make it false.

            • jim says:

              Why is it any different to notice that Jews are disproportionately involved in Cathedral activism for a long time already? If it attracts some Stormfront dimwits in the comment section, that doesn’t make it false.

              Some people obsess about Jews. Thus, for example, Hitler complained that the Jews spread defeatism, while neglecting the fact that they had plenty to be defeatist about. A healthy person tends to focus on his own ethnicity, rather than other ethnicities. Focussing intently on some other ethnicity is pathological. We should reject that pathology.

              But we should not reject the truth that a lot of Jews have done a lot of harm. B. correctly says that those Jews are behaving pathologically, that they are not being good Jews. None the less, there are quite a lot of bad Jews, and bad Jews, like other bad people, really do conspire together. Moldbug quite correctly says that others have done a lot more harm, that progressivism is primarily Christian descended, that progressive Jews are conversos, hence their pathology. We have to keep the harm done by bad Jews in its proper (moderate) proportion, and neither obsess over it, nor deny it.

          • Candide III says:

            [T]ruth with no compromise and no euphemisms

            I’m stealing this. Brilliantly put.

  5. Glenfilthie says:

    We see the puppets, and we see the puppet masters.

    Or do we?

    Who’s playing US, Jim? And to what purpose? I would surely hate to think it was the KGB.

  6. VXXC says:

    Reuters has it…looks solid.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/07/us-ukraine-idUSBREA151QL20140207

    [FSB. they call it FSB now].

    • jim says:

      She said she did not foresee damage to relations with opposition leaders,

      And I don’t foresee damage to the relations with my fingers. Reuters is lying by omission, ignoring the fact that the call revealed a master/servant relationship between the State Department and the “opposition”, who were revealed as enemy agents of a foreign power hostile to the Ukraine.

      • Candide III says:

        Ukraine, not the Ukraine. Opposition leaders have little choice but cooperate. Still, calling them agents is much too strong. They lost most of their credibility with the people. Even if they put on more radical colors today, nobody would believe them. So they have a common interest with the Western powers in smoothing things down in such a way that they come out on top. EU doesn’t want a civil war or a dismemberment of such a large state on its borders, and US would certainly look bad if they permitted any such thing. On the other hand, I guess that both US and EU want a resurgent nationalist Ukraine, led by the far right, even less, whether its territory remains as today or no.

        By the way, do you consider Russia a foreign power friendly to Ukraine?

        • Red says:

          Why wouldn’t the US want a civil war in the Ukraine? We’re loving the civil war in Syria.

          • Candide III says:

            I said the EU wouldn’t want it, not that the US wouldn’t. But as for your question, my guess is that the US wouldn’t like it either, partly because it would complicate their relations with Russia, and partly because whichever way you turn the conflict, Ukraine’s potential guerrillas will be the wrong faith and the wrong color. Can’t have white Christian guerrillas. If memory serves, the US supported Bosnian Muslims but not the Serbs.

          • B says:

            The US is not loving the civil war in Syria. It is not evolving according to the Arab Spring scenario, and its spillover into Anbar is making the US look bad.

            • jim says:

              It does not love it, but, in abandoning religious minorities in Syria, it knowingly took a high risk of the outcome that has occurred.

          • B says:

            Of course-that’s the Great Game. Pretty much every Cathedral intervention since 1954 has led directly to the ethnic cleansing of ethnic and religious minorities. But the object is always to have some sort of functional client-state emerge, not a festering civil war with no end. Damascus on the Dnepr is not a desirable scenario.

        • Red says:

          The EU a cathedral puppet. I’m not sure why you insistent that the EU has a mind different than that of the cathedral.

          The Ukraine riots appears to be payback for Russia blocking the US on Syria. It’s received massive pro riot propaganda in Europe and has all the markings of a normal cathedral propaganda event. This is US soft power in action and it’s aimed directly at punishing the Russians.

          You can have white Christian guerrillas as long as they’re fighting white Christian Russians. They’ll keep the media pro revolt coverage to minimum in the states to prevent the US population from getting similar ideas.

        • Konkvistador says:

          “Ukraine not the Ukraine” is a recent standard indeed it is a political statement. Not sure you are aware what the statement is.

          • Candide III says:

            I’m no Russian imperialist and I don’t hide it. Why, are you Russian? The spelling of your nickname certainly feels Slavic. I don’t want to start a round of xox?ocpa4 here, though.

      • Candide III says:

        This guy has it about right on the release.

        • jim says:

          The reason Russia is presenting this as Cathedral imperialism, is because it is Cathedral imperialism. It is about time some Cathedral agents got shot. Notice that they had no hesitation in having their opponents shot, as in the Ivory Coast. They play for keeps. They should not be shocked if other people play for keeps.

          • Candide III says:

            Yeah, I don’t dispute that the West is playing imperialism around Russia. But this doesn’t negate the fact that Russia is playing imperialism around Russia too, and doesn’t exonerate Russia, just as Russia’s playing does not exonerate Western playing. What I think, I think that you are unwilling to believe that anything can be quite as bad as the Cathedral. If so, I can understand that, but I assure you, Russia is worse. I have seen it much closer at hand than you have. It is easy for us NRs to dismiss inconvenient things as Cathedral propaganda if they are reported by Western media, but it is not always the right thing to do, and accepting Russia Today at anything like face value is even sillier.

            • jim says:

              The Syrian government was far, far worse, than the Cathedral, but Cathedral meddling in Syria was nonetheless morally wrong and a very bad idea.

              If the Cathedral regime, like the early Roman Empire, could easily impose Cathedral order, then pointing out the good quality of Cathedral regimes would be relevant. But today, like the late Roman Empire, it lacks the will and the ability.

              As I said elsewhere, Cathedral imperialism is Zimbabwe, not Rhodesia. The examples of the Congo, the Ivory Coast, and Haiti indicates that submitting to the Cathedral does not in itself bring good government. A population of high IQ whites is apt to produce good government in spite of the Cathedral, not because of it.

    • Konkvistador says:

      I think calling it FSB conveys less information. What matters is who the people in the organization are. For instance Putin is a former KGB member. In the context of this fact it tells you a lot about the working of the Russian state the FSB, which presumably does things like this, is run by former KGB members being the KGB under another name.

    • sunshinemary says:

      A side note: they don’t call it the FSB “now”. It’s been called that for close to twenty years. KGB is from our childhood. 🙂

  7. […] Cathedral imperialism revealed « Jim’s Blog […]

  8. Candide III says:

    Just to open my remarks, did you notice the tape was edited? This is very noticeable at 2:37, 2:50 and 3:22 — what was Pyatt saying about Yanukovich? You can trust the Russians to have edited the tape for maximum effect.

    As for your other remarks about Cathedral puppets and what not. First of all, as I wrote weeks ago, the three so-called opposition leaders are not leading the Maidan movement, and this became even truer after the clashes on January 19-23. I happened to be there on the 19th. The opposition leaders were booed off the stage when they hewed and hawed and proposed more waiting, and then Maidan self-defense guys and Pravyj (Right) Sector guys and some other radicals tried to go to the Parliament (Rada) building, were stopped by riot police and started lobbing molotovs and burning buses. Subsequently they started capturing seats of the executive in provincial cities and even forcing the President’s governors to resign. Any concessions that the movement has gotten out of the government were obtained through pressure by the Maidan militias, who have paid with blood. You can look at their website. I am not sure about Maidan self-defense, but Pravyi Sector is the same sort of thing as Greece’s Golden Dawn, and they seem to have some contacts already with European far-right. Remember, currently Maidan self-defense has about 12 thousand and Right Sector another several thousand men, and they have support of the population. Even the US saw fit to mention The so-called opposition leaders, who Nuland and Pyatt were talking about, have no power over them and cannot order them to do anything whatsoever. State Department has even seen fit to explicitly condemn the Right Sector. Russia is talking out of its ass when it claims that Americans are spending millions of dollars per day on the movement. That’s complete rubbish. They might as well claim that the Golden Dawn is being run on Brussels’ money.

    Second, Russia, while pointing out US and EU’s meddling, is happily meddling itself. Even not taking into account persistent rumors of Russian spetsnaz being actually present in Ukraine and fighting on the government’s side (kidnapping and torturing people and stuff), the trade restrictions on Ukrainian imports have been reinstated, Russia has stopped further tranches of the money it has promised to Yanukovich until he forms a new government, Putin’s spokesmen openly call for the conversion of Ukraine into a federation and eastern and southern regions etc.

    • Red says:

      Candide right about the far right nationalistic elements within the protests, but it wouldn’t be the first time the cathedrals used such movements and then had them shot once their elites are in power.

      • Candide III says:

        > it wouldn’t be the first time
        What previous cases do you have in mind?

        • Red says:

          Having them shot is incorrect. Side lining them once the revolt is over is closer to the truth.

        • fnn says:

          Maybe the independent anti-Communist groups that were exterminated by Diem. Of course then Diem was eliminated. Also maybe the sellout of the Chinese Nationalists on the Mainland.

          • fnn says:

            The early champions of Diem were Henry Luce, Mike Mansfield, William O. Douglas and officials at the Vietnam desk of the US Embassy in Paris.

        • jim says:

          The Cathedral has repeated allied with and armed genocidal elements in black africa and the middle east, frequently resulting in mass murder, ethnic cleansing, and sometimes genocide. It gives higher priority to preventing non Cathedral elements from exercising power, than itself exercising power.

          So, will ally with anyone, but then endeavor to prevent non Cathedral elements among its allies from actually exercising power. Thus, for example, the reason the Taliban is winning, is that the Cathedral wanted its allies, the Northern Alliance, to rule even less than it wanted the Taliban to rule.

          • Candide III says:

            Aren’t you all forgetting the Red government-Blue government split? For instance, wasn’t Diem Korea a client of the American military rather than State? The same goes for Chinese nationalists (they were supported by the army, but State sold them out) and Ahmad Shah Massoud, although here I might be mistaken.

    • spandrell says:

      A federation is long term a win-win solution. Ukrainian nationalists have nothing to gain by clinging to land whose inhabitants hate them. They gotta let go.

      • Candide III says:

        Yes, the levels of hate for ‘banderovtsy’ (Ukrainian nationalists) in the East and in Crimea are very high. Never mind that it was their own robber barons who dismantled their industry etc. and who now compose the Ukrainian government. Russia’s propaganda machine contributes to this a lot, as most people there watch Russian TV channels. The volume and level of propaganda pouring out of the latter is quite astonishing. For instance, they simultaneously introduce the pejorative ‘zhydobanderovtsy’ (zhyd = Jew) and accuse historical ‘banderovtsy’ of rampant anti-semitism.

        As for federation, that isn’t going to work unless the top-level law is credible and enforced fairly. As things stand, there is almost no trust on either side, so prospects are dim. Still, many people even among nationalists would agree with you, at least tentatively and privately. The problem is that the nationalists have no say on the official level. They demanded a seat at the negotiation table (reasonable in view of what I wrote above, I think) and were turned down by both sides.

        • jim says:

          As for federation, that isn’t going to work unless the top-level law is credible and enforced fairly.

          Federation works from the bottom up. The guys who are powerful in each locality, are allowed to have power, and the top level refrains from screwing with them. This inevitably means that somewhere, someone not answerable to the Cathedral gets to call the shots. The Cathedral would rather a desert, than that any of its opponents have any power anywhere.

          The whole point and purpose of federation is to make the top level not matter so much. The more bitter the disagreement, the less the top level can be permitted to matter.

          Conversely, the less the top level matters, the harder it is for the Cathedral to deny non Cathedral elements power everywhere.

          • Candide III says:

            The guys who are powerful in each locality, are allowed to have power, and the top level refrains from screwing with them.

            Passive alert. Who allows the local people to have power? The top level. It either doesn’t have enough power to interfere (in which case it is a sham or window dressing) or has, but chooses not to interfere. In Ukraine’s case, there does not seem to be a way of constructing a top level which both sides could trust not to interfere. It’s the same problem really as with any other solution except an outright split, possibly disguised by window-dressing ‘federation’ with no powers that would fool nobody. Remember CIS? It still exists, but when did you last hear that it did anything? And even with a window-dressing federation, the problem remains how to construct it. Powers would have to be divided, and the situation may have gone too far already to permit a peacable division. The Right Sector, at least, recognizes this, that’s why it is not escalating the situation and tries to get everybody back to negotiations.

            • jim says:

              Passive alert. Who allows the local people to have power? The top level. It either doesn’t have enough power to interfere (in which case it is a sham or window dressing) or has, but chooses not to interfere.

              That is peace. Peace means that everyone accepts the status quo, more or less, because to interfere would be to interfere with people armed and dangerous. Recollect how many lives it cost to turn the US from a federation into an empire.

              the situation may have gone too far already to permit a peacable division.

              If so, a central government requires even more bloodshed.

              Let us recall the Cathedral’s mischief making in Syria. Syria was peaceful because the Syrian government had a great record of protecting minorities, in particular Christians. Not only was it illegal burn down churches and murder Christians, but the law was actually enforced. When people complain about Syria being a police state, that is a large part of what they refer to, that it was dead serious about enforcing such unpopular laws, and enforced them all the harder because unpopular.

              The Cathedral fecklessly backed a bunch of groups in Syria who were cozy with groups who intended to exterminate the Christian minority, thus, the Cathedral needed to be OK with exterminating minorities. Minorities not keen on this solution, so were inclined to resist.

              And now, fresh from its big successes in Syria and the Congo, the Cathedral hopes to do the same in the Ukraine.

              Your argument is that everyone should bow to the Cathedral, because it produces order and good government – like in Zimbabwe perhaps.

              Rather, it parasitically takes over places that have order and good government, and slowly undermines that order and good government.

          • Candide III says:

            Your argument is that everyone should bow to the Cathedral, because it produces order and good government

            Pfui. Show me where I said anything like this. You are apt to forget that the Western powers, while generally ruled by the Cathedral, contain much order as well, most of which comes under the rule of law heading. You don’t need to watch out for stolen manhole covers. You don’t need to bribe doctors. Your judges’ children don’t drive around in S-class Mercedes killing pedestrians with impunity. Your policemen don’t rape local women. And so on. You forget that the very existence of the Cathedral, for us a banal and obvious thought, is outside the perceptions of the simple folks. They go to work in Europe and they don’t see the Cathedral — they are not equipped for it — but they do see smooth roads, well-built and well-maintained cities and houses, polite policemen and well-paid doctors (FYI: monthly salary of first-line doctors in Ukraine is $200-300. No, not missing a zero.)

    • jim says:

      When you have fighting in the streets, federation seems like a reasonable solution. Sounds to me that the Russians are pushing a constructive compromise, while the Cathedral, as usual, wants to rule, and is happy to rule a desert.

      The reason Cathedral imperialism is so chaotic, is that they are embarrassed to rule openly, but don’t want anyone else to rule. Their MO is to destroy all other sources of power and order, without themselves openly exercising power, and without themselves imposing order. A federation means local power gets to rule, the local cops answerable to local people maintain order. The Cathedral is not interested in order, it just wants to make sure that non Cathedral forces do not get to maintain order.

      • Candide III says:

        I don’t see where US wants to rule in Ukraine. That tape is not sufficient evidence, and if they do, why didn’t they come in in 2005-7 when Yuschenko was in power and the situation was much more favorable? As for the EU, they might pay lip service to Ukraine’s EU aspirations, but they sure don’t want another big country joining that would be conservative like Poland. Actually, I agree with your second paragraph, but your second paragraph contradicts your first paragraph.

        • jim says:

          How does my second paragraph contradict my first?

          • Candide III says:

            You say that the Cathedral wants to rule and that it is not interested in order. I admit that there are values of ‘rule’ for which these two statements are not contradictory.

          • Candide III says:

            Actually what I wanted to say is that there are different kinds of order. Russian society, for all its faults, is ordered. People know who to bribe for what and how much the service costs. People know the current kick-back percentage for government contracts (about 50%). People know that the security services are untouchable, unless they have connections. The problem is that this order is bad. For an easy example, think about internal tolls in ancien regime France. Is there more order when internal tolls exist, or less order? Why?

            • jim says:

              When the USG does something ordinarily done by a local government, it usually costs many times as much, sometimes a thousand times as much as when the local government does it, which would suggest the equivalent of a very large kickback on some USG contracts. Some contracts are fattened much more than others. These are known as “pork”.

              Good government comes from connections. In California, you will get markedly better government in one suburb than another.

              For example I was driving down the road in Redwood city in a beaten up junker. My car had recently been in an accident which caused it to look like a complete write off. Police stopped me, made various vague accusations, were rude and menacing, demanded that I confess to something, and made it clear that if I did not confess, they would charge me with something hard to disprove. After a bit of browbeating, they demanded my license, which showed I lived in Palo Alto, where the better people live. Their attitude abruptly changed. They called me “sir”, and courteously sent me on my way.

              For example, one of my son’s girlfriends wanted to move in with him, and refused to leave when it was time for her to go to her own home. He ejected her with considerable force, causing her an injury. Now if you read the manosphere sites, you will expect a tale of terrible injustice to follow, and it damn near did. They changed the court date on him without informing him, so that they could hold the trial without the inconvenience of him and his highly paid lawyer. My wife, who was paranoically monitoring the court, detected this, told his lawyer, his lawyer has a friendly chat with his friend the prosecutor, and all the problems went away.

              For example I wanted to build something. Needed permits. Permits need “consultants” – which is to say, bagmen.

              So where does good government come from? Seems to me it comes from well connected affluent people pulling strings to get good government. Good government comes from bribery and influence. Hence the total failure of the Cathedral to export good government.

              Observe Haiti. Rule by Harvard PhDs turned out to be worse than rule by low IQ black thugs, probably because Haitians could not afford to bribe Harvard PhDs, and lacked the channels to pull strings.

          • pdimov says:

            Interesting point.

            We who live in corrupt countries always assume that government that can’t be bribed is better government. You are however saying that it’s in fact worse.

            Makes a certain bit of sense, but how do you explain that in general countries that are more corrupt are less well governed?

            • jim says:

              I would say that those countries whose corruption is more embarrassing to the Cathedral are perceived as less corrupt, rather than actually being less corrupt.

              Honest good government is the best, but how does one incetivize good government?

              Madoff ran the largest ponzi scheme ever, was protected by SEC, Senate called in the SEC to question them under oath. SEC did not invoke fifth, but just plain refused to answer questions, putting itself clearly in contempt of the Senate. Senate did not have the balls to charge them with contempt. The financial crisis involved gigantic amounts of corrupt behavior, and the center of that corruption was the revolving door between regulators and regulated in the US – the US was corruption central. Another example of the revolving door was Jon Corzine, the man of many hats, who was unable to remember what happened to several billion dollars.

              Corruption is bad, but it mitigates the effect of bad government on the better class of people, so is frequently the lesser evil.

          • Candide III says:

            So, were those policemen in fact soliciting for a hundred bucks to mitigate the severities of service?

            Yeah, I know your lines about the SEC, corruption in finance and excessively obnoxious environmental consultants. All bad stuff, obviously. Still, accepting for the sake of the argument your premise that the better class of people will get tolerable governance for themselves one way or another, how do you explain any cross-country differences in governance? Why did Russia lose the Crimean war, for instance? Because the peasants were not smart or hardworking enough? Pfui.

            • jim says:

              So, were those policemen in fact soliciting for a hundred bucks to mitigate the severities of service?

              Nah, just running in a white guy to get a more racially balanced arrest record, or just to get a better ratio of convictions to complaints. By and large, white cops in white neighborhoods shake down blacks for money, not whites, though black cops in black majority neighborhoods shake down whites for money, not blacks. Which I suppose might be evidence that democracy does work, in a sense.

              how do you explain any cross-country differences in governance?

              The Hajnal line. K selected whites versus r selected whites. White from the r selected side of the Hajnal line find it hard to put together good government, even though they look the same and have similar IQ.

              HBD* Chick, who knows much more about this than I do, attributes the problem not to r selection, but to selection for familism.

          • Candide III says:

            North America has been very far to the west of the Hajnal line for ages. How come the progressivism, the SEC and finance and the rest of it that you complained about? You practically wrote in several comments here that American governance is generally worse than Russian! You write about SEC, but I bet the guys on the SEC board who told Senate to go climb a tree live in well-governed neighborhoods like Palo Alto.

          • Candide III says:

            North America has been very far to the west of the Hajnal line for ages. How come the progressivism, the SEC and finance and the rest of it that you complained about? You practically wrote in several comments here that American governance is generally worse than Russian! You write about SEC, but I bet the guys on the SEC board who told Senate to go climb a tree live in well-governed neighborhoods like Palo Alto. There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, / Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

            • jim says:

              Throughout most of history, governance in the US has been pretty good. Since 1972, it has been deteriorating.

              Hajnal line is a long term factor, political developments a short term factor. Even blacks manage good government sometimes, and even those west of the Hajnal line manage bad government sometimes.

          • B says:

            Corruption in America is somewhat tempered by the fact that the layers of government you have to deal with are basically human and not pigfaced. In other words, dealing with cops, doctors at ERs, etc., I can generally assume they are not primarily seeking to screw me, that they will do their job and help me out without squeezing me for bribes. Of course, there are big and growing parts of the government where this is not true. In Russia, this is practically never true. The primary source of income for most of the parts of the American government you have to deal with is not corruption, and in Russia, it’s the reverse.

            • jim says:

              Police misbehavior varies from place to place in America. Affluent people live in places where the police and local government are reasonably honest and competent. Poor people do not. Thus, cops in Redwood City misbehave, cops in East Palo Alto misbehave notoriously badly to shakedown people, Yolo County is notorious for capriciously arresting outsiders on trumped up charges, but cops in Sunnyvale are fair and honest. In Hawaii, affluent people encounter quite a bit of local government corruption, in most of America they do not, in most of America that stuff is only for poor people.

              Federal government in the US used to be pretty honest, but now we see the regulatory revolving door, where people go from politics to regulation to business and back again. This is corruption on a gigantic scale. The regulatory revolving door does not directly affect ordinary people, only large businesses, but ordinary people frequently need to hire “consultants” to permit house building and so forth.

          • B says:

            >Affluent people live in places where the police and local government are reasonably honest and competent. Poor people do not.

            I grew up in New York’s lower middle class neighborhoods and never heard of NYPD cops shaking people down for bribes. My black friends complained about getting smacked around by the cops for being associated with TNB.

            >in most of America that stuff is only for poor people.

            I later lived in lower middle class areas of the Southeast, the Rockies and New England. Some minor corruption noticed in the latter when applying for a concealed carry permit in a heavily Italian part of town. Also, some time spent in a PNW metropolis’ college town and surrounding suburbs-no real corruption noticed. Compared to Russia and the rest of the former USSR, where bribery is standard, this is nothing.

            >The regulatory revolving door does not directly affect ordinary people, only large businesses, but ordinary people frequently need to hire “consultants” to permit house building and so forth.

            Again-peanuts compared to the typical post-USSR experience. It really grinds on you daily, knowing that bribery is universal and that it is arbitrary-the cops could take your money, or they could rape your wife and kill the two of you. And the education system, which runs entirely on bribes. You think AA is bad? At least you can spot its beneficiaries. Try a system where almost everyone has bought their diplomas. Think the US military, with its politically correct bullshit, is insane? It is, but nothing compared to this shit:

            http://youtu.be/3NdBHUXo2k0

            http://observers.france24.com/content/20110905-death-bullying-extreme-hazing-russia-army-military-service-recruit-dedovshchina

  9. […] not really about gay “rights” and it’s not really even about democracy in Ukraine, which I highly doubt the U.S. actually gives a flip about.   It’s about money and political […]

  10. Nyk says:

    Better remove those neoreactionary-colored glasses just for one bit. The status-quo is actually worse than Cathedral rule, at least from the perspective of the average Ukrainian. Ukraine is an economic shithole with crumbling roads, Ukrainians traveling abroad have noticed that their EU neighbors, puppets of the Cathedral, are more prosperous than they are. So they will rather prefer being ruled by the gay-loving, pussy-rioting Cathedral and have a decent job and opportunities to start their own businesses without having to pay bribes to each and every employee of the state that they have to deal with.

    If the Russians were like the Chinese, investing in massive infrastructure projects and visibly striving to improve the lives and economic possibilities of their subjects, it would be game over for the Cathedral. No Ukrainian would want to be subjected to its relative stagnation and gay-rights propaganda under those conditions.

    • Candide III says:

      Better remove those neoreactionary-colored glasses just for one bit. The status-quo is actually worse than Cathedral rule, at least from the perspective of the average Ukrainian. Ukraine is an economic shithole with crumbling roads, Ukrainians traveling abroad have noticed that their EU neighbors, puppets of the Cathedral, are more prosperous than they are.

      This. Although there are plenty of Ukrainians, especially among the most active participants of the Maidan movement, who openly reject Cathedral values and state that association with EU is merely a tactical goal. They read Evola.

    • jim says:

      Better remove those neoreactionary-colored glasses just for one bit. The status-quo is actually worse than Cathedral rule, at least from the perspective of the average Ukrainian. Ukraine is an economic shithole with crumbling roads,

      The Russian government cannot do the Olympics without most of the money being stolen, but the Cathedral cannot do imperialism without Christians being massacred.

      You think the Olympics are a disaster? The Cathedral is still giving out no money down mortgages to minorities.

  11. […] Cathedral imperialism revealed « Jim’s Blog […]

  12. ErisGuy says:

    “Hurrah for the Russian KGB!”

    I sure hope this is ironic, for our peoples’ sake and for the the Ukrainian people, who have suffered greatly from KGB.

  13. […] not really about gay “rights” and it’s not really even about democracy in Ukraine, which I highly doubt the U.S. actually gives a flip about.   It’s about money and political […]

  14. Mr. Moto says:

    Note that Ms. Nuland (ne Nudelman) is married to Robert Kagan, a founding member of PNAC, “Project for a New American century”.

    Yep, pals with the verminous Perle, Wolfowitz and Bolton–the same scum who brought us the Iraq “cakewalk”…

  15. spandrell says:

    While I’m sorry for derailing yet another post on Jew-talk, B likes an argument and so do I.

    >And when I say we’d be better off with Hitler winning and not Stalin is that we wouldn’t have gay parades, Africans all over the West and all that.

    Actually, had Stalin won, you wouldn’t have any of that stuff…for a while. Stalin’s USSR and that of his successors were quite conservative in that sense. Eventually, prosperity leads to loss of asabiyya, which leads to degeneracy.

    Prosperity? Is Serbia prosperous? No, it’s a piece of shit. Yet the Cathedral funds gay parades as the first priority once they get a hold on the place. Neither Stalin nor any of his successors until the system collapsed under Gorbachov allowed social decay.

    > And for that, you’d trade my people being murdered? Wonderful.

    Do you realize the stakes? Europe is under assault, demographic collapse is a real possibility. Am I supposed to love that the US liberated us from evil Hitler and brought us all those Africans and South Asians? Look at Portugal, 10% black admixture sufficed to bring a great country to its knees, becoming a piece of shit only marginally better than Morocco.

    Would any red-blooded Portuguese trade the murder of another people, whichever it is, to have back a civilized country? Of course he will. Why shouldn’t he?

    >This is basic projection. I would like to point out that this was not really a factor in the first generation of the DE blogs, before the DE emerged as a popular movement. But as it became more popular and more defined as a “movement,” with a name, core principles, etc., it moved down the IQ curve and to a lower common denominator. What’s easier to read, UR or Thrasymachus? What’s easier to summarize and pitch? Throw in the Game stuff, for more popular appeal-”it’ll get you laid!” Now you have a full set of chimp incentives.

    Dude you’re getting paranoid. Hell I thought you sold yourself as the exception to the rule, the rugged mountain Jew, the manly warrior who disproves the stereotype of the neurotic Jew with glasses. Now suddenly neoreaction is becoming a Nazi movement who projects the evil of Christianity upon the noble Jews. Give me a fucking break. Thrasymachus has probably 1/1000 the readership of Moldbug. And how is he representative of anything? Where are all those Jew haters you talk about? Who are they? And how the fuck am I or Jim or anyone else responsible for it?

    Even if there were tons of clones of Kevin McDonald out there calling themselves neoreactionary, what am I supposed to do about that. I don’t mind talking about the problems with neoreaction getting too big and regression to the mean and dumb wannabes joining a party they weren’t invited to. But white nationalists, or let’s just call them Nazis if you want are not really part of it, and in fact they went quite public in how they despise us nerdy fags who won’t defend White People.

    It’s funny that you rave about “projection”, when a short look at Steve Sailer’s comment threads will show you that those Nazis you’re so afraid of are also blasting at neoreaction “dorks”, just like you, saying how we’re just faggy keyboard jockers while they are manly men building communities to preserve the race. The extent that they blame the Jews for every bad thing that ever happen to the white race is not dissimilar to how you blame Jesus and his evil descendants for dividing and victimizing your people. Who’s projecting again? Seems to be this is yet another case of the narcissism of small differences.

    • Candide III says:

      I won’t put my oar in the joo debates, but this

      Neither Stalin nor any of his successors until the system collapsed under Gorbachov allowed social decay

      is actually incorrect unless you equate social decay with gay parades. The collapse of the family has been proceeding since the end of WWII, when able-bodied males suddenly became a deficit commodity. Stalin tried nailing them down to women, reducing child support, restricting divorce and so on, but it didn’t work very well. In 1965 Khruschev liberalized divorce law and registered divorces exploded. Alcoholism, always a problem in Russia, grew to such an extent that in 1985 Gorbachev ordered mass uprooting of vines and other draconian measures, which proved mostly ineffective or even counterproductive. There were also campaigns against absenteeism, moonlighting and workplace theft (to which the Soviet worker generally considered himself entitled; it was called ‘nesunstvo’). Degradation is very visible in architecture: Stalin-era houses, train stations and so on are much better designed and built than stuff built later, when hopes and good feelings created by USSR’s victory (however hard-bought and lend-lease-supported) in WWII had dissipated.

      • spandrell says:

        I know, I know. But one thing is actual social decay i.e. people behaving like shit because life sucks and they lack a sense of purpose, and other is the Cathedral imposed deviancy where people actually engage in shit behavior because of they think it makes them better people, and when you call them out on it they have tons of books on how to rationalize their deviancy.

        Modern Chinese culture is also pretty drab in many ways but it’s still orders of magnitude more wholesome than Progressivism.

        • Candide III says:

          Ah, if you draw this distinction then I agree. USSR did impose the ideology and the party line — I remember all the children’s books about Lenin and evil capitalists and valiant pionery in my kindergarten — and it sort of encouraged people to tattle on their neighbors (bditelnost’), but it didn’t directly encourage or impose deviancy or bad behavior, except as a result of bad policies (there was a lot of this, though). The only thing in the USSR that can be compared to modern American scene in the deviancy respect is the rise of the popularity of prison folklore, slang and norms of behavior beginning in the 70’s, partly through the medium of popular, though at best semi-officially-recognized, song-writers and performers, corresponding to American rap music. The state never directly encouraged it, though, it sort of grew up by itself, but since the explosion of criminality in 90’s it became a veritable scourge: for example, until recently you couldn’t avoid the prison songs in the tuk-tuks, as most drivers had the radio on constantly. I have even heard that when Maidan guys started playing Ukrainian folk songs and marches towards police lines, the latter countered with those prison songs. How do you like that for a political statement? 🙂

      • jim says:

        Degradation is very visible in architecture: Stalin-era houses, train stations and so on are much better designed and built than stuff built later,

        If you look at the ruins of Detroit, you will notice that many of the ruins are ruins of buildings that are much nicer than today’s California buildings.

        But America can still build toilets, while Russia seems to be having some difficulty.

        On the gripping hand, Putin does seem to be trying to resist and reverse social decay, by setting a personal example of sobriety and manliness and by banning gay indoctrination of children. He intended the Olympics to demonstrate his success, with underwhelming results.

        He is aiming in the right direction, but not yet apparent that he is succeeding.

        • Candide III says:

          To the population, Putin is a Tsar, not an example. Also, what about his throwing out his wife for Kabayeva? As for his trying to resist social decay, banning gay propaganda is an easy target for him. A widespread rejection of gays exists in Russia, and one of the most influential subcultures — the prison subculture — treats gays (bottoms) as untouchables and less than human. Other than this, what has he tried? Ruining the Soviet school system (which was very good) with repeated ill-thought-out reforms? Providing cheap credit and payouts to families? Normal people can’t use the credit, and direct payouts are dysgenic. I don’t see him doing anything about alcoholism and drugs (other than posing for photoshoots), et cetera. Even if he is aiming in the right direction, his finger is inexplicably? stuck in the muzzle of his gun. I wish you would read my two posts on Russia. It was partly with you in mind that I wrote them.

  16. B says:

    >Prosperity? Is Serbia prosperous?

    Serbia never got to the prosperity stage, but its imperial headquarters (in the US, London, etc.) did.

    >Neither Stalin nor any of his successors until the system collapsed under Gorbachov allowed social decay.

    Of course they did. Look up the Manezh exhibition. And that was in a fundamentally peasant country. Germany was much more urbanized, sophisticated, closer to degenerating.

    >Europe is under assault, demographic collapse is a real possibility.

    You think Hitler would have raised birth rates? Especially in the parts of Europe that were not North European? Incidentally, Soviet birth rates tanked after the war in the European parts. Despite government efforts to the contrary. That does not bode well for a Nazi Europe, even assuming pro-natality policies for the non-German populace.

    >Am I supposed to love that the US liberated us from evil Hitler and brought us all those Africans and South Asians? Look at Portugal, 10% black admixture sufficed to bring a great country to its knees, becoming a piece of shit only marginally better than Morocco.

    Empire did that to Portugal. The kind of empire that lives on tribute always turns the metropolis’ population into welfare recipients.

    >Would any red-blooded Portuguese trade the murder of another people, whichever it is, to have back a civilized country?

    In reality, he would get to live in the same shithole, just a murderous one. And of course the neighbors, who’d had no objection to wiping us out, would have no objection to doing the same to him.

    >Hell I thought you sold yourself as the exception to the rule, the rugged mountain Jew

    I don’t sell myself as anything. I live my life as best as I can, and try to associate with others who do the same.

    >Thrasymachus has probably 1/1000 the readership of Moldbug.

    But there are a lot more of him coming down the pike, if NR becomes more widespread and dumbed down (barring entryism.) And not a lot more of Moldbug.

    >Where are all those Jew haters you talk about?

    Popping up.

    >Who are they? And how the fuck am I or Jim or anyone else responsible for it?

    I didn’t pin any responsibility on Jim or you. I merely pointed out that the increasing antijoooism of the “reactosphere” bodes poorly for its future level of discourse.

    >Even if there were tons of clones of Kevin McDonald out there calling themselves neoreactionary, what am I supposed to do about that.

    I’m not telling anyone to do anything. Just pointing out facts as I see them.

    >But white nationalists, or let’s just call them Nazis if you want are not really part of it, and in fact they went quite public in how they despise us nerdy fags who won’t defend White People.

    But things are moving their way as the lowest common denominator drops.

    >It’s funny that you rave about “projection”, when a short look at Steve Sailer’s comment threads will show you that those Nazis you’re so afraid of are also blasting at neoreaction “dorks”, just like you, saying how we’re just faggy keyboard jockers while they are manly men building communities to preserve the race.

    If you get the same criticism from disparate sources which hate each other, well, there may be something to it.

    >The extent that they blame the Jews for every bad thing that ever happen to the white race is not dissimilar to how you blame Jesus and his evil descendants for dividing and victimizing your people.

    You are distorting my argument-I merely said that the Cathedral is an inevitable outcome of Christianity.

    • josh says:

      I am probably a “Jew-hater who pops up”, but the real Jew-haters would call me a “mischling” which is a term I have only learned from the internet.

      Jim’s right, we should be able to try to understand the Jewish phenomenon (dare I say, the Jewish problem). Its obvious that the Strong out of New England hypothesis is as false as the Strong out of Africa hypothesis, yet people keep spouting it and defending it. We need something more subtle, but the Jews get all paranoid whenever their brought into the equation in any capacity.

      My take on it, for what its worth, is that we need to move much further back to see Big History unfolding.

    • spandrell says:

      Jew Haters have been forever, and they have their own big and healthy nationalist, Nazi, Neo-Pagan and whatever communities going on for them. To the extent that some of the smartest of them are taking a liking at our blogs because the level of discourse is smarter than what they’re used to, that’s their problem and not ours.

      If you are concerned that we’re suffering Nazi-entryism instead of prog-entryism, well that’s quite ludicrious, but worst-case scenario you get a bunch of new blogs who call themselves neoreaction and write about the same old stuff all other Nazi blogs do.

      Which means that the white-nationalist blogosphere has a new brand, and to the extent that the name of neoreaction becomes more associated to them, the old guard of yours truly et al. will probably change our names or stop trying to put a common name on ourselves altogether.

      Big fucking deal. I thought you had bigger problems to care about, like killing Palis or something.

      But anyway as far as I can see Vladimir had a better forecast. We are getting the lower tier of disillusioned libertarians, not Nazis.

      • Candide III says:

        +1. I observed this when I decided to slog through the comments to Jamie Bartlett’s Telegraph blog effluvium. Since it doesn’t really rate a separate post, I might as well post my best (and worst) finds here. There were a lot of Joo-hating bottom-feeders and other assorted protozoans (‘fabian_solutions’ with the UN flag as its avatar, majorityrights NWO conspiracy theorists), but this summary of DE/NR by PlumberofNazareth is as good as they come:

        I’ve been associated (if only tangentially) with this so-called “Dark Enlightenment” for quite some time (in Internet years), so I think it’d be constructive for me to chime in regarding various non-points and misconceptions made and/or propagated by the author.

        Firstly, the claim that neoreactionaries are in fact “neo-fascist” is pretty gosh-darn ludicrous on the face of it. While neoreaction is to some degree associated with elements of the arguably fascist European New Right, the vast majority of neoreactionaries do not in any way profess to be either fascists or inspired/influenced by fascist ideology (in fact, by “the vast majority” I mean “everybody in the movement that I’ve interacted with”. Seriously. Fascism is pretty unpopular ’round these parts.). If anything, fascism is considered a “demotist” ideology by some, lumped in with both popular democracy and communism, in that it claims to rule “in the name of the people”. This is certainly not a neoreactionary stance to take.

        Secondly, the standard conception of the “Cathedral” is not even roughly analogous to a nutter’s idea of a “New World Order”. The Cathedral, simply defined, is a society-dominating memeplex that organically self-directs itself against outside threats to its cultural hegemony. In no way are there people “pulling the strings”, as it were. Cultural values imbibed by various folks at the top (bankers, pols, “social justice advocates”, professors, etc.) transform themselves into actions (such as firing somebody for being racist) that, on the whole, serve to propagate and preserve the memeplex that promoted the aforementioned values in the first place. It’s not really that controversial of a concept once Bartlett’s sensationalist language is stripped away.

        Lastly, the race issue. This is likely the most controversial part of Bartlett’s piece, at least going off the comments section. I’m in no way an expert on the heredity of IQ/the g factor, but I think it’s safe to say that holding the position that all humans start from the same general baseline for intelligence is rather obsolete. Accusing neoreactionaries of using “racial psuedoscience” to justify their “white supremacist ideology” (I’m paraphrasing here) is faulty on several fronts. First, no study that I’ve seen indicates that Whites are “supreme” in terms of intellect. Among HBD proponents, the general consensus is that the Ashkenazi are the group with the highest verbal IQ, followed by East Asians. Whites are considered solidly middle-of-the-pack, with Latin Americans below, Africans below them, and smaller groups like the Australian Aboriginals and the Bushmen of southern Africa at the bottom. The science of HBD does not assert white supremacy; rather, it simply asserts that races differ in significant ways.

        I hope that clears up some of the misconceptions that Bartlett has put out. For somebody who seems rather intelligent and well-spoken on social media, Jamie is remarkably doctrinaire in his run-of-the-mill progressive smear piece. He’s mentioned on Twitter that he’s writing a longer (and hopefully more nuanced) followup to this article, so I’ll give him one more chance to prove himself worthy of the title of journalist. Until he publishes that piece, he remains to me nothing more than a shamer.

        Then there’s somebody obviously coming from the NWO nutter environment actually thinking and asking him good questions, although his answer already fell victim to bit rot:

        In no way are there people “pulling the strings”, as it were.

        Do you think then, that elected leaders in the so called Western democracies are actually the leaders, and not controlled by parties unknown to most of us and what do most of the Darkly Enlightened think about this?

        Cultural values imbibed by various folks at the top (bankers, pols, “social justice advocates”, professors, etc.)

        Where do these cultural values come from?

        Do you think the worldwide demographic decline of Europeans is a natural process, or is it orchestrated?

        The best throw-away comment I found was by a grutchyngfysch:

        Any attempt to restore a strong monarchy that guarantees civil liberties without an equally strong local grasp on civic politics (many people overlook the extent to which medieval towns were effectively commune city-states), and above all a culturally-powerful Church is merely going to be inviting tyranny.

      • jim says:

        We are getting the lower tier of disillusioned libertarians, not Nazis.

        Nazis are just another branch of leftism. When Nazis run into neoreactionaries, this becomes obvious.

        • SMERSH says:

          One of the shallower and lazier techno-commercialist arguments.

          Joseph DeMaistre could, perhaps, credibly dismiss all forms of intermediate rightism as leftist. But it doesn’t sound so credible when techno-commercialist neo-reactionaries with an-cap sympathies do so.

          If you compress the political spectrum down to a single axis, neo-reactionaries and Nazis become virtually indistinguishable.

          They’re both intermediate forms of reactionary rightism that pick and choose from a basket of left and right wing positions, in order to make reaction more practical.

          To be sure, the Nazis and the neo-reactionaries pick *different* aspects of rightism to emphasize and different elements of left-modernity to utilize, so they’re not the same thing. And neo-reactionaries hope very fervently that they learned the lessons from the last go-round.

          But they’re both intermediate forms of reactionary rightism located in roughly the same part of the spectrum and that’s being charitable towards neo-reaction and assuming that the techno-commercialists would be balanced out by some of the more rightist elements. At times neo-reaction just looks like classical liberalism with different rhetoric and merchant princes.

          And no, demotism (hate neologisms) is not a serious objection. That kind of rhetoric was just how you

          But they’re both intermediate forms of reactionary rightism, neo-reaction

          • SMERSH says:

            damn, hit the submit button too soon. Ignore the last line, I meant to edit it out.

            Demotism is not a serious objection, that’s just the kind of rhetoric you had to use to get stuff done in the 1930s and 1940s. And the rhetoric part worked.

            Techno-commercialism may look even less right wing by the time the rhetoric moves past theory and compromises to practicality are made in order to get stuff done.

          • jim says:

            If you compress the political spectrum down to a single axis, neo-reactionaries and Nazis become virtually indistinguishable.

            In 1930, nazism was obviously left wing. The only reason it is now plausible to call it right wing is that leftism has moved on and become ever leftist. But today’s nazis have also moved on, and become ever leftist.

            Neo reaction tells us that this moving stuff is crap, Dark Enlightenment seeks to ferret out the truth hidden by ever crazier lies.

            If you think that when reduced to a single axis, Dark Enlightenment is indistinguishable from Nazism, then you cannot tell the difference between the 1930 Overton window, and the 1800 Overton window.

            Nazis, commies, and progressives were all within 1930 Overton window, thus, from the Dark Englightenment point of view, indistinguishable from each other, and distinguishable from modern progressives by date.

      • jim says:

        But worst-case scenario you get a bunch of new blogs who call themselves neoreaction and write about the same old stuff all other Nazi blogs do.

        Nazis do not steal and repurpose other people’s brands. That is progressive behavior.

        A progressive will tell you “You have a lot of good points, which would be valid if expressed in more moderate form” – and then issue the standard progressive line with a few nods to your words, but not your meanings.

        • B says:

          They did steal and repurpose other people’s brands. Namely, the entire mainstream of German right-wing thought. Oh, and all kinds of Thule Society gibberish.

          • jim says:

            The Nazis did not perceive themselves, nor were they perceived, as the mainstream of German right wing thought.

            The mainstream of German right wing thought was expressed by The Industrial Employers Association which published an evaluation of Nazism immediately before the 1930 election, in which they concluded the Nazis were totalitarian, terrorist, conspiratorial, and socialist, that they intended a fundamental transformation of the existing economic order.

            An evaluation that turned out to be entirely accurate. See Henry Turner’s “German Big Business and the Rise of Hitler” (O.U.P. 1985). page 114.

            On page 135 Turner quotes various German big business figures saying that the difference between Nazis and commies is insignificant, an observation rather similar to that made by George Orwell who said that anyone who claimed that Nazis and commies were very different from each other was always an advocate of supporting one or the other.

          • B says:

            I have the impression that the Nazis were not the mainstream of German right wing thought but (forgive me for the comparison) its Tea Party or its SDS/Weathermen. Meaning, its most active component trying to repurpose its support base and resources to their own needs.

            • jim says:

              Mainstream rightists would never call the tea party socialist, or similar to communists. Mainstream rightist called the Nazis socialist, and viewed them and described them as like communists, or a variant on communism.

              The reason it is confusing to say whether Nazis were right or left is that in the 1930s they were to the right of communists, but the left of progressives, but then progressives moved rapidly further left, soon winding up to the left of Nazis.

      • B says:

        I think that on the one side there is prog entryism, on the other side, dumbing down towards the level of small-n nazis, or at least major commonalities.

        As for the Arabs, they cause me no trouble. They see me for who I am, I see them for who they are, with this mutual recognition, we keep things courteous and occasionally friendly. What causes me trouble is the Cathedral, which is leaning on its local subsidiaries to hand my house or at least lines of communication to the Arabs’ Cathedral-pet government.

        • jim says:

          I don’t think we are converting to small n nazis. I think small n nazis are converting to us. I have long noticed a tendency in the Nazi mainstream to genuinely scientific racism, whereas the progressive critique of the original Nazis race science as pseudo scientific had much truth in it.

          • B says:

            SNNs converting to NR/DE is the same thing as entryism. And of course, the more of them come in, the more dumbed down the narrative gets.

            What does “scientific” mean? Obviously, we can measure IQ and its heritability and spread between populations. Does it mean that the smartest and most law-abiding are entitled to rule the rest in order to maximize utility? Does it mean that the natives prefer to rule themselves, even if this means that the native institutions do not function as well as they would otherwise? Should there be a balance, as the Soviet Union attempted to set after WW2? These are not scientific questions-they are questions of moral governance and the set of moral priorities held by a society.

            • jim says:

              SNNs converting to NR/DE is the same thing as entryism

              No it is not. Entryists, by definition, do not convert. A progressive entryist will say “You have many good points, but you ruin them by overstating them, your good points, expressed in more moderate language are …[progressive bullshit]”

              A neo nazi convert will say that we should not obsess over Jews, because the rot set in with female emancipation, the revolutionary war, and the civil war.

              What does “scientific” mean?

              It means one should continually check belief systems against evidence.

              Here are a couple of areas where you are being unscientific. You are getting your facts about nazis, Golden Dawn, etc, from contemporary Jewish sources, which are well known to be highly unreliable, due to understandable but regrettable paranoia.

              You are not checking the purported ancientness of current stringency on the sabbath etc.

          • B says:

            So what are the moral priorities of the SNNs? The same as those of the BNNs: the moral priorities of a pig attempting to shoulder its way to the trough (with some Wagner and other esthetics sprinkled on top.) Will entering the DE change these priorities? No. If the DE is a movement with a name, it will have a narrative, and this narrative will be somewhat consensus-based. So the SNNs’ moral priorities will pull this narrative over in their direction. The more widespread the DE, the more so.

            • jim says:

              If the DE is a movement with a name, it will have a narrative, and this narrative will be somewhat consensus-based.

              The Dark Enlightenment rejects consensus.

              How could a movement that contains both Sunshine Mary and Heartiste, minion of Satan, have consensus?

              The Dark Enlightenment is truth based.

              If it has a narrative, that narrative is that we have been lied to starting with the enlightenment, and the lies have been getting steadily bigger.

  17. RS says:

    B, I admire your ways overall, and commonly see more good old barbarism in you, such as your frank treatment of red november. You haven’t lapsed on low-rep squats and deads? Curious whether you even knew what a Khemelnitsky was before reading me. Though I guess five to one you did.

    I see a deal more truth in Jim than Mencius. But still, Jim seems to think 1917 is rather radically exculpated simply though Jews having lost control over the situation. Well the nazis lost too, so I guess they are off the hook as well — at least sub specie aeternitatis, but not for Jim, who doesn’t like Germany on the whole – or, to be Jimmickly frank, doesn’t like racially German people qua group. That strikes me as natural and not something I have a problem with at all. Myself and others can handle the noble work of supporting the market in vintage Wagner recordings.

    I would be glad to just forget this whole thing, but every time I load Tablet 1/3 of it is about nazism, and that seems somehow related to the skein of postwar history, the 1965 immigration act, etc.

    Mencius is brilliant, and woke me from my dogmatic slobber, but a lot of blame goes to his frankly seedy lies of omission regarding red november, and its wellsprings in Khemelnitsky/ Northern War II, and the origins of that in Ashkenazim having higher biological fitness.

    I don’t think you’re being realistic, B. Obviously you realize the bulk of Westerns who are People of Europidness have Jewish in-laws, or 1st-degree Misch in-laws. Around 100% have had very close Jewish or Misch friends, or lovers. From what you say, I guess you didn’t grow up quite as immersed in northeastern elitetards as I did, though your familiarity with them may still be considerable.

    My worry, my partial de-participation, is more that neoreaction de-emphasizes pro-Whiteism. Not too many of my close friends have been pure Europid, nevertheless, reality is that a civilization probably needs a single (civilized) hegemonic race, otherwise extreme disorder is at least likely. That, after all, is what we just learned by being Europids and Ashkenazim for several centuries. So I propose that this hegemonic race be Europids, Ashkenazim, and the thickening cline between them. I don’t expect you to like the cline, and wouldn’t bleat if you were to be activist against it, but I don’t see an upside for you in simply ignoring it. Of course you hold that the alleged continents ‘America’ and ‘Europe’ are irrelevant to Israel . . . for my part I reserve judgement on that.

    We do agree on a lot. I am cagey, but not really soured as of yet.

    Let us have some consideration for Thras, a forcefully original mind who brings up tons of stuff I never heard or thought of anywhere. Maybe that document is wrong (I wouldn’t know) and he had a bad week. I do sometimes.

    • Candide III says:

      Khemelnitsky

      WTF. Do you mean the XVII century Bohdan Khmelnitsky? What about him?

      • RS says:

        Yes. What about him, well, he murdered a ton of Jews.

        And probably tortured many of them — him and/or the Poles who murdered another ton of Jews later in the XVII. I don’t know how well-documented the torture is. The total reduction in the Ashkenazi population was on the order of 50% — some revise that downward considerably, but it doesn’t make all that much difference.

        By no means do I deny that had they not done that, there might well be about as many Poles and Ukes around today as there are Iriquois and Sioux in my country. The Jewish population was growing and obviously they had a lot more acumen per capita for organizing and appropriating things.

        It is what it is.

        • josh says:

          They would have kept the poles and ukes as debt peons. If history has taught us anything, its that Jews don’t farm.

          • jim says:

            Jews seem to be farming fine in Israel. I think the problem was that low class Jews, agricultural laborers, found themselves under more social pressure to convert (from their betters), and could not manage the ever more complicated Jewish religious observances, and that higher class Jews did not want to invest in things that they could not pack up and run with.

          • B says:

            There is no social pressure to convert out of Judaism, and there never has been. Every primary source I’ve seen shows that we’ve always maintained our own poor. There is also no record of ever more complicated religious observance during that period.

            • jim says:

              Some of your overly ingenious loopholes appear to be no older than a couple of centuries. (Shulchan Aruch HaRav) You rely heavily on an elaborate pile of complicated loopholes published in the sixteenth century.

              Without these loopholes, Jewish observances would be impractically burdensome, thus the continual generation of ever more loopholes indicates continually ever holier than thou observances.

              Which is a manifestation of Exile religion likely to be hurtful if Judaism follows the Jews home.

          • B says:

            What loopholes are in the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (and why did you pick it as opposed to, say, the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch or the Mishnah Brurah?)

            The “elaborate pile of loopholes” you are presumably relying to is the Shulchan Aruch. Why do you think it is more lenient than its three main sources?

            The fundamental nature of Halacha is that for every stringency, there is a leniency, that they are clearly identified as such, and that in every generation and place it is applied as context-appropriate and determined by the local authorities. I do not think that your vision of it as fundamentally tending towards complication and mitigated by circumstances via loopholes is accurate.

            • jim says:

              The fundamental nature of Halacha is that for every stringency, there is a leniency,

              That leniencies have been multiplying like rabbits indicates that stringency has been growing like cancer.

              Why are orthodox Jews creating erudin all over place?

              Largely so that women can take their babies for a stroll on the Sabbath.

              Do you have any evidence that a hundred years ago, Jewish mommas needed an Erud to take their babies for a stroll?

          • B says:

            It’s “eruv.”

            Yes, the prohibition on carrying between domains on Shabbat is Biblical in origin. The institution of an eruv to make a group of homes legally equivalent to one domain for this purpose is very ancient, and there is an entire eponymous tractate in the Talmud which deals with the details.

            • jim says:

              Do you have any evidence that anyone interpreted this as a prohibition on taking one’s baby for a stroll before the late nineteenth, early twentieth century, that anyone needed Eruv to take their baby for a stroll until recent times?

              Jeremiah talks of transporting loads, presumably loads of goods, in or out of the city. So you don’t need a rabbi to cast a spell making the city one domain.

              You could interpret Jeremiah as talking about transporting a load in or out of your house, but Nehemiah on loads is a commentary on Jeremiah on loads. Nehemiah makes it clear that Jeremiah refers to commerce, to the transport of commercial goods into and out of Jerusalem, not babies, not non monetary goods, and the city is one domain without any need for Rabbis to cast a spell making it one domain.

              It is a stretch to extend it to short distances within a city. The talmud makes this stretch, but only refers to transfers of goods, so you cannot supply goods from your house to someone else on the sabbath. Nothing stopping you from wandering in and out of your house with your stuff to keep it with you, and nothing on babies.

              It is a stretch to extend it to babies.

              It is a stretch to extend it strolls where you carry stuff to keep it with you, rather than transporting it from your home to some destination.

              And some of that stretching has happened quite recently, because the magic spell to make some small part of the city into one domain is quite recent, and because no one seems to have worried about transporting babies until even more recently.

              • B. says:

                There is a prohibition on carrying anything from one domain to another. The prohibition is spelled out in the sources going back all the way to the Talmud, where they discuss whether it involves exotic things like throwing some small object from the street into a house or vice versa, carrying in strange ways like in your mouth or something along those lines, and in general discuss the outer limits of the prohibition in order to delineate it. Babies are certainly within that prohibition. There is nothing about commercial goods that makes the exceptional. I’m really surprised eruvim are the best you can come up with as an example of a recent stringency, because they are actually an ancient leniency.

                • jim says:

                  Well, if it covers all the edge cases, taking a baby for a stroll is certainly an edge case.

                  So, what does it say on taking baby for a stroll.

                  Indeed, what is the earliest mention you can find for babies?

          • B says:

            Correction: carrying living things between domains is allowed by the Torah. However, there is a rabbinical prohibition on carrying children in the public domain on Shabbat. I have seen no source that claims this to be a stringency or a recent innovation, and it is universal between communities, so assume it comes from the period of the compilation of the Talmud or earlier. Carrying a baby is allowed, by the way, if the baby could walk but then refuses.

            If carrying babies or pushing them in strollers had been ok and then suddenly wasn’t 100 years ago, you would see a) arguments and discussions between rabbis (what, you think they communicate subliminally or reach a consensus at the annual ZOG meeting in Zurich?) b) complaints from their public, c) some communities not adapting this stringency upon themselves. We see none of these things.

            If you would like, I can make further inquiries for the earliest source of the rabbinical prohibition.

            • jim says:

              If carrying babies or pushing them in strollers had been ok and then suddenly wasn’t 100 years ago, you would see a) arguments and discussions between rabbis (what, you think they communicate subliminally or reach a consensus at the annual ZOG meeting in Zurich?)

              If all or most rabbis are trying to be holier than thou, are pharisees, no overt and explicit coordination is required, instead, as when progressives develop a new principle and claim they always believed in it, covert and implicit coordination.

              Obviously there was a time when carrying babies or pushing in strollers was OK, and then there was a time when it was not, and no discussion happened. It was a furtive change. The only question is did that furtive change happen sixteen hundred years ago, or a hundred years ago?

              Nehemia paraphrases and interprets Jeremiah as prohibiting the transport of commercial goods in commercial quantities into and out of the city on the Sabbath.

              At some time Jews got from Nehemia to a prohibition on women taking their babies for a stroll on the Sabbath. In order to get to that, some rabbi has to say you cannot take your babies for a stroll, because no mother is likely to come up with that conclusion on her own reading Nehemia, or even reading the (far more stringent) Talmud. So there has to be the first rabbi that says that, and the first rabbi that says that is not very ancient.

              If you would like, I can make further inquiries for the earliest source of the rabbinical prohibition.

              I would much appreciate this, for my impression is that babies in strollers on the Sabbath is the orthodox Jewish analog of gay marriage for progressives – disagreement on the question now being utterly unthinkable for progressives, they entirely forget that they disagreed on the question six years ago.

          • B says:

            I will look into it more, but in general want to say that your picture is totally wrong. There are many stringencies that differ between communities, one community having accepted them upon itself and the other one not having done so.

            Further, when I say stringency, I mean it in the technical sense-there are Torah prohibitions, there are rabbinical prohibitions and there are stringencies which are not rabbinically prohibited.

            >Obviously there was a time when carrying babies or pushing in strollers was OK, and then there was a time when it was not, and no discussion happened.

            Why obviously? You don’t have any kind of documentary evidence-this is your conjecture.

            Nothing happens without discussion-you can see this today. And pretty much all of Talmudic literature is rabbis going “here is why I think Rav X is wrong on this point.”

            >It was a furtive change.

            We don’t have furtive changes. For anything new to happen, a public argument has to be made in its favor. Then there is a discussion between authorities. Eventually, something gets hashed out. Frequently, one community adapts the change, the rest don’t, or vice versa-for instance, the Yemenite Jews still largely live by the Mishne Torah as opposed to the Shulchan Aruch, and the Shulchan Aruch has different, contradictory glosses for Ashkenazim and Sepharadim, and amongst the Ashkenazim, there are some who follow the Sepharadi gloss on some things, and vice versa. You don’t have this kind of furtive total change that you have in Progressivism.

            Furthermore, if, for instance, the accepted halacha is according to the rulings of X, which superseded the rulings of Y 500 years ago or 1000 years ago, we still study the rulings of Y, and we do not say they are wrong, just that the current law is not in accordance with them, but let’s see the logic behind them.

            Finally, even if we talk about stringencies enacted with the passage of time, these are stringencies of behavior and actions, but not stringencies of belief. You can (within fairly wide bounds) believe whatever you want, and there are different streams of thought that coexist. Whereas with Progressivism, it is the opposite-you can ACT as racist, sexist, homophobic as you want, just as long as you PROFESS the right things.

            This is not progressivism or holier-than-thou-ism. It’s a completely different animal.

            >The only question is did that furtive change happen sixteen hundred years ago, or a hundred years ago?

            Sixteen hundred years ago, there were no strollers.

            I will look into it, though.

            P.S. Nehemia is not germane to the issue whatsoever. You can’t just read TaNaKh and derive halakhot on your own-it is like trying to read the Declaration of Independence and figure out what it says about your right to build a shed on your lawn if the neighborhood homeowners’ association is against it.

            If you want a Torah source relevant to the issue, you can see the case of the Egyptian’s son who was gathering firewood on Shabbat. But again, just by looking at the Torah source, you can’t figure out what the halacha today should be, or why. This might be the Karaite approach, in theory, but in practice even the Karaites had extensive juridical traditions. Not that it got them far, since they are almost extinct today.

            • jim says:

              >Obviously there was a time when carrying babies or pushing in strollers was OK, and then there was a time when it was not, and no discussion happened.

              Why obviously? You don’t have any kind of documentary evidence-this is your conjecture.

              I do have documentary evidence: Jeremiah and Nehemiah. Nehemiah echoes Jeremiah’s phrases, therefore is commentary on Nehemiah

              Nothing happens without discussion-you can see this today.

              No I cannot see this today. You are taking your own religion at face value, while you don’t take any other religion at face value. I don’t take any religion at face value. When I read Judaism between the lines, looks to me that banning babies in strollers happened embarrassingly recently.

              Nehemia is not germane to the issue whatsoever.

              Sure he is. If people were transporting cartloads of fish into the city on the Sabbath, we can be pretty sure that women were carrying their babies on the Sabbath.

              It is a lot harder to get women to take a day off from carrying babies, than to get men to take a day off from carting fish. So if women carrying babies was forbidden, someone would have to thunder at them at fairly frequent intervals. Nehemiah and Jeremiah would have thundered at them. I am pretty sure that all thundering at women to stop them from carrying babies on the Sabbath is very recent indeed – not because I have checked anything later than Nehemiah, but because I can smell guilt, hypocrisy and Phariseeism in the word choices of today’s rabbis.

          • B says:

            >Nehemiah echoes Jeremiah’s phrases, therefore is commentary on Nehemiah

            Jewish literature is full of parallels, quotes from prior sources, plays on wording of prior sources, etc. This doesn’t imply that it is commentary on those sources. It is often poetic, a figure of speech, parallelism and so forth.

            >No I cannot see this today.

            Well, you could if you were reading the rabbinic discussions going on today. Or in the last several hundred years.

            >When I read Judaism between the lines, looks to me that banning babies in strollers happened embarrassingly recently.

            Again-this is your projection.

            >If people were transporting cartloads of fish into the city on the Sabbath, we can be pretty sure that women were carrying their babies on the Sabbath.

            This is bizarro logic. If an egregious violation was taking place, you can be sure that the law was being violated in other, smaller ways, which thus were not violations at all? Of course,

            >It is a lot harder to get women to take a day off from carrying babies, than to get men to take a day off from carting fish.

            Not really-there is no profit motive in carrying a baby around. There are numerous instances of Jewish women being more hesitant to violate a commandment than the men (see: the Golden Calf episode, what with the earrings.) And of course we don’t know how much women appeared in public during that specific period-Maimonides, for instance, insists that women should not go outside the house more than necessary. How much of this is projection of the values of the society in which he lived onto the society of the second temple period is up for debate.

            >So if women carrying babies was forbidden, someone would have to thunder at them at fairly frequent intervals.

            This is not how it works with us.

            >I am pretty sure that all thundering at women to stop them from carrying babies on the Sabbath is very recent indeed –

            There is no thundering.

            >not because I have checked anything later than Nehemiah, but because I can smell guilt, hypocrisy and Phariseeism in the word choices of today’s rabbis.

            In other words, because you don’t know what you’re talking about, but have a predetermined conclusion and have decided to make this particular issue fit it. It would be a lot more interesting if you could quote these word choices you find offensive, in context.

            • jim says:

              If people were transporting cartloads of fish into the city on the Sabbath, we can be pretty sure that women were carrying their babies on the Sabbath.

              This is bizarro logic. If an egregious violation was taking place, you can be sure that the law was being violated in other, smaller ways, which thus were not violations at all? Of course,

              Not violations because Nehemiah evidently considers that shutting down Sabbath commerce would suffice. If other activities constituted violations of the Sabbath, he would surely have listed them also. He lists various things he did to enforce Jewish law against various people. It is perfectly clear that Jewish law at that time was far less stringent than later Talmudic law, and Talmudic law is far less stringent than later rabbinical law.

              In other words, because you don’t know what you’re talking about,

              If the prohibition against women carrying babies outside on the Sabbath is old, would have been mentioned in old writings. If mentioned in old writings, you would have found it by now.

              It feels like a live issue that Rabbis have not quite put to bed yet, so I would guess it to be very recent indeed, possibly late twentieth century or early twenty first century. Late nineteenth century at the oldest.

          • B says:

            >Not violations because Nehemiah evidently considers that shutting down Sabbath commerce would suffice. If other activities constituted violations of the Sabbath, he would surely have listed them also.

            Nehemia does not make a claim to list all of the violations he shut down, just the most egregious ones. Further, it is not clear that Jerusalem did not have an eruv at the time, in which case women carrying their children around on Shabbat would have been not violating anything.

            >He lists various things he did to enforce Jewish law against various people. It is perfectly clear that Jewish law at that time was far less stringent than later Talmudic law, and Talmudic law is far less stringent than later rabbinical law.

            >If the prohibition against women carrying babies outside on the Sabbath is old, would have been mentioned in old writings.

            You have to still prove that an infant is somehow different than any other burden.

            >If mentioned in old writings, you would have found it by now.

            Patience. Research continues.

            >It feels like a live issue that Rabbis have not quite put to bed yet, so I would guess it to be very recent indeed, possibly late twentieth century or early twenty first century. Late nineteenth century at the oldest.

            “Feels”? We do not deal in feels.

            So far, here is what I have.

            There is a Torah prohibition against bearing loads into and out of the public domain in a very strict sense, meaning an area accessible to 600K people and at least 32 feet wide according to some interpretations. This is what Nehemia was dealing with. There is a rabbinical prohibition against bearing loads into and out of public domain in the wider sense of the word, meaning, some place that is accessible to the public but not to some very large number of people, or smaller than a certain dimension. This exists as a fence around the Torah prohibition, so that people do not transgress unintentionally. It was already in place during the compilation of the Talmud, as well as the eruv mechanism to get around it.

            Someone who can walk on their own, in theory, can be carried between two domains like this, but there are some difficulties, the details of which I am still clarifying. An invalid or an infant or a dead man do not count-they are just like any other burden.

            The Mishna Brurah, a commentary on the Shulchan Aruch from the early 20th century, says that there is a rabbinical prohibition against carrying children who can walk on their own. Meaning, not by the rabbis of his time, but by the rabbis of the Talmudic period or earlier. The Mishna Brurah’s method is to present all the opinions on a given matter from the post-talmudic period and to the present time, and give the reader a range of options to select from-if there had been an opinion that an infant who can’t walk can be carried between domains within the previous time, he would have quoted it. Instead, he says that there are many ignorant people who are not aware of this prohibition, and one shouldn’t tell them of it, since it is better that they transgress unknowingly, for which they are not liable, than knowingly. This is the standard approach with rabbinical prohibitions. Not “thundering.”

            • jim says:

              A baby is not like any other burden, and if you are taking him for a stroll, this is family recreation, not work. What is a family going to do on a day of rest but go for walk or a drive to some pleasant place? It is supposed to be a day of rest, not a day of imprisonment and scripture reading. So, if covered, needs to be specifically mentioned.

              When we look at early commands and enforcement, and later commands and enforcement, it is obvious that the more stringent, and the more ridiculous, the command, the later any explicit mention of this command appears. I am only using babies in strollers because this seems to be one of the most recent, if not the most recent.

              Similarly, magic spells to evade stringencies appear recently, indicating that the associated stringency is recent.

              Old Testament simply says that the Sabbath shall be a day of rest.

              Six days you shall do your work, and on the seventh day you shall rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of your handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.

              Where we read about enforcement (Jeremiah and Nehemiah) the stuff that they are enforcing needs no longer and more complicated prescription. To do what they did, they needed no more detail than is given. So when we see the prescription becoming longer and more complicated, we can conclude that law is becoming more and more stringent.

              This dynamic is what we expect – holier than thou disease, phariseeism.

          • B says:

            >A baby is not like any other burden,

            In this case, it is.

            >and if you are taking him for a stroll, this is family recreation, not work.

            The problem is that you are using a translation and losing context. The definition of “work” to be avoided on the Shabbat is a technical one, and has nothing to do with laboriousness per se. It involves the activities done in building the tabernacle. For instance, building a fire isn’t “work”-it is fun! Yet it is explicitly prohibited on Shabbat. On the other hand, serving a meal is work, yet there is nothing prohibited about the activity.

            (we won’t get into the lifestyle of the Jews of that time, whether it was common for women to go for a stroll with their kids or not-there are plenty of places where toddlers and younger kids hang out in the street, and infants stay inside)

            >What is a family going to do on a day of rest but go for walk or a drive to some pleasant place? It is supposed to be a day of rest, not a day of imprisonment and scripture reading.

            Now we are entering the realm of the Torah According To Jim, or rather, the King James Bible According To Jim. In fact, Shabbat is, first and foremost, a holy day, not a day of recreational activities, bass fishing and offroading, brought to you by Coors Brewing Company. Even going out from your dwelling is, if you construct what is in the Torah verbatim, prohibited, which is why Karaite Shabbatot were such a miserable affair. Fortunately, we have context, coming from those horrible, stringent rabbis, which tells us that dwelling, in this case, is meant in a technical, legal case.

            >So, if covered, needs to be specifically mentioned.

            No. The TaNaKh is, as I mentioned, an extremely concise document. In parallel with it, we had an oral tradition of the jurisprudence for which it serves as a backbone. We had this from the very beginning-see the 70 elders Moshe appointed in the desert to judge disputes. Of course, the foundational document didn’t need to specifically go into each and every potential dispute that would arise, nor could it, any more than the US Constitution could go into the details of NSA eavesdropping or your dispute with the local Homeowners’ Association about the legality of raising rabbits in the backyard or whatever.

            >When we look at early commands and enforcement, and later commands and enforcement, it is obvious that the more stringent, and the more ridiculous, the command, the later any explicit mention of this command appears.

            Really, Jim? It’s not “ridiculous” that I can’t kindle a fire or go out of my house on what is supposed to be a day of rest? This aggression will not stand, man! And it’s in the very first book of the Torah after the Jews left Egypt. No mean rabbis around. Then we get rabbis explaining things like, if I have a fire going beforehand, it is ok as long as I don’t mess with it (my non-Jewish neighbor can even come by and throw some logs on every once in a while,) my dwelling actually extends to my neighborhood and town, and so on. This is the OPPOSITE of your narrative.

            >I am only using babies in strollers because this seems to be one of the most recent, if not the most recent.

            Because you are approaching the Torah through a translation with no context, so, Day Of Rest=let’s sleep in and then play video games, whoo! And then any explanation of what was actually meant by the word “melakha,” which doesn’t really mean work, is a stringency.

            >Similarly, magic spells to evade stringencies appear recently, indicating that the associated stringency is recent.

            Again. An eruv dates from long before the compilation of the Talmud (all the rabbis discussing the issue in the eponymous tractate are in implicit agreement that it is an actual thing.)

            >Where we read about enforcement (Jeremiah and Nehemiah) the stuff that they are enforcing needs no longer and more complicated prescription.

            Again-the Torah, including the Prophets, is a very condensed and sketchy description. Nehemiah describes enforcing an egregious violation of a Torah prohibition. To derive from this that there were no other, related prohibitions, is flawed reasoning. Nehemiah is not writing a history book. And I would suggest you read all the parts of the Torah dealing with the Shabbat-it’s not just the brief one you quoted.

            >This dynamic is what we expect – holier than thou disease, phariseeism.

            This kind of stuff is exactly what you get from Christianity. First, a Jew comes along and throws out some parts of Judaism, because it seems superfluous to him. Then his followers throw out some other parts which are getting in the way of marketing to gentiles. Then, later, gentiles make up their own thing entirely, subject to constant revision. You, as a gentile on the tail end of this process, skim a translation of the original document with no context or ability to read the original, look at the practice, see that the practice is more extensive, then retroproject the Christian narrative onto us-of course, our cynical leaders have no respect for the source text and twist it whatever way they want for personal gain, and always have-isn’t that what religious leaders do? But, no, that is not what religious leaders do in our case. Not because they are so holy, but because our structure is different.

            • jim says:

              so, if covered, needs to be specifically mentioned.

              No. The TaNaKh is, as I mentioned, an extremely concise document.

              No it is not. It is an extremely lengthy document. It is a great fat book printed in small type on extremely thin paper. If the laws are brief, it is because they really are brief, for when we see reports of these laws being enforced (Jeremiah and Nehemiah, what they do is sufficiently covered by those very brief laws. If the laws needed more explanation and definition, there is buckets of room for a lawyers paradise.

              Really, Jim? It’s not “ridiculous” that I can’t kindle a fire or go out of my house on what is supposed to be a day of rest? This aggression will not stand, man! And it’s in the very first book of the Torah after the Jews left Egypt.

              I have the same book. On checking Moses shortly after leaving Egypt, I find that you can kindle a fire on the Sabbath. You can go out of your tent on the Sabbath. You are not supposed to travel on the Sabbath. Your are supposed to cook your food (bake and boil) the night before as far as is reasonably possible, but nothing stops you kindling a fire. You just cannot bake and boil on that fire.

              Of course Jesus tossed even those details and stringencies aside “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”, but Jews, on the other hand, in an effort to be holier than thou, created a labyrinth of law from what was originally fairly reasonable.

          • B says:

            >It is a great fat book printed in small type on extremely thin paper.

            given the length and breadth of the events described therein, it is extremely condensed. Example: Moses was on the mountain for 40 days, speaking with G-d. It takes something like 20 minutes to read the corresponding portion of the Torah aloud, with breaks. The Jews spent 40 years in the desert. During this time, a Sanhedrin was operating to deal with their legal questions (Moses was worn out after a very brief period and instituted it at Yithro’s suggestion.) Don’t you think that this body’s rulings and precedent had some importance? Yet we don’t see them in the TaNaKh.

            >If the laws are brief, it is because they really are brief, for when we see reports of these laws being enforced (Jeremiah and Nehemiah, what they do is sufficiently covered by those very brief laws. If the laws needed more explanation and definition, there is buckets of room for a lawyers paradise.

            So, why a Sanhedrin? Why an entire court hierarchy established by Moses in the desert very early in the process? I mean, if it was so straightforward and not obvious on the face of it?

            http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus+18%3A1-18%3A27&version=KJV

            >On checking Moses shortly after leaving Egypt, I find that you can kindle a fire on the Sabbath. You can go out of your tent on the Sabbath. You are not supposed to travel on the Sabbath. Your are supposed to cook your food (bake and boil) the night before as far as is reasonably possible, but nothing stops you kindling a fire. You just cannot bake and boil on that fire.

            The fact that a guy as smart as you has no grasp on the Torah whatsoever just goes to show that when you throw out some of it, you throw out all of it.

            The laws of the Shabbat are given in condensed form in several places. If you check Exodus 35, you will see a specific prohibition on lighting a fire. In Exodus 29, it says “let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.”

            Isaiah says “If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

            Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

            Meaning, that Shabbat is a day holy to G-d, and not primarily intended for bass fishing or other recreational activities.

            This is why the Karaites, who reject Rabbinical authority, don’t even have fires in their homes on Shabbat (or have sex): https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Judaism/Karaites.html

            The Samaritans, who likewise reject Rabbinical authority, observe the same laws:

            “On that day, the Samaritans believe that it is not lawful to
            perform the least work, following the command of the noble
            revelation, as found in the Torah and of which the explana-
            tion may be given later on. It is not also lawful among them
            to speak about their business, or of anything that may bring
            profit to them. It is not lawful among them to sail the seas, neither to leave for the outskirts of the town in which they
            live. They destroy entirely their fire, beginning with the
            evening on the day of Friday. They have no artificial light
            on the night of the Sabbath, and all their food on the day of
            the Sabbath is prepared for them on the day of Friday, and is
            kept apart from contact or the influence of fire. On that day
            they absolutely forbear from approaching their wives or of
            touching anything made on the Sabbath through fire, whether
            it be for them or for others. They even avoid visiting on that
            day with people of a different religion.”

            http://archive.org/stream/bibliothecasacr03semigoog/bibliothecasacr03semigoog_djvu.txt

            http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/sam/manners.htm

            http://members.tripod.com/~osher_2/sabbath_withs.html

            >Of course Jesus tossed even those details and stringencies aside “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”

            Right. This is typical Christian doublethink: I come not to abrogate the law, but to fulfill it, and fulfill it by telling you that the law is actually not what it plainly says, and not what the unbroken tradition says it actually means, but whatever I want it to mean. It’s a straight line from Jesus telling you that Shabbat actually means bass fishing to Obama telling you that Jesus actually was the first community organizer.

            >but Jews, on the other hand, in an effort to be holier than thou, created a labyrinth of law from what was originally fairly reasonable.

            Again-not going out from your place all day is reasonable? Not kindling a fire in your house even if it’s cold is reasonable? Killing a guy for gathering firewood is reasonable? The plain text is not “reasonable” from a modern Western framework.

            • jim says:

              If the laws are brief, it is because they really are brief, for when we see reports of these laws being enforced (Jeremiah and Nehemiah, what they do is sufficiently covered by those very brief laws. If the laws needed more explanation and definition, there is buckets of room for a lawyers paradise.

              So, why a Sanhedrin? Why an entire court hierarchy established by Moses in the desert very early in the process? I mean, if it was so straightforward and not obvious on the face of it?

              To deal with individual cases, evidence, all that stuff, not to manufacture great piles of law. Moses was worn out because there were so many Hebrews, not because there was so much complicated law.

              On checking Moses shortly after leaving Egypt, I find that you can kindle a fire on the Sabbath. You can go out of your tent on the Sabbath. You are not supposed to travel on the Sabbath. Your are supposed to cook your food (bake and boil) the night before as far as is reasonably possible, but nothing stops you kindling a fire. You just cannot bake and boil on that fire.

              The fact that a guy as smart as you has no grasp on the Torah whatsoever just goes to show that when you throw out some of it, you throw out all of it.

              The laws of the Shabbat are given in condensed form in several places. If you check Exodus 35, you will see a specific prohibition on lighting a fire. In Exodus 29, it says “let no one go out of his place on the seventh day.”

              Isaiah says “If thou turn away thy foot from the sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the sabbath a delight, the holy of the Lord, honourable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words:

              Then shalt thou delight thyself in the Lord; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”

              You have not found anything old – indeed anything that is not very recent, saying that babies are burdens. My intuition is that this one early twenty first, late twentieth

              Again-not going out from your place all day is reasonable? Not kindling a fire in your house even if it’s cold is reasonable? Killing a guy for gathering firewood is reasonable?

              At the time they lived in tents, which lacked indoor toilets. This required them to leave the area where they and their friends and relatives were camped, and dig a little hole to relieve themselves. Thus the prohibition was on travel, on leaving the immediate area, not on leaving your tent, but on packing up your gear and shifting your tent.

          • B says:

            >To deal with individual cases, evidence, all that stuff, not to manufacture great piles of law. Moses was worn out because there were so many Hebrews, not because there was so much complicated law.

            Evidence is very simple-two kosher witnesses, good to go. I mean, no matter how simple your written law is, as soon as you apply it to real life, there are complications, difficulties, precedent is created and so on.

            >You have not found anything old – indeed anything that is not very recent, saying that babies are burdens.

            You are switching the null hypothesis. You need to come up with sources that say why a baby is different from, say, a car key. I came up with such sources and explained their limits and the source of the current situation.

            >My intuition is that this one early twenty first, late twentieth

            Your intuition is wrong.

            >At the time they lived in tents, which lacked indoor toilets. This required them to leave the area where they and their friends and relatives were camped, and dig a little hole to relieve themselves. Thus the prohibition was on travel, on leaving the immediate area, not on leaving your tent, but on packing up your gear and shifting your tent.

            You are supposed to “stay your foot.” And not go out of “your place.” Now, we get into what constitutes “your place.” Again, as we see, it is impossible to determine from the plain text. You have to read into it, with context. This is an example of where the Oral Law comes in, the function of Rabbis and so on. If you take the plain text, one of the most striking things is how much of a big deal Shabbat is. It is absolutely critical, with grave consequences for transgression. Therefore, you need to understand the boundaries, and not let every Tom, Dick and Harry decide for themselves what they are. Thus, you have a Rabbinical system, and those who do not have a Rabbinical system (Karaites and Samaritans) and take the Torah seriously are generally MORE stringent than those who do (although not always, as with leaven on Pesach.) Which is the opposite of what you are saying-that Rabbis’ primary function is increasing stringency as a holier-than-thou status game. The other alternative is to just throw the commandments out, a la Christianity, which predictably leads to indifference to the source text on one hand, and its mutation into Progressivism on the other, which is why the Rabbis rejected it very forcefully instead of treating it as just a weird sidestream of Judaism.

            • jim says:

              You are switching the null hypothesis. You need to come up with sources that say why a baby is different from, say, a car key. I came up with such sources and explained their limits and the source of the current situation.

              Women will take their babies outside on the Sabbath, as on other days. If it was forbidden, they would need to be informed of this from time to time. No one told them this until quite recently.

              You are supposed to “stay your foot.” And not go out of “your place.” Now, we get into what constitutes “your place.” Again, as we see, it is impossible to determine from the plain text.

              Well actually we can. “Day of rest”. Population of nomadic herders living in tents, moving very frequently. So don’t pack up your tent and gear and transport it to fresh grazing grounds on the Sabbath, because that, obviously, is work.

          • B says:

            >Women will take their babies outside on the Sabbath, as on other days. If it was forbidden, they would need to be informed of this from time to time. No one told them this until quite recently.

            If this were true, you would have communal rabbis not going with the program, howlings, critiques from the Reform and Conservative communities, and so on. Your lack of insight into how our world works is keeping you from accurately modeling what happens with innovations.

            In reality, Jews always put up eruvim, and babies were carried by all who held by them.

            >Well actually we can. “Day of rest”. Population of nomadic herders living in tents, moving very frequently.

            They were not nomadic herders-they were a sedentary population living in a way that was not natural. They moved when commanded by G-d via a sign visible to all, 42 times in 40 years. You really should work on your understanding of the text before you argue about it.

            >So don’t pack up your tent and gear and transport it to fresh grazing grounds on the Sabbath, because that, obviously, is work.

            But that was not the case-they only moved when commanded to do so via the cloud pillar.

            • jim says:

              If this were true, you would have communal rabbis not going with the program, howlings, critiques from the Reform and Conservative communities, and

              Reflect on the recent progressive consensus on gay marriage. Every progressive now thinks he was always in favor of gay marriage, a transition that was accomplished with absolutely zero howlings and everyone going with the program.

              They were not nomadic herders-they were a sedentary population living in a way that was not natural. They moved when commanded by G-d via a sign visible to all, 42 times in 40 years. You really should work on your understanding of the text before you argue about it.

              The cloud remaining on the tabernacle was the abnormal condition. “And when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, then the children of Israel kept the charge of the LORD, and journeyed not.” The normal condition was travelling. And if you have all your gear and possessions with you, travelling is hard work.

          • B says:

            >Reflect on the recent progressive consensus on gay marriage.

            You are assuming your conclusion here, which is that with us, it works the same way as with progs. But it doesn’t.

            Example: Rav Moshe Feinstein, 60 years ago, decided that the prohibition on drinking milk produced without Jewish supervision, which dates from the Talmud, does not apply in America because of the USDA. This is a well-documented decision. There was vociferous argument, well-documented, which continues to this day. Some communities and individuals hold by this easement, some don’t (even within families.) Nobody claims that this milk is not kosher, that those drinking it are lesser Jews or of lesser faith, that Rav Moshe was a sinner or heretic…This is nothing like the prog discourse-it is in good faith and well recorded.

            Another example-the debate on what to do with electricity on Shabbat is extremely well-documented.

            We are not progs-we have a transparent and well-documented process, and pluralism (within bounds.)

            >The cloud remaining on the tabernacle was the abnormal condition. “And when the cloud tarried long upon the tabernacle many days, then the children of Israel kept the charge of the LORD, and journeyed not.” The normal condition was travelling. And if you have all your gear and possessions with you, travelling is hard work.

            No. There is a list of the camps and journeys of the children of Israel over 40 years. They number 42. Unless the cloud pillars moved out, you stayed put. When it moved, you packed up and followed it.

            Most of the 40 years (38) they stayed at Kadesh Barnea.

            • jim says:

              Example: Rav Moshe Feinstein, 60 years ago, decided that the prohibition on drinking milk produced without Jewish supervision, which dates from the Talmud, does not apply in America because of the USDA. This is a well-documented decision. There was vociferous argument, well-documented, which continues to this day

              Well of course backing away from holiness is subject to vociferous debate. The same thing happens with progs. When they backed away from command socialism, there was a lot of debate, which continues to this day, resulting in today’s even more disastrous compromise of capitalism without markets and socialism without a central plan.

              Got any examples of debate about heading towards even greater holiness?

              If Judaism is in equilibrium, on average not becoming holier or less holy, there should be about equal debates for greater and lesser holiness. The absence of debates on greater holiness is not evidence that moves to greater holiness are not happening. It is evidence that moves to greater holiness are furtive and conspiratorial, among rabbis as among progressives.

              No. There is a list of the camps and journeys of the children of Israel over 40 years. They number 42. Unless the cloud pillars moved out, you stayed put. When it moved, you packed up and followed it

              And for most of the time they were following it. Which was work. Those were long, slow, journeys over grazing land.

          • B says:

            >Got any examples of debate about heading towards even greater holiness?

            Sure-the religious Zionist movement, which believes Jews have an obligation to live in Israel, has been engaged in extensive debate with their opponents for at least 100 years. The Vilna Gaon thought male Jews should wear tefillin all day, not just during the morning prayer, and there was debate-this was not adapted by the vast majority of Jews, despite his immense personal authority. Chabad and Satmar each have their own, more stringent standard of Kashrut for meat-their logic in adapting it was well-publicised, as was the reasoning of most Jews who did not adapt it. Ger has a ludicrously restrictive sexual behavior standard-most Jews did not adapt it, are not moving towards adapting it, and in fact follow a completely opposed standard. I could keep going.

            >And for most of the time they were following it. Which was work. Those were long, slow, journeys over grazing land.

            Not so-they went several hundred kilometers over 40 years. With carts, you can cover 10 km a day at a very leisurely pace. They stayed in one place for 38 of those 40.

            The larger point is that if your interpretation was correct, there would have been no reason to prohibit leaving one’s place on Shabbat-the pillars of clouds didn’t move on Shabbat, thus, the Jews wouldn’t have moved anyway.

            • jim says:

              OK, these suggest that they would not sneak the prohibition against strollers through on the quiet in recent times.

              But I don’t see where you conclude that the pillar of clouds always stayed home on the Sabbath every Sabbath.

          • B says:

            >But I don’t see where you conclude that the pillar of clouds always stayed home on the Sabbath every Sabbath.

            If you do not move camp unless the pillar of cloud moves to the head of the camp, and you do not move even from your place on Shabbat (stay your foot, etc.), you definitely do not move camps on Shabbat, and thus the pillar of clouds doesn’t move to the head of the camp.

            • jim says:

              This is circular reasoning. My interpretation of these scriptures is that pillar of cloud was normally in the distance, and the Hebrews were acting like normal nomadic herders, that on the Sabbath they took a break from nomadism, and that about once a year, they briefly stopped acting like nomadic herders for a few days on the basis that the pillar of cloud was home.

          • B says:

            >This is circular reasoning. My interpretation of these scriptures is that pillar of cloud was normally in the distance, and the Hebrews were acting like normal nomadic herders, that on the Sabbath they took a break from nomadism, and that about once a year, they briefly stopped acting like nomadic herders for a few days on the basis that the pillar of cloud was home.

            That is contrary to our tradition. The pillar of the cloud was normally in the camp, and periodically would lead the Jews to the next station. The Jews were not acting as herders-the Sinai desert can’t support that many herders. They were living on manna primarily.

            • jim says:

              The Sinai was substantially wetter back then. And oral traditions are unlikely to be reliable a thousand years, or even a few hundred years, after the events.

        • B says:

          After the Khmelnitsky massacres, the Jewish population of Poland and the Ukraine grew several-fold. Yet there seemed to be no shortage of Poles and Ukrainians. Perhaps having intelligent people around to lend you money and sell you stuff cheaply is a GOOD thing.

          There is a reason that merchant minorities prosper-they have a better perspective than their competition, and are able to leverage that to create discriminatory pricing, arbitrage and thus value. If I know that a given peasant is trustworthy, I can charge him a better rate/give him goods on credit. Both parties are better off. That Sauromathian commenter at UR alludes to this, and Sowell talks about it at length.

          • Candide III says:

            Perhaps having intelligent people around to lend you money and sell you stuff cheaply is a GOOD thing.

            A people who sells you rotgut vodka cheaply is not a good thing to have around. Stop trying to paint Jews as white and fluffy bunnies, please.

          • B says:

            The Jews have left the Ukraine and Russia by and large. Thus, you see, the natives have quit drinking, not having anyone to buy vodka from. Are the Jews behind krokodil as well?

            Aside from that vodka, they also provided all kinds of other useful stuff. Again, the harmful things the Jews did were quite easily picked up by the natives when they left, while the beneficial ones were not.

          • josh says:

            Let’s be honest, rotgut Vodka, tax farming, and usury were the Jewish legacies in Eastern Europe.

            I realize that this is not because of bad DNA, but that they were fulfilling an available niche, but that does not mean we need to praise the people who fill this niche.

          • josh says:

            Also, as fillers of this niche, the Jews pressed for the removal of restrictions intended to limit vice as they continue to do today. Again, its a niche, but the gypsies have a niche too.

          • SMERSH says:

            RE: Jews and the promotion of vice.

            They aren’t denying it anymore.

            http://forward.com/articles/191724/a-short-history-of-jews-and-obscenity/

            White neoreactionaries are willing to acknowledge the role of white people in the troubles that now afflict us. We’ve moved beyond the intellectually dishonest position that no true white man puts ultra-calvinism on his porridge / civilization. Even the more intellectual stormfags acknowledge this, albeit in slightly different terms.

            Jewish reactionaries ought to get beyond “no true Judean” stuff and engage in a process of honest self analysis. Brutally analyzing other groups but sparing your own group doesn’t fit in with a movement that is based on brutal honesty.

          • B says:

            Again: since the Jews have mostly left, the noble Ukrainians and Russians have not stopped drinking, but have added things like krokodil to their list of recreations-the proles like to get crunk. Their tax system hasn’t gone away-it’s gotten worse-when proles gather yasak, you can assume they will steal as much as possible (and one of the reasons to hire Jews as tax farmers was their reputation for honesty). And it is unclear to me whether it’s possible for farms or industry to function without debt, and if you have debt, you have some way to compensate for the time value of money.

            Well, enough about that-would you like to apologize for feeding alcohol to the Indians and the Irish, and giving the Blacks diabetes through your carbohydrate industries (and let’s keep in mind the complicity of the American government in moving hard drugs into the country)? Or can we stop playing this stupid game and have an adult convo?

            Bruce, Roth, Goldberg were Jews who were trying to be as non-jewish as possible by running ahead of the locomotive. The values they embraced were not Jewish-they were basically Grecoroman degeneracy. They married non-Jews, they hung out with non-Jews, they violated kashrut and Shabbat, and they violated the laws of sexual conduct in order to gain success in non-Jewish society, at the expense of their Jewish identity. Hellenizers, in one word. I don’t know why this is so hard to grasp. Next, we’ll be hearing that the Jews seduced the poor Germans into Nazism-Milch was half-Jewish, you know what they say about Hitler, etc., etc.

          • josh says:

            Giving black diabetes is fucked up. Capitalism sucks. Let us not hesitate to scorn the capitalists. We aren’t talking about Jewish DNA here, we are talking about Jewish culture, which was and is associated with exploitation and promotion of vice. Of course Jews are capable of embracing Logos (as the modern Orthodox seem to have done) but this, I think is rejecting the quintessence of what it has meant to be a Jew since the time of Bar Kokhba.

            • jim says:

              Let us compare actually existent capitalist countries with actually existent non capitalist countries.

              And blacks are more subject to diabetes because they have less self control. The cure for type two diabetes has long been known, but is difficult to practice.

              You are criticizing Jews for being capitalists, as if capitalism was an alien and evil practice, and if it was not for those horrid Jews we would be happily socialist.

          • josh says:

            Jiminy christmas Jim, I’m not a socialist. Blacks need more moral guidance from society than whites or asians. Capitalism says they should maximize their utility and others should profit from their gluttony. You don’t have to be a socialist to believe that economic transactions should be subject to the moral law.

          • josh says:

            agreed, but I’m not sure what your point is.

      • Candide III says:

        Torture was a fairly standard element in the XVII century. I seem to remember Poland burning captured Cossack leaders alive in an iron bull, impaling etc. England was burning witches at the time, as well as drawing and quartering, and don’t get me started on Russian practices. So I have no a priori reason to disbelieve such reports, as well as massacres of Jews during Khmelnytsky uprising (and other previous and subsequent uprisings). Although if it is what it is, remember that Jews have made themselves iniquitous to the local population by serving Poles as estate managers, gin shop salesmen etc., and generally making themselves a willing instrument of Polish rule which was not quite benign (Poles being disdainful of Ukrainians as uncultured and of the wrong faith). When it came to having to pay a Jew to christen your child in the parish church, the locals’ patience wore pretty thin.

    • B says:

      1917 was not a Jewish thing. Kerenski was not Jewish, for instance. The follow-on revolution was not Jewish either. While the Jews were disproportionately represented, so were the Poles, Letts, Georgians, Turkic peoples, Armenians and so on. There is a reason Stalin’s post at the time was Commissar of the Nationalities. The Russian Empire was a great place compared to its successor, but a shitty place to be a minority compared to many of its neighbors. Aside from Khmelnitsky, who was an proto-nationalist, there were lots of other great things like Cantonism.

      In any case, the revolution did not represent characteristically Jewish values, and the Jews actively participating saw it as a way to stop being Jews and become Homo Soveticus, which is anathema to Judaism. Attacking the king of a country in which you live, even verbally, is also expressly prohibited by Judaism. The Red Army was largely composed of Russians and Ukrainians who enjoyed a good pogrom as much as anyone else (Babel’s Konarmiya alludes to this as much as was possible given the context of its publication.)

      As soon as they took over, the Bolsheviks destroyed the agricultural Jewish communities of the South, and then dedicated immense amounts of effort to destroying Judaism among the Jews, forcing them and their children to desecrate Shabbat and the Holy Days, burning Torah scrolls, arresting and executing Torah scholars, and so forth.

      In Germany, a hundred years of enlightenment, friendships and marriages between Jews preceded Hitler. Goebbels’ wife almost married a Jew before marrying him. Milch was Jewish. So, the “thickening cline” provides nothing good when push comes to shove. The non-Jewish descendants of Jews often tend to blame their Jewish relatives for their weird intermediary condition, and throw us under the train to fit in with whitey. Even as we speak, John Kerry is pushing my national leadership as hard as he can to give my house to the Arabs, or at least the main road linking us to the rest of Israel. And Albright was Sec State during the flowering peace process of the 90s, which saw about 2K Jews killed out of a population of 6 million. By US terms, that would be a hundred thousand dead. The Cathedral’s clients here referred to them as “Peace Sacrifices.”

      Not to mention that from a Jewish perspective, this cline is an intermediate stage in our assimilation, which is national death.

      To the larger point-obviously, I’d prefer a world governed by monarchies or responsible CEOs to one governed by the Cathedral. But I would prefer a world governed by the Cathedral to one governed by peasants with pitchforks a la Golden Dawn.

      • jim says:

        But I would prefer a world governed by the Cathedral to one governed by peasants with pitchforks a la Golden Dawn.

        Golden Dawn is alleged to be anti semitic, but the only link I have seen to supposedly anti semitic Golden Dawn statements was a reference to “international loan sharks” – which is an entirely reasonable complaint for a Greek to make.

        I don’t like peasants voting either, but I don’t think peasants are the problem for Jews. Rather, when things get hot for the ruling elite, they are apt to throw their Jewish servants to the peasants.

        The major reason Germans came to hate Jews was that they blamed them for the hyperinflation – because the establishment blamed the Jews. The Nazis, quite correctly, blamed not the Jews, but the establishment for the hyperinflation.

          • Candide III says:

            Next time you can quote African Americans on institutional racism.

          • spandrell says:

            Why on earth would you give a shit about Greeks hating Jews dude. Worst case scenario all Jews on Europe go back to Israel, which is a net win for everyone involved.

            And don’t sell me that the natives benefit from having Jews around. Like you give a shit about benefiting the natives. Why do you care anyway.

          • B says:

            You are really not following the thread here.

            The Golden Dawn is only interesting in the sense that it may be an indicator of where NR will go if it becomes a mainstream movement while continuing to dumb down.

            I would like for all the Jews of Europe to go back to Israel. I would not like them to do so because their European neighbors rob and murder them.

            I generally like the Europeans and Americans and would prefer that they benefit as long as its not at the expense of my people. I think our interests are ultimately aligned.

            Candide-where there’s smoke, there’s fire. The linked stuff had quotes of GD materials.

            • jim says:

              I would like for all the Jews of Europe to go back to Israel. I would not like them to do so because their European neighbors rob and murder them.

              But this presupposes that Golden Dawn is itching to rob and murder Jews, which really does not appear to be the case. However it is the case that some of your co-ethnics are determined to rob and imprison Golden Dawn. Of course the co-ethnics in question are also trying to run you out of your home in Israel, but this distinction may well be a little fine for Golden Dawn to notice.

          • Candide III says:

            Heh. I’ll tell you why they sort of care. Or rather I’ll let themselves tell you. TL;DR: Jews are perennially haunted by fears of being run out of the land where they currently reside, and having nowhere else to run. So they work to keep immigration open on one side, and try to ingratiate themselves with the locals (shaming or browbeating them when this doesn’t work) on the other, while maintaining their separate identity as much as they can. It’s not an enviable position, like balancing on a hippopotamus’ back.

            • jim says:

              Yes, quite so. But if worried about being run out the land where they currently reside, a better solution is that they should stop trying to move B. out of his home, and instead move to Israel.

          • spandrell says:

            NR ain’t going mainstream, don’t worry. At most those evil Nazis you’re so afraid of will cherry-pick up some points from us (say, IQ scores or Cathedral imperialism) and use it as it suits them. Still even a small infusion of NR goodness into white nationalism isn’t going to supercharge them into becoming the Wehrmacht. Kerry is still a much bigger worry for you than Golden Dawn.

            Hell Golden Dawn leaders were arrested. I thought it was just the Greek kleptocrats but seeing you ramble about them perhaps some co-ethnic of yours in the State Department sent word that Golden Down must be stopped pronto before they master the blitzkrieg and invade France again.

          • jim says:

            It would be more impressive if you quoted Golden Dawn sources, than Jewish sources, Jewish sources being notoriously neurotic and paranoid on this question.

            You are also quoting an anti semitic source quoting a Jewish source saying that Golden Dawn is anti semitic – instead of filtered through one highly unreliable layer, you filter it through two highly unreliable layers.

            As I said before, paranoia is understandable, but I wish you would get better.

            Anti semites are obsessive. If there was significant anti semitism in Golden Dawn it would stick out like dogs balls. Anti semites cannot hide being anti semites, since the very nature of anti semitism is obssesive focus on another ethnicity. When you see covert anti semitism, you see delusions.

          • B says:

            I do not know how to read Greek, and have no Greek friends who could translate. Perhaps the jury is out on GD, but I just get that vibe from them. You can call it paranoia, I call it reasonable.

            The Ukrainian revolution doesn’t give me that feeling. See this article about a religious Jew in the Grushevski St. movement:

            http://vaadua.org/news/stoilo-zhit-v-etoy-strane-chtoby-dozhit-do-maydana

            • jim says:

              Evidence for Golden Dawn anti semitism is like evidence for flying saucers. From the evidence that you guys go with, we can conclude that there is no worthwhile evidence.

              Evidence, however, for semitic anti Golden Dawnism, is overwhelming

          • B says:

            Were the Communists overtly antisemitic? No. Did they target the Jews for national destruction? Absolutely.

            For some reason, the antisemites see Golden Dawn as an antisemitic-excuse me, antizionist-organization, too:

            http://golden-dawn-international-newsroom.blogspot.co.il/2013/09/zionist-tactics-to-undermine-social.html

          • B says:

            In what sense? They were no more overtly antisemitic than antichristian, antimuslim or antibuddhist.

            As for the Golden Dawn, wiki says about one of their MPs:
            “Kasidiaris quoted The Protocols of the Elders of Zion in a 23 October 2012 speech to parliament. Defending himself in a discussion of whether to lift his parliamentary immunity over his assault of Kanelli, he quoted the passage, “In order to destroy the prestige of heroism we shall send them for trial in the category of theft, murder and every kind of abominable and filthy crime.”[11] Kasidiaris, as well as two of his Golden Dawn colleagues, had their immunities stripped by a unanimous vote of the parliament.[12]

            In mid-2013, while in the parliament, Kasidiaris denied that the Holocaust occurred.”

          • spandrell says:

            If Golden Dawn is so antisemitic well Jews will have to leave Greece.

            The horror. Really, you have more important things to care about.

          • B says:

            Again, you’ve lost the thread. The Golden Dawn is interesting not because of the 800 Jews living in Greece, and not because of Greece itself, which are no more interesting than Jobbik, Hungary and the like.

      • Art says:

        “While the Jews were disproportionately represented, so were the Poles, Letts, Georgians, Turkic peoples, Armenians and so on.

        In any case, the revolution did not represent characteristically Jewish values”

        My (perhaps mistaken) impression is that the Jews were overrepresented to a much larger degree than other minorities.
        I also think that Jews are suckers for messianic ideologies.

  18. RS says:

    >> Yeah we got a lot of commenters like that, some smarter than others.

    > Why is that? SOMETHING attracts them.

    Yeah, it’s called macho truth-telling and frankness, and to hell with lies.

    You seem to have forgotten that Mencius had considerable numbers of Jew-skeptical commenters from shortly after he started up. Their skepticism, IMHO, probably stems from some kind of longstanding ethnic conflict between Ashkenazim and Europids — magnified, in the case of his particular commentariat, by the fact that it took this crack mega-expert on the XX. some seven years to make his first fleeting allusion to Jews having something to do with 1917. Maybe I missed an allusion or two, but we all know his Roundhead:1917 ratio is sky high.

    What was he really trying to accomplish for the Occident by doing that? Seriously, what do you think is the net effect? Obviously it — the just-mentioned absurd ratio, not necessarily his work in toto — presents a psychological factor against palingenesis for his own descendents’ civilization. The story thus presented is, not satisfied with einsatzgruppen and camps, you also destroy your own selves through violent excess of moral preening — while no one else in the world has anything whatsoever to do with either one. Why keep trying?

  19. RS says:

    > the least respectable thing about the DE is its antisemitism, which mirrors EXACTLY the NAM narrative about “we oppressed.”

    Right now, 999 people in various realms are on trial for assault. All 999 accusations are about the same. Yet they are variously false, true, and intermediate.

    > After the Khmelnitsky massacres, the Jewish population of Poland and the Ukraine grew several-fold. Yet there seemed to be no shortage of Poles and Ukrainians.

    Ok. What happens when it grows severalfold further? And heck how about several more?

    The Euros who colonized Carolina in 1585 probably got massacred/concubined. In all frankness, that’s what I would probably do to them if I were the king Indian ; this could end badly and hell, its only 100 murders. I’d have a grave misgiving that there might be more coming later, so what’s the point – but who can actually say they’ll be back within 1,000 years, or ever? In the event, behold, there is now a shortage of Indians in Carolina.

    Heavy colonization with superior proliferation doesn’t have to result in displacement or subcaste-ization, but its pretty likely, and you don’t know in advance what will happen.

    In most of today’s world there’s a shortage of pure or fairly-pure natives. Hardly any, really, if you go back 10k years. Copts? Dravidians? Even if you only go back 5k or 3k years the picture is still fairly etc etc.

    > How many Europeans have died since WW2 from NAMs?

    How many 85%-pure Euros will there be in 150 years, and how many of them will have the capacity to treasure Mozart, the Parthenon statuary, or Arvo Part — or Bellow and Mahler? (Or Canticles, Persepolis, and Chuang-tze?) Not that that’s all because of conflicts with Jews.

    Welp, time to inject meth and hit the hay with the five polyamorous chicks I met on Less Wrong. More dialectics later.

    • RS says:

      > Ok. What happens when it grows severalfold further? And heck how about several more?

      I would really have to look it up, but I think the Ashkenazi pop fraction in parts of Ukraine and Poland was roughly 10% and growing pretty good. (You know how logistic curvez be.) That’s the context for Khmelnitsky’s appalling dilemma. At 25% I reckon they’dve had quite the grip on power, which they probably would have utilized to head for 70-100%.

      Which might actually have been great for Europe as a whole, and perhaps even for man. They/you would have (had) a home, and it probably would have been very powerful, but hopefully (on my view) wouldn’t have approached to soft or hard domination of Europe or even hegemony.

      Not so good for the particular Slavs used to have them acres.

      coulda woulda shoulda

      • B says:

        Doesn’t work that way. The Jew in exile exists in a tense symbiosis with the rest of society. The Jewish population was growing along with the Ukrainian one, not at its expense.

        Khmelnitsky had a typical bloody peasant rebellion, a Jacquerie. The Jews were peripheral-the Polish middle class was attacked just as viciously, as they were during WW2 (along with the AK and UPA fighting the Nazis and the Soviets, they spent a lot of time and effort murdering each other’s civilians.) I would not take him as a touchstone of anything but the fact that once you launch a populist rebellion, you need a dedicated victim class to depredate-otherwise, what do you have to offer your rebels?

        • Candide III says:

          Khmelnitsky had a typical bloody peasant rebellion, a Jacquerie.

          Oh hasn’t he. I thought he was the leader of regular Cossack troops (which i.a. fought at Dunkirk and in Holland), waged war and treated with foreign powers. Must be residual Ukrainian bourgeois nationalism. Note to self: visit Lenin’s mausoleum to restore my spirit.

          Also ‘depredate’ is not a verb.

          • B says:

            The Cossacks were auxiliaries, not regular troops. His rebellion started off with a battalion and turned into a popular revolt. Just like during the revolutionary war, the Cossacks were motivated in large part by looting opportunities. If you want a Ukrainian national hero, Makhno was admirable. Khmelnitsky wasn’t.

            Also, depredate is a verb.

          • Candide III says:

            The Cossacks were auxiliaries, not regular troops

            Yeah, I suppose that’s why they were called registered. You can play definitions as much as you want, like only szlachta and wojsko kwarciane were regulars. When they were handed their ass at Zhovti Vody, they probably didn’t think much about definitions.

            If you want a Ukrainian national hero, Makhno was admirable. Khmelnitsky wasn’t.

            I’m not in the business of shopping for a hero sans peur et sans reproche. Also it’s not your people’s history and you are nowhere near an impartial observer, so I’ll pass up your advice, thank you very much.

            Also, depredate is a verb.

            So it is. My bad.

          • B says:

            The difference between regulars and auxiliaries is not that the first are registered and the second are not. It’s that the first are designated for the main effort on the battlefield, the second for supplementary work, light cavalry, skirmishing, etc. Of course, regulars can lose to auxiliaries-that’s the whole point of asymmetrical warfare.

            You want to look up to a horde of looting orcs murdering civilians en masse, suit yourself. To me, there is very little difference between the Cossacks and the Algerian Liberation Front. And they got what they had coming in the 1920s. ?????-????.

          • B says:

            I wrote “Narod-OMON” in Russian, but this blog doesn’t support Cyrillic.

          • Candide III says:

            You want to look up to a horde of looting orcs murdering civilians en masse, suit yourself. To me, there is very little difference between the Cossacks and the Algerian Liberation Front. And they got what they had coming in the 1920s.

            And in 1932-1933, I presume? We’ll be down to goyim, shikse and matzot mixed with Christian babies’ blood next. Do take Spandrell’s advice. I take it. Over and out.

  20. spandrell says:

    Well I think this recent B’s attack of paranoia and his innovative historical theory that Europeans should thank God for having had Jews to pay taxes to, proves that ethno-nationalism (religious or not) makes you stupid, and hence is a bad idea.

    That’s settled then, shall we move on?

    • Candide III says:

      ROFL. I don’t agree that ethno-nationalism per se is a bad idea (where was it you live again?), almost anything is bad in excess — co zanadto, to nie zdrowo, as the Poles say — and it’s not like anybody has a better asabiyya-generator on offer, but yes, let’s move on.

      • spandrell says:

        I’m not saying it doesn’t work, it’s working pretty well for B’s nation too.

        But it does make you stupid if you take its claims seriously. Have you seen all the brouhaha over Tamogami’s bid for the Tokyo governorship? Well he’s the ethno-nationalist.

        • Candide III says:

          But it does make you stupid if you take its claims seriously.

          Too seriously. If nobody takes them at all seriously, it generates shitty jokes instead of asabiyya.

          Have you seen all the brouhaha over Tamogami’s bid for the Tokyo governorship?

          Nope, I tuned out when NHK started out about the election (I can record J-TV from Chinese sites). What was it? I did notice he came in the fourth place and that Utsunomiya was second, though.

          • spandrell says:

            You should have seen 2chan. The whole internet was campaigning for Tamogami.

            Which is a good thing perhaps but one gets tired of every opponent being found korean ancestry and relations with “jewish capital”

          • Candide III says:

            Heh. Well, I hope they were humiliated losing 2:1 by votes to the openly communist Utsunomiya and that they learn something from it. Anyway, these guys (Ishihara, Hashimoto, etc.) seem to be pretty useless as statesmen or politicians. As an aside, Hashimoto is reported to be burakumin by birth. How do the Korea-haters deal with it? Must be fertile ground for trolling and fun to watch.

          • spandrell says:

            No, they concluded (not unreasonably) that interest groups, and the votes they command, are a bitch.

  21. RS says:

    > In any case, the revolution did not represent characteristically Jewish values

    Other than tons of Jews and guys with Jewish wives having tons of power, which is quite the X-ish value for virtually all X.

    But I’m not saying there’s nothing to your statement ; I realize many (a lot of?) trad Jewish families frowned on their bolshi kin, or even hard-dissevered them with a ritual funeral.

    Then again, in Germany there were a lot of (German Jewish bolshis and) anti-nazi Krauts, at least before nazis started blowing away harsh aspects of Versailles that were never imposed on Louis Napoleon’s or Bonaparte’s defeated regimes. The case of Bonaparte being more relevant since he could and did try to get the whole bag of chips, whereas had the Kaiserreich sought to annex much more than Alsace-Lorraine, I’m guessing most of Europe would have invited it to reconsider.

    > [different poster] My (perhaps mistaken) impression is that the Jews were overrepresented to a much larger degree than other minorities.

    Maybe not all of them, but I think most of em. Ashkenazim also more numerous than most of them and more effective per capita than probably all of them. What matters most is (how many) * (how effective /capita).

    Not all the determinants came from the locale. Foreign money was a huge determinant ; we might consider whose money. Foreign power was also a determinant and undoubtedly at least a good chunk of that was Anglo-American.

    Of course I don’t deny that mountains of Russians were involved, but on their own it seems they would have lost.

    Most of the minorities were more-or-less along for the ride, I’d say. Naturally, unless quite trad, they didn’t mind being in some weird polity where ethnic-Russian self-assertion was strongly suppressed. I vaguely recall Estonians being 40x overrepresented, or something totally ridiculous. But there were probably 600 OF them in the theater, the Estonian homeland being a German puppet in that period, and then after the German surrender — due to mass-lethal civilian starvation, not a crime but not real glorious — an Atlantic client. (Estonia today has 1.3 M people, half Russian.)

    Granted, some guys were extremely not just along for the ride, such as Beria and Stalin.

    • B says:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menzhinsky

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felix_Dzerzhinsky

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Baltazar_Marchlewski

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanis%C5%82aw_Bobi%C5%84ski

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeki_Velidi_Togan

      It’s also not that the traditional Jews rejected the Bolshevik ones, it’s that the Bolshevik ones were by definition opposed to the continuing existence of a Jewish people in any meaningful sense, and did their best to bring that existence to an end as soon as they could.

      • jim says:

        Yes, quite so.

        This falsifies the common anti semitic trope that Jews have racial solidarity for themselves while undermining the racial solidarity of whites, that Israel gets to be Nazi while no one else does – as I have often said, progressive Jews drink more deeply of their own poison than anyone.

        Nonetheless, the propensity of Jews to self destructive behavior is disturbing, particularly as they are apt to take large numbers of other people with them.

        Leftists tend to be self hating and self destructive, and Jews tend to be self hating and self destructive.

      • fnn says:

        “the Bolshevik ones were by definition opposed to the continuing existence of a Jewish people ”

        Yet, thirty years later, there were somehow still plenty of self-identified Jews left to be enthusiastic about Israel and greatly alarm Stalin. A generation after that there were sufficient Jews left to inspire a big “Save Soviet Jews” campaign in the West. Then,massive emigration of Soviet and post-Soviet Jews to Israel (and the West), To be fair, a lot of them turned out to be more Russian than Jewish.

        • B says:

          The assimilation campaign did not work as successfully as the Communists had hoped for, thank G-d. Among other things, there was an upwelling of antisemitism during WW2 which reminded many of the Jews that they were not, in fact, homo soveticus.

          Unfortunately, it was plenty successful in persuading the vast majority of Soviet Jews to abandon their religion and not pass it on to their children and grandchildren. This resulted in intermarriage on a very large scale. It was something like, as I understand it, the Persian Exile. Had the Soviet empire lasted another century, I figure most of its Jews would have assimilated. As it was, it lasted 3 generations and did lots of damage.

    • jim says:

      > In any case, the revolution did not represent characteristically Jewish values

      Other than tons of Jews and guys with Jewish wives having tons of power, which is quite the X-ish value for virtually all X.

      They used that power to purge each other. Analogously, the Khmer Rouge, composed of foreign educated intellectuals, hated intellectuals, and especially foreign educated intellectuals, and proceeded to murder them all. For a less extreme example of this sort of thing, recall the Duke University rape case.

      • fnn says:

        Yet Jews were not targeted as a group until after WWII. Slezkine:

        In 1937-38, about 1 percent of all Soviet Jews were arrested for political crimes, as compared to 16 percent of all Poles and 30 percent of all Latvians. By early 1939, the proportion of Jews in the Gulag was about 15.7 percent lower than their share of the total Soviet population.

        Poles and Latvians were presumably suspect as groups given that they had independent homelands outside the USSR. Similar to Soviet Jews in 1948 and thereafter.

        • B says:

          The Poles and Latvians outside the USSR had healthy intelligence services running cross-border ops. The USSR’s security apparatus went into a positive feedback loop of paranoia when the purges started, resulting in the Polish Operation (among other atrocities.) While most Jews were unaffected, very many of the Jews who were in the Soviet governmental elite were, from the writers like Babel to the spies like Eitingon. From that period, the inner circle and security apparatus were largely Russian/Ukrainian, with a heavy proportion of Caucasians.

          However, the Jews had been targeted as a religious group since the early 20s. Without a homeland, I think the idea was that we would assimilate if the religion was destroyed. And this was unfortunately successful to a large degree.

          • Candide III says:

            FYI: one specific method of assimilation was restrictions on the use of Yiddish. If you read Russian, there is an interesting little book on the topic.

          • B says:

            It’s a horrifying article, from a Jewish point of view. It supports what I’ve been saying-that the Jewish population of the USSR did not support the Revolution, that the Communists sought to destroy the Jews as a distinct entity and sustained this effort from the beginning to WW2.

            BTW, they started with Hebrew by offering Yiddish as an alternative, then went after Yiddish. This is the standard “boiling the frog” path.

          • fnn says:

            Dis anyone ever discover the Polish intelligence files on the Holodomor?

          • josh says:

            There was as expression that translated to approximately “The Trotskys make the revolution and the Bronsteins suffer for it.”

            • jim says:

              Which was misleading, because in the end, the Trotskys suffered for it also.

              The left always devours its own, and the Jewish left particularly devours the Jewish left.

        • jim says:

          Yet Jews were not targeted as a group until after WWII. Slezkine

          By the time World War II started, a bolshevik party that had originally been overwhelmingly Jewish had become damn near Jew free, largely as a result of Jewish Bolsheviks targeting other Jewish bolsheviks. Certainly Jews were not targeted “as a group”, and I think if any Jewish Bolshevik complained he was being targeted because Jewish, the other Jewish Bolsheviks would have found the charge absurd – but the charge was, nonetheless, obviously true.

          The resembles the Khmer Rouge, who honestly did not believe they were systematically targeting intellectuals, and especially foreign educated intellectuals, even though they obviously were.

          • fnn says:

            Which means (simply comparing Jews vs. non-Jews) of course that huge numbers of goyish complete nobodies were exterminated solely for the purpose of terrorizing the general population.

            By early 1939, the proportion of Jews in the Gulag was about 15.7 percent lower than their share of the total Soviet population.

          • B says:

            These things went back and forth. The GULAG had different percentages of various ethnicities in different years, depending who was being persecuted.

            If you read the book Candide linked, you can see that, for instance, “from 1926-1927, the percentage of Jews in the Ukraine’s declassed elements fell from 44% to 29%…during this time, Jews made up 5% of the Ukrainian SSR’s population.”

            What did being “declassed” mean? It meant the loss of civil liberties, being excluded from unions, being denied food ration cards, unemployment benefits, pensions, having your kids potentially thrown out of school, etc.

            You can see that those cunning Jews really took advantage of their revolution.

  22. […] Cathedral imperialism revealed « Jim’s Blog […]

  23. josh says:

    “revolution did not represent characteristically Jewish values”

    You really don’t think revolution *is* a characteristically Jewish value?

  24. […] Cathedral imperialism revealed « Jim’s Blog […]

  25. Anonymous says:

    What exactly is the jewish equivalent of ‘clean drinking water’ that we goyim should be so grateful for that we accept your oppression?

    • B says:

      Nihilist #2: His girlfriend gave up her toe!
      Nihilist #3: She though we’d be getting million dollars!
      Nihilist #2: Iss not fair!
      Walter Sobchak: Fair? WHO’S THE FUCKING NIHILIST HERE?!

      “Oppression”? Who’s the neoreactionary dark enlightener here? Who believes that might makes right?

      (it would probably be beside the point to talk about the polio vaccine here, because, obviously, vaccines are a ZOG plot to contaminate precious Aryan bodily fluids. But I really haven’t seen a lot of polio victims around.)

      • Anonymous says:

        I don’t know who is or isn’t anything, I’m just an anonymous drive by commenter… jews oppress non jews in america and elsewhere in the west. this is a fact. whether this fits in with NRx or DEC thought is of no concern to me. The fact that white non-jewish males don’t actually oppress blacks or faggots in the way that the cathedral says we do does not invalidate the concept of oppression.

        The polio vaccine? get hte fuck out of here

        this is like saying jews invented the internet because zuckerburg and facebook

        did jews invent the concept of the vaccine? didn’t think so

        i submit there is nothing jews have given us that we couldn’t have come up with on our own, in the way that sub saharan blacks would literally never have had running-water flush toilets if not for whites

        • jim says:

          Yes, would have eventually come up with the polio vaccine, etc.

        • B says:

          >jews oppress non jews in america and elsewhere in the west. this is a fact.

          Perhaps if you cry about it enough, we will feel guilty and go away. Then you’ll be free and happy, just like the Spanish peasants after the Reconquista!

          >does not invalidate the concept of oppression.

          Hey, I’m not trying to invalidate your feelings of being oppressed. Let me go check my privilege. Seriously, this kind of puling is not what I think of when I think of the finer aspects of masculine European civilization.

          I won’t argue about contrafactuals. As the Russian saying goes, if grandma was born with a dick, she would have been grandpa. I will say, though, that the last 1500 years of the West have been based on Christianity, and Jesus and his apostles were hardly Japanese either ethnically or in terms of their mental framework. Perhaps you can argue, Nietzsche-like, that it’s a slave religion and that everyone would have been better off worshiping Mithras or Odin or whatever, and it is certainly fun to imagine a 2014 Europe which had never known Christianity or Islam. But again-if grandma, etc.

      • zhai2nan2 says:

        Well, don’t stop with the polio vaccine.

        Jews gave non-Jews all kinds of wonderful things altruistically.

        Let’s make a big, long list of all the Jewish altruists who gave non-Jews benefits.

        Let’s exclude weapons of war (e.g. atom bombs) and Jews who were specifically anti-Jewish (e.g. Israel Shahak).

        I’ll edit a list from about.com:
        Jonas Salk Created first Polio Vaccine.
        Albert Sabin Developed the oral vaccine for Polio.
        Galileo Discovered the speed of light
        Selman Waksman Discovered Streptomycin. Coined the word ‘antibiotic’.
        Gabriel Lipmann Discovered color photography.
        Baruch Blumberg Discovered origin and spread of infectious diseases.
        G. Edelman Discovered chemical structure of antibodies.
        Briton Epstein Identified first cancer virus.
        Maria Meyer Structure of atomic nuclei.
        Julius Mayer Discovered law of thermodynamics.
        Sigmund Freud Father of Psychotherapy.
        Christopher Columbus (Marano) Discovered the Americas.
        Isaac Singer Invented the sewing machine.
        Levi Strauss Largest manufacturer of Denim Jeans.
        Joseph Pulitzer Established ‘Pulitzer Prize’ for achievements in journalism, literature, music & art.

        I’ll exclude Disraeli and Einstein because they were responsible for a lot of deaths.

        I’m not convinced that Galileo and Einstein were really Jewish, but I’ll leave them on the list because about.com has done more research than I have regarding this topic.

        This is a serious topic. Let’s make a big list of Jewish contributions to Gentile culture and prove that Jews have contributed more good things than bad things.

        • B says:

          The effort has been made several times previously, and has been pointless each time. Those who are interested see evidence of Jewish contribution in every aspect of Western culture (except art.) Those who are not will not be swayed by any evidence. Further, it’s undignified, from a Jewish point of view-there is something groveling about it. “Don’t hate us-we gave you so many things! Why do you hate us?” “Dear Africans, why aren’t you more grateful for all the things we gave you?”

          • VXXC says:

            Names not Groups. Groups is so 20th century.

            Now Sir…the innocent cannot be protected if the guilty are…and I don’t mean as a matter of law, but in truth.

            There’s no reason for 200 to damn 2,000.

          • zhai2nan2 says:

            Well, if you’re not willing to support the claims that you make, I’ll write you off as someone who doesn’t actually debate.

            If you make a contentious claim and you refuse to support it, don’t be surprised if the people who doubt the claim disregard everything you say.

            Meanwhile I’m off to go debate the historians at:

            http://www.jinfo.org/

            who at least attempt to support the claims they make.

  26. zhai2nan2 says:

    Incidentally, since East Asian and South Asian peoples are gaining importance in the world economy, let’s not limit our discussion to the interactions of the Jews and the European races.

    Let’s review what the Jews have contributed, altruistically, to China, India, Japan, Indonesia, Cambodia, etc.

    If we have a lot of time to do research, we can also review how the Jews have sacrificed their own ethnic interests to benefit Africans.

  27. VXXC says:

    What happened to the next post? Too much Joo talk…i was looking forward to your arguments.

  28. Thrasymachus says:

    I didn’t realize I was being talked about, but-

    -MM may be a little smarter than me, but not much. He’s a programmer, big whoop. My dad was a hard scientist, and a programmer, and I didn’t go into those fields because I could see they sucked.

    -I came up with my ideas independently of Moldbug. A commenter recommended him to me, so I read his stuff. He does have insights that never occurred to me, but I have insights that never occurred to him or Foseti. Foseti acknowledges this, MM no.

    -Saying any negative information about your group is agitprop is a little too easy. I reblogged that bit because it seemed very characteristic.

    -Dismiss me as a knuckle-dragging ape, if you will. MM is a guy with a hobby. Foseti is a guy with a hobby. Nothing wrong with that, I think they are both very perceptive and enjoy reading them. But the status quo is perfectly fine with them. For the intellectuals I’m too radical, for the radicals I’m not radical enough, and possibly a closet pro-Semite.

    -More dangerous scum like me coming? Probably. What I am is what you get when you get both class and racial consciousness. Race alone explains a lot, but not all, class explains a lot, but not all. Working-class whites used to have both, but they were erased in the 1950’s. Race and class consciousness by working-class whites was OK when the system wanted our support. Whites have some racial consciousness, which is increasing, and maybe a glimmer of class consciousness, which may increase now the gravy train has ended.

    -Alfred B. Sloan was famous for saying “What’s good for General Motors is good for America.” People usually don’t remember that he added “and vice versa.” B might think of this if he’s worried about what’s good for the Jews.

    • B says:

      MM is not smarter than you because he is a programmer. He is smarter than you because he posts incisive analysis and you post tripe. “The Manifesto Of The White Liberation Movement!” Yawn.

      >I reblogged that bit because it seemed very characteristic.

      That is why guys like you are so useful-by playing into your prejudices, you can be induced to swallow anything. You will dismiss any discrepancies because you already have a desired result in mind. Jews encouraging intermarriage as a way to keep the white man down? Well, seems pretty evil, Jews are evil, QED.

      >Working-class whites used to have both, but they were erased in the 1950?s.

      Working-class whites were always tools for the guys who run America. They supported FDR in the 30s and 40s, they fought the Civil and Revolutionary wars, and for what? To get fucked. The Whiskey Rebellion pretty much tells you everything you need to know.

      >B might think of this if he’s worried about what’s good for the Jews.

      What is good for the Jews is to live in our land and follow our Torah.

      • Thrasymachus says:

        Moldbug reads in detail and analyzes extensively. His conclusions aren’t that great, unless you think Carlyle was a great man. I think that’s a little creepy. Moldbug’s plan of action is to do nothing, which doesn’t qualify as a solution to me.

        You don’t get that non-whites are marginal actors in all this. Western politics is mostly different groups of whites fighting each other, with non-whites as occasional allies.

        Working class whites fought for the North in the Civil War to keep the North and West white. It worked for about sixty years. They supported FDR because they were offered a deal, which the Puritans reneged on after about thirty years. You have to fight for your interests, even if it doesn’t produce a solution for more than a few decades. My feeling about this is stop trying to ally with people who hate you.

        I think it would be great if Jews lived by the Torah. I’m a big fan of the Torah. Jews largely don’t live by their own scriptures.

        • jim says:

          You don’t get that non-whites are marginal actors in all this. Western politics is mostly different groups of whites fighting each other, with non-whites as occasional allies.

          Yes, but progressives are suicidal. It is a chronic problem with the left. The Jewish Bolsheviks purged each other. The Khmer Rouge, composed of foreign educated intellectuals, murdered all foreign educated intellectuals, including each other. The Populares allied with the enemies of Rome, who sought to take advantage of the civil war to destroy the city.

    • jim says:

      Working Class consciousness runs into economics: “The Chamley-Judd Redistribution Impossibility Theorem” which tells us that redistribution from capitalists to workers is impossible, and trying to do so merely buggers the economy making everyone worse off.

      This conflict between reality and ideology brings you nazism and communism.

      The problem is not that you, Thrasymachus, obsess about Jews. You don’t obsess nearly as much as B thinks that you do. The problem is that bad economics leads to bad political outcomes.

      • Thrasymachus says:

        The problem is you can’t run a society on an economic theory. You need to take other, human factors into consideration. Capitalism needs to have limits. Socialism needs to have limits. In the US we now have unlimited capitalism for some, and not unlimited but excessive socialism for others. Which is great if you benefit from one or another, but I don’t.

  29. Thrasymachus says:

    I didn’t realize I was being talked about, but-

    MM may be a little smarter than me, but not much. He’s a programmer, big whoop. My dad was a hard scientist, and a programmer, and I didn’t go into those fields because I could see they sucked.

    I came up with my ideas independently of Moldbug. A commenter recommended him to me, so I read his stuff. He does have insights that never occurred to me, but I have insights that never occurred to him or Foseti. Foseti acknowledges this, MM no.

    Saying any negative information about your group is agitprop is a little too easy. I reblogged that bit because it seemed very characteristic.

    Dismiss me as a knuckle-dragging ape, if you will. MM is a guy with a hobby. Foseti is a guy with a hobby. Nothing wrong with that, I think they are both very perceptive and enjoy reading them. But the status quo is perfectly fine with them. For the intellectuals I’m too radical, for the radicals I’m not radical enough, and possibly a closet pro-Semite.

    More dangerous scum like me coming? Probably. What I am is what you get when you get both class and racial consciousness. Race alone explains a lot, but not all, class explains a lot, but not all. Working-class whites used to have both, but they were erased in the 1950’s. Race and class consciousness by working-class whites was OK when the system wanted our support. Whites have some racial consciousness, which is increasing, and maybe a glimmer of class consciousness, which may increase now the gravy train has ended.

    • Zach says:

      In my opinion, RH would rape the living crap out of MM in a smart contest. My point is that it doesn’t matter how smart you are. It matters how reasoned and evidenced ones commentary is; how void of bias; and how intellectually honest…

      MM is a very sophisticated writer.

      Jim says in three paragraphs what it takes MM in 20. Which one is better is a matter of taste.

      • Zach says:

        Meh, I must…

        After anybody googles “The Dark Enlightenment” Nick’s essay shows up. It’s a terrible essay for the ignorant but quite poetic for the choir. Say what needs being said in plain fucking English and stop sounding like some jewish whore.

        Thank you.

        • Zach says:

          BTW – I’m cool. I wrecked the most recent post going 4 – 0 *(zero comments become I’m so intellectual nobody understands me). Mencious can’t touch me! Cuz I’m smart! Smarter as hell. I’m so smart I can’t understand normal people. They are five tiers below me.

          True story brahs… I’m killer awesome.

          In reality, I just got done reading (in depth) about TDE. FINALLY I know what you jews are talking about. Oh wait, I mean jew, or is it non-jews? Oh hell, I don’t know?

          P.S. The movement is too nebulous, needs more pillars. Pillars make the unclear, clear.

          • jim says:

            I am not Jewish. Not even a little bit. Don’t even like Jews. For some reason they tend to be excessively paranoid and neurotic. I can’t imagine why 🙂

            I am half scottish, half anglo saxon.

            The trouble with anti semitism is that it is socialism. Anti semitic socialists killed six million Jews. Socialists killed a hundred and fifty million people, so all up, not really picking on Jews all that much

  30. Zach says:

    Reality = +1 for Jim and the entire movement. It’s fucking fascinating. Someone point me to some serious debate. The Anti-Reactionary faq is meh.

  31. Zach says:

    Thanks Jim. Glad you have a sense of humor!

  32. […] “US State Department” with no significant loss of meaning, please listen again to how Cathedral apparatchiks talk when they think no one is listening (Thanks […]

  33. Shelby says:

    Cathedral imperialism is dying.

    Being replaced by the Dark Enlightenment of which our blog host is a member.

  34. […] Colonial Office. The one in Kiev, which was coordinating newly minted Ukrainian Gov’t jobs before Viktor Yanukovych had even been properly overthrown, freeing the Ukrainian people from the oppression of Russian overlords. When we talk about the US […]

Leave a Reply