No nation with a gay parade wins wars

Israel has just been defeated yet again.

Three days ago they invaded to Gaza to put a stop to intolerable organized acts of war by the government of Gaza. Were militarily defeated.

This was rationalized as a one off bungle. These things happen, but now, rather than trying again with the supposed errors rectified, they are seeking a peace treaty that restores and legitimizes the intolerable status quo ante that they sought to change, indicating not merely one bad mistake, but an incapacity to make war.

Tolerating gays makes it impossible for men to express love and affection for each other. This undermines unit cohesion. Also trannies and women in the military undermine unit cohesion. And putting logistics and nurses in uniform and calling them soldiers rather than camp followers, embeds, and military contractors denies warriors the honor that is their rightful due.

Gaza does not have gay parades. Israel does. So Gaza wins, Israel loses. Israel has not won a war since they started allowing gay parades. Sooner or later, the Arab world is going to realize that Europe is weak, Israel is weak. There is a lot of loot and unowned chicks in Europe and Israel.

325 Responses to “No nation with a gay parade wins wars”

  1. slumlord says:

    Woke.

  2. Koanic says:

    David and Jonathan expressed their love for each other, exchanging garments.

    When Ammon’s king humiliated David’s ambassadors:

    > Wherefore Hanun took David’s servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away. 5When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.

    David’s response was the genocide of all the cities of Ammon:

    > he brought forth the spoil of the city in great abundance. 31And he brought forth the people that were therein, and put them under saws, and under harrows of iron, and under axes of iron, and made them pass through the brickkiln: and thus did he unto all the cities of the children of Ammon.

    The insult merely involved semi-nakedness and shaming, not outright sodomy, yet it was still punished with absolute genocidal fury. This is the appropriate response to Sodomites everywhere, who are always as disrespectful as Canaan, as predatory as the men of Sodom, and as God-hating as Jezebel.

    If good King David, whom Jehovah loved, were incarnated today on Earth instead of witnessing above from Heaven, he would have responded to Obama’s faggot globocop routine by genociding all the men of every city in the USA, because they let themselves be ruled by such a bastard of Belial.

  3. When you lose a battle or miss out on killing the mammoth because two guys in your tribe who were fucking each other just broke up and were bickering, you decide to ostracize the homos and your adaptive fitness jumps way up.

    Most homos like and prefer little boys. When homos are tolerated in society, as in Classical Greece or Edo Japan, their culture revolves around pederasty.

    You can’t have a community if you’re constantly worried that your neighbor, who is supposed to be your friend and fellow citizen, is trying to fuck your ten year old son.

    Two types of homos. The first like to fuck little boys, and I don’t know where they come from. Mark Yuray convinced me that it was due to a viral infection, and while I can’t remember the specific proofs, it was a convincing argument. The second want to get fucked by big manly men, and are created when they are raped as little boys.

    • BC says:

      That tracks well with Afghanistan. The only group able to conquer and control the nation was the Taliban and they executed homos and boy fuckers. While the nominal US allies in Afghanistan continue to rape boys and lose battles.

      • Magus says:

        TFR of 7 means avg Tali killed in 2001 invasion has three male sons reaching adulthood now, all with TFR of 7 also. To say nothing of brothers cousins nephews uncles…
        Good luck fighting that with half measures.

        • jim says:

          Seven is the average TFR of Afghan females. Obviously Muslim women of conservative Muslim men have a higher TFR than Muslim women of “moderate” Muslim men, and Talibans probably have more wives than the average Muslim man.

          • The Cominator says:

            Jim do you think gay pride parades are symptom or cause?

            I would argue symptoms. I think feminism (its mainly women who care about “gay rights” and protecting public homosexuality) is the cause of the lack of martial vigour of Western societies and gay pride parades are merely a symptom.

            • jim says:

              Hard to say. Greeks made war effectively, without suppressing pederasty, but as a general rule, societies that are effective suppress it with great vigor.

            • Andre says:

              Well how much martial vigour does your society have, if it’s being ruled by women?

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                This seems like a tricky question. For any given country with a female ruler, the question is whether or not that woman actually rules. Holding the title and dictating the path are not always the same thing. Does it matter who actually rules, or is it more important who the the rank & file believe is ruling?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Female monarchs in patriarchal societies can work.

                  Matriarchies don’t work. Female politicians in democracies also tend to be especially bad (while female monarchs are not generally especially bad) Margaret Thatcher is probably the sole exception that I can think of.

                  My theory on why female monarchs “work” while female democratic politicians do not is that I have to imagine that a female autocrat in a society where every other woman is some man’s property is just so socially isolated from other women that they don’t fall into the idiotic conformist NPC thinking women normally fall into.

                  Women normally are at least greatly influenced by some kind of female peer group consensus on everything. But a female monarch in a normally patriarchal society doesn’t have any female peers.

                • StoneMan says:

                  Female monarchs have power because they own their countries, they own their countries because men own their women. If a female monarch tries to stop men from owning women, men will not support her ownership of the country. People are very stupid, but those smart enough to achieve political office tend not to bite the hand that feeds them.

                • Andre says:

                  “Female monarchs in patriarchal societies can work.”

                  They absolutely cannot. You can have a female figurehead, which is bad enough, but you absolutely cannot have a female monarch.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Female European monarchs were not generally especially bad and some where way better then average (I don’t think Elizabeth I did a bad job given that she inherited a bankrupt horribly divided country, I do expect some REEEEing from Catholics about this but I don’t care). So I stand by statement.

                  And my theory is that women normally just don’t think, they fall into what their female peers think. Elizabeth had no female peers, thus she had to learn to think.

                • info says:

                  ”Female monarchs in patriarchal societies can work.”

                  Does that work better than exclusively male monarchs?

                • info says:

                  ”Female monarchs in patriarchal societies can work.”

                  If she remains unmarried that is.

                  Otherwise being a Christian her Husband is her Head.

                  Thereby by default making him the King and her the subordinate queen.

                • Koanic says:

                  Biblical precedent:

                  Queen Athaliah, daughter of Jezebel.

                  Prosecution rests.

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

                • info says:

                  ”Queen Athaliah, daughter of Jezebel.”

                  A usurper rightfully slain as the true son of David is crowned.

                  “For thus says the LORD: David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the house of Israel,”

                  Jeremiah 33:17

                  Of course the feminist NIV and others edit out.

                  According to: “2 An Evaluation of Gender Language in the 2011 Edition of the NIV Bible”

                  The fact that the Monarch will always be a man.

                • info says:

                  Likewise the Deuteronomic passage:
                  17:20 Assumes that only male descendants are qualified to be King.

                  Which is why in dynastic disputes only the males belonging to a Kings House were to be slain. For no female is considered for the position.

                • Koanic says:

                  Well argued!

      • Yes, but even the larder Scott Atran model tracks well with Afghanistan: a tribal nation can only be unified by religion / ideology forming a synthetic tribe. I suspect although cannot prove that in the absence of the Taliban – i.e. the “students” who had formal education in Islamic jurisprudence and theology – tribes in Afghanistan tended to develop forms of Folk Islam mixed with various pagan stuff, like how in Latin America there is Folk Catholicism mixed with various pagan stuff. I cannot prove it but it had to happen – Islam focuses on Classical Arab roughly the same way as Catholicism a few centuries ago focused on Latin, if you don’t have a big formally school elite, and nobody around really speaks that language much, you get a local religion turning some saint into a local deity or stuff like that.

        Now that may even be a good thing, I don’t know, but the issue is that usually that mixture is always very local, every region, village, tribe developing their slightly different version, effectively a local identity religion which obviously cannot be used to unify a country, it lacks unity.

  4. The Cominator says:

    Its more that gay parades are a product of feminism and men won’t fight for a feminist society.

    Gay parades are more symptom then cause. Getting rid of them would be a step in the right direction, Putin’s Russia started by attacking symptom (public homosexuality) and moved on to cause (women’s rights which are increasingly being whittled away in Russia in favor of increase patriarchal authority).

    • Thales says:

      Hmm…this deserves a lengthier/stronger argument. Not yet convincing.

      It is certainly the case the women’s suffrage has been a disaster and must be completely abolished come the Restoration. Any franchise among the freeholders must be restricted to genuine biological men over the age of 30. IOW, an actual patriarchy of men most likely to have children (literal skin in the game!) most likely to support policies that continue civilization.

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        This is the no suffrage club. It solves the issue of extending the franchise.

      • Andre says:

        “Any franchise among the freeholders must be restricted to genuine biological men over the age of 30.”

        Assuming you keep the idea of “suffrage”, it makes more sense to say they should be the fathers (and custodians) of at least one (living) male, as determined by a paternity test, than to impose an age rule. So deadbeat fathers don’t get to vote. Men with only daughters don’t get to vote. And men with fully grown sons don’t get to vote.

        • The Cominator says:

          “Men with only daughters don’t get to vote. And men with fully grown sons don’t get to vote.”

          Why not men with fully grown sons? I understand the daughter thing but why not fathers of fully grown sons?

          • Andre says:

            I’ll list two simple reasons; I think it goes deeper but those are good enough to justify this. People degenerate with age, 30 tends to be the peak for males, they lose their capacity to think, and in particular to adapt. If the sons are fully grown, they can be the ones voting. Unless he fucked up his sons so bad they turned into total losers, in which case, we don’t want to hear his opinions on matters of state anyway. If you are still pumping out kids at age 50, awesome, we want your input. If not, it’s your sons who matter, if you did a good job with them you won’t have a problem with that, if you didn’t, well maybe try again and we’ll let you vote next time.

    • Andre says:

      “Its more that gay parades are a product of feminism and men won’t fight for a feminist society.”

      They clearly won’t fight for a non-feminist society either, as evidence by the fact they allowed feminism to take over. You get what I’m saying? Maybe you could make a case for letting women own property and all the other bullshit but how in God’s name did men allow women, and not even just the few that had property but ALL women, to vote? Just what was wrong with those men?

      Russia has a long way to go to reform itself and is quickly running out of time. Odds are, it will only reform once it turns entirely muslim.

    • info says:

      I would like to add there should be no bailout for the consequences of sodomy.

      Even private sodomy has a destructive impact on society.

  5. BC says:

    I have to wonder what happened. Did the army units assigned to invade refuse to move?

  6. Lots of good thought in the post and the comments so far, but maybe there is a bigger picture. A modern army has to be a synthetic tribe formed around religion / ideology, be that nationalism, zionism, old liberalism, communism, fascism, actual religions, etc. etc. Old liberalism – Wilsonian crusading for democracy – kinda worked, at least for America. But for a country that used to be based on nationalism (zionism) even old liberalism means there are two competing religions, undermining cohesion.

    Now as for new liberalism, with the gay stuff, there is the additional issue of it being incompatible with the military. For reasons rightly mentioned here. Also, because it ridicules masculinity. Not always, maybe the gay warriors of Thebes didn’t, but the modern version does. It takes further focus away from sex as reproduction – even though already straight people took a lot of focus away from that – so basically if you are not even sure there will be future generations you are not likely to want to sacrifice yourself for them.

    New liberalism can form synthetic tribes, out of all kinds of outcasts and losers, but absolutely does not work for the kind of men who can actually fight.

    It is not the gay pride carnival per se. There are countries that grudgingly allow them to appease Western elites but their national religion is nationalism, not liberalism. Basically just making a few liberal gestures that looks good in the media, so that the Eye of Soros looks elsewhere. They are going to be okay.

    • Andre says:

      “There are countries that grudgingly allow them to appease Western elites but their national religion is nationalism, not liberalism.”

      Can you name those countries?

  7. Caloric Restrictionist says:

    Hail fellow white male!

    Let me tell you why Israel has lost all its recent wars: it abandoned its Socialist ethos and became a dirty capitalist country ruled by the globohomos. When Israel was run by Labour and the kibbutzim, it was as invincible as any Socialist paradise.

    Nationalism without Socialism is like gin without tonic. You need to ingroup me so that together we can help Israel ban Domino’s Pizza – and then Israel will be great again. (And I’ll liquidate you)

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Not bad but your philo-semitism’s offensive.

    • Problem Glasses says:

      Why hello there, fellow reactionary.

      You are absolutely correct. It is agreed upon all of us Hegelian non-libertarian non-Whigs that the economy is the base, and that everything else is but a superstructure. Therefore, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out the REAL reason why Israel repeatedly loses wars against peaceful Gazan freedom fighters: the Israeli proletariat — living paycheck to paycheck — spends every last shekel on falafel and hummus. Just thinking about that makes me feel like the walls are closing in on the bad orange man… err, sorry, wrong script. I mean, the sky is falling down.

      Israeli proletarians are spending 70₪ every day on that garbage, which is like a veritable New Holocaust. I should know, as the Israeli Government employed me to do Social Justice on its behalf. Ahhh, but those days are totally behind me now. I’m going to bed soon, but this I will say: our mercantile overlords broke our solidarity and sucked our wallets dry – so now we can’t win a damn war. The solution suggests itself: Israel needs to emulate Venezuela. That’ll teach those peaceful terrorists who’s boss.

      • Mr.P says:

        > “…Hegelian non-libertarian non-Whigs …”

        Please, a dedication thread on this topic.

        I like the formulation of that phrase.

    • Greetings fellow white men says:

      Quite so my fellow reactionaries!

      While Jim’s analysis has some merits, frankly there are some problematic features in his argument, and the fact that he censors those who helpfully try to address these problems does not help his case one bit.

      Israeli proletarians are being brainwashed by the bourgouisie err I mean the capitalists into buying plane tickets and pizza. Disgusting! The revolution can not come soon enough.

    • E.N. Treeist says:

      Hello friends, I agree with all of you. Like, double-agree; no, TRIPLE agree. So much agreement.

      However, I’m concerned about your tone. I’m afraid we might be scaring people away by dehumanizing and othering them with our microaggressions. We don’t want people who identify as attack helicopters to feel excluded. Therefore, I will be requesting mod powers in order to ban all of you for life, and get you fired from your jobs, and kicked off of steam and PSN. It’s the only way to be inclusive enough. Thanks for your understanding!

      • The Cominator says:

        LOL… implying ill ever need to work again.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            Not allowing unsupported claims that hold capitalists responsible for state actions, since these presuppose, instead of attempting to argue, the Marxist theory that Capitalism consists of rule by the capitalist class. If you want to post that capitalists are responsible for evil state actions, you are going to have to explicitly and overtly argue Marxist Class Theory, rather than presupposing it as something everyone agrees on and everyone knows to be true.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*deleted*]

              • jim says:

                If you have an argument, make it. Don’t spam us with scripts that presuppose that everyone takes the Cultural Marxist position as self evidently true.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [deleted]

              • jim says:

                If you have an argument for Marxist Class Theory, an argument that The Capitalist Class rules the world, you are free to make it in the comments, but I will not allow you to tell us we already know it to be true.

    • Thales says:

      lol. 10/10. Would welcome again.

  8. J says:

    What war we lost? Was there a war? We do not want to conquer back Gaza, we don’t want to rule and patrol the streets of Gaza, we don’t want to kill Palestinians (it is useless as you noted), we want a peace treaty with the Hamas but that is impossible (no Palestinian leader can sign it and live). So the best alternative is a ceasefire, a more or less stable and durable ceasefire. And that is what we have and keep.

    • jim says:

      When large organized bodies of men cross borders to break stuff and kill people, it is a war.

      War is politics by other means. The purpose of the war was to fix an intolerable status quo by hammering Hamas to impose Israel’s will upon them. Israel got hammered instead, and has now given up on changing the status quo ante.

      Israel got thumped and changed its policy. Hamas has not changed its policy. Hamas imposed their will on Israel. Israel failed to impose its will on Hamas.

      That is losing a war.

    • Andre says:

      “We do not want to conquer back Gaza, we don’t want to rule and patrol the streets of Gaza,”

      Then why would you ever send a single soldier there?

      “we don’t want to kill Palestinians (it is useless as you noted),”

      It is far from useless. You just aren’t doing a very good job of it.

      ” we want a peace treaty with the Hamas but that is impossible (no Palestinian leader can sign it and live). So the best alternative is a ceasefire, a more or less stable and durable ceasefire. And that is what we have and keep.”

      A stable, durable ceasefire is a peace treaty. Which as you said, you can’t have. Only two things can happen. The jews are driven into the sea, or the arabs are burried under the ground. Except the second option doesn’t seem very realistic, seeing as Israel is filled with degenerates who wouldn’t even dare propose such a thing, and would attack those that did, unlike the arabs, who attack those that don’t. So the israelis keep playing this game of trying to bribe arab leaders. Leave Israel while you can, it will be destroyed.

      • J says:

        Yes, last week one Israeli soldier was killed in Gaza (and ten or so Hamas soldiers). They were trying to install electronic equipment to discover deep tunnels. They were discovered and had to escape. Was that a war we lost? You have to be blind like Jim to think so.

        Regarding homosexuals and war. Have you heard of the Sacred 300? The political and military leadership is chock full of gays everywhere. Is not a sign of weakness.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          The Sacred Band of Thebe is a lonely example of about 50 years in the 4th century BC. Interestingly, Thebe did not re-form the unit after it was annihilated.

          But even so, the LGBT we have today are not discreet Home Office Mandarins who simply must partake of some poetry reading and buggery in between saving England from the Hun, but an openly dyscivilizaional disease that wallows in our destruction.

          Sorry, the best thing would be to direct the Pride Parades right into the camps and lock the gates behind them.

        • jim says:

          > Was that a war we lost? You have to be blind like Jim to think so.

          Hamas drove you before them and imposed their will. Israel failed to impose its will.

          > Have you heard of the Sacred 300?

          The sacred three hundred was gay battalion in an overwhelmingly straight army – which mean that the regular platoons were kept straight by means gentler than shooting sodomites. Some of the Greek historians that mention this practice suggested that more vigorous means were appropriate.

          The sacred three hundred was not gay parades and integration of sodomites among regular troops.

          > The political and military leadership is chock full of gays everywhere. Is not a sign of weakness.

          And yet, something has made Israel a great deal weaker than she used to be.

  9. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Another Middle Eastern war that I don’t care about. Cut funding to both sides, completely.

  10. glosoli says:

    Judge orders Trump to let Acosta back in.
    Trump complies.
    Sad, really sad.

    • Thales says:

      Due process for a process that doesn’t exist to exercise a non-existent right enforced against an agency that’s not an agent.

    • BC says:

      Just reaffirming that reporters and judges are priests and above the law.

      • Thales says:

        They ARE the law, but only if allowed to be so. Trump could ignore it, but doesn’t. Trump still a merchant, not a warrior. Very sad.

      • pyrrhus says:

        These problems with the three classes of priests, Judicial, Media, and Academic, all of whom are anti-civilizational and anti-white, will only be solved with helicopters and firing squads. Nothing else will work.

    • BC says:

      This is playing out like Nixon 2.0.

      • glosoli says:

        Trump looks like he’s aged 5 years in the past few months.

        • jim says:

          Sounds like a coup by the permanent government under way.

          • BC says:

            So Trump out by late 2019? I still get the impression he didn’t take the Democrats/Cathedral seriously when it comes to the lengths they would go to win, IE rig the vote after all the votes were in. So blatant. Hell, they even rigged Mia Love’s win after the fact just to stick it to Trump.

            • jim says:

              Out or capitulates to being a shadow puppet president – politics as usual. Or resists removal by dramatic measures.

              If Trump capitulates to blatant illegality this time, expect leftists to struggle for power with each other by means ever more blatantly illegal, until in eight years or so, we wind up with leftists imprisoning or killing each other in substantial and ever increasing numbers.

              If Trump does not capitulate, imprisoned, soon followed by other insufficiently left wing politicians and judges, where the criteria of “insufficient left wing” rapidly becomes ever further left wing.

              • The Cominator says:

                I don’t think Trump will end up imprisoned. The stress is showing though…

                Its not Nixon 2.0 with Nixon the media was successful in causing Nixon’s support with Republicans to collapse (aided by occasional left wing actions by Nixon on domestic policy).

                This has not happened with Trump nor do I think it will…

                • BC says:

                  >Its not Nixon 2.0 with Nixon the media was successful in causing Nixon’s support with Republicans to collapse (aided by occasional left wing actions by Nixon on domestic policy).

                  Nixon’s support by the GOP rank and file never slipped. Instead, he was sold out by the GOP elite in Congress. Next election the GOP rank and file voted against the Republicans in Congress nearly destroying it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Wasn’t Nixon’s approval around 20-25% when he was impeached. Impossible unless his GOP support broke.

              • calov says:

                “until in eight years or so, we wind up with leftists imprisoning or killing each other in substantial and ever increasing numbers.”

                After they kill or imprison all on the right who have not gone on the reservation, presumably.

                • peppermint says:

                  Game theory. Purge the guy who’s going to purge you, not the guy who’s invisible and irrelevant. We say out loud and reason about what they can’t, we trust each other while with them there can only be one.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Beria was a rightist who managed to hide out by joining one group of communists who were purging the other group.

                  He was never a communist himself and never even really pretended to be one. And he came very close to taking over the Soviet Union…

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  >Beria was a rightist

                  Chad Joseph Stalin seduced, fucked, and impregnated teenagers aged 13-16.

                  Virgin Lavrentiy Beria kidnapped, raped, murdered, and buried the naked corpses of many random chicks (abducted off the streets and brought to him by his thugs) in the basement of his mansion on Moscow’s Kachalova Street.

                  I 100% approve of the former’s actions. Not so, the latter’s. But maybe I’m just not edgy enough.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Beria’s proclivities were probably exaggerated but I don’t want to debate that.

                  The point was that Beria a right wing anti-communist got recruited by one group of communist to kill others, never even pretended to be a communist all that much and ended up as the head of the secret police.

                • jim says:

                  Had Beria successfully seized power, we would now remember him as we remember General Monck.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Several corpses have been dug, Cominator. I doubt there was much exaggeration. Remember, this guy — not Stalin — is responsible for the industrialization of the gulag system.

                  Such “rightist.”

                • The Cominator says:

                  Industrial gulag system was created by the communist party as a whole before him and definitely in full operation when Yezhov was in charge of the NKVD.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Wikipedia:

                  “Beria administered the vast expansion of the Gulag labor camps and was primarily responsible for overseeing the secret detention facilities for scientists and engineers known as sharashkas.”

                  History Channel:

                  “He was the driving force behind the expansion of the vast network of more than 500 forced labour camps known as the infamous “Gulags”. It is said they once contained as many as five million prisoners. In the words of historian and former prisoner Anton Antonov-Ovseyenko, “The Gulags existed before Beria, but he was the one who built them on a mass scale. He industrialised the Gulag system. Human life had no value for him.””

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim will I think agree with me this is fake history.

                  Beria only became head of the NKVD after the Great Purge (which was also when Stalin really became dictator). Things got better after that not worse.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Want to compare numbers? Let’s do that.

                  Yezhov was head of NKVD from 1936 to 1938. Beria from 1938 to 1953

                  Yezhov:

                  “In 1937 and 1938 alone, at least 1.3 million were arrested and 681,692 were shot for ‘crimes against the state’. The Gulag population swelled by 685,201 under Yezhov, nearly tripling in size in just two years, with at least 140,000 of these prisoners (and likely many more) dying of malnutrition, exhaustion and the elements in the camps (or during transport to them).[16]”

                  Overall:

                  “The tentative historical consensus is that of the 18 million people who passed through the gulag system from 1930 to 1953, between 1.5 and 1.7 million died as a result of their incarceration.[26]”

                  So, 1.3 million under Yezhov need 16.7 million more to reach the total of 18 million people in the gulag from 1930 to 1953.

                  Presumably, the numbers swelled between 1938 and 1953 (Beria), rather than coming from the Yagoda years of (1934-1936) or prior.

                  Am I missing something?

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Yes, I probably have missed something because the overall numbers for Yezhov aren’t stated clearly. But the point is, the vast majority of the 18 million gulag prisoners (1930-1953) were exiled there under Beria (1938-1953) and not in the years of 1930-1938.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There were certainly not 18 million people in the Gulags by 1953. To the extent the population of the Gulags increased under Beria (as compared to Yezhov and Yagoda) I would say the causes were

                  1) WWII and the occupation of satellite countries (and Stalin despite things getting better in Russia when he really became dictator always mercilessly hated and distrusted the Poles, I don’t know if Polish prisoners went to Russian or Polish gulags but neither would surprise me).

                  2) You were far far LESS likely to be shot after Beria took over as compared to the pre Beria years. And after WWII even under Stalin the Soviet Union went through a period where it actually basically didn’t shot people (the satellite governments in Eastern Europe did but not in Russia). If you keep arresting people but not killing them you tend to get more prisoners.

                • jewish pedophile says:

                  Come on, you’re not serious.

                  “On the eve of World War II, Soviet archives indicate a combined camp and colony population upwards of 1.6 million in 1939, according to V. P. Kozlov. Anne Applebaum and Steven Rosefielde estimate that 1.2 to 1.5 million people were in Gulag system’s prison camps and colonies when the war started.”

                  “Approximately 300,000 Polish prisoners of war were captured by the USSR during and after the “Polish Defensive War”.Almost all of the captured officers and a large number of ordinary soldiers were then murdered (see Katyn massacre) or sent to Gulags.”

                  “During the Great Patriotic War, Gulag populations declined sharply due to a steep rise in mortality in 1942–43. In the winter of 1941 a quarter of the Gulag’s population died of starvation. 516,841 prisoners died in prison camps in 1941–43, from a combination of their harsh working conditions and the famine caused by the German invasion. This period accounts for about half of all gulag deaths, according to Russian statistics.”

                  “After World War II the number of inmates in prison camps and colonies, again, rose sharply, reaching approximately 2.5 million people by the early 1950s (about 1.7 million of whom were in camps).”

                  “Yet the major reason for the post-war increase in the number of prisoners was the tightening of legislation on property offences in summer 1947 (at this time there was a famine in some parts of the Soviet Union, claiming about 1 million lives), which resulted in hundreds of thousands of convictions to lengthy prison terms, sometimes on the basis of cases of petty theft or embezzlement. At the beginning of 1953 the total number of prisoners in prison camps was more than 2.4 million of which more than 465,000 were political prisoners.”

                  This is Beria’s work, not Yezhov’s.

                  >If you keep arresting people but not killing them you tend to get more prisoners.

                  Well, yeah… that’s one way to put it. The other is, “Beria arrested many millions of people and was responsible for most of what happened with the gulags,” which is the point I’m making.

                  And the bigger point I’m making is that there’s not much “rightist” about Beria. He definitely behaved like a saintly, holy, and godly person (murdering random civilians both privately and as head of the NKVD) rather than as a greedy, sinful, and selfish person who’s only in it for the lolz like e.g. Goring.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Well, yeah… that’s one way to put it. The other is, “Beria arrested many millions of people and was responsible for most of what happened with the gulags,” which is the point I’m making.”

                  Stalin improved things when he became dictator for real but he was still a communist and no saint. Beria hardly had freedom of action to release people en masse and Beria worked for Stalin. But after Stalin died he did start releasing people en masse.

                  If he had succeeded in taking power his plan was basically to go Deng Xiaoping and mostly abandon communism altogether.

    • The Cominator says:

      Recent news is that hes not complying.

  11. Pbw says:

    Israel has become extremely fearful of casualties and collateral damage. They don’t want to lose a single soldier and they spend too much time worried about PR. There are reports they called neighbors to warn them to clear buildings near sites that they then bombed.

    • jim says:

      Fearful of collateral damage leads to collateral damage, because your enemies hide behind women and children, and fearful of casualties leads to casualties, because your enemy wins, can control the behavior and movement of your troops, because your enemy drives you before him.

      Fearful of casualties and fearful of collateral damage is also an indicator that warriors are not in charge, that you have an army led by non warriors.

    • Cyril Holland says:

      Ultras are having all the kids and yet are still exempt from military service.

      Apparently the birth rate of the non-Orthodox in Israel isn’t too impressive, so again, what can’t go on, won’t.

    • Andre says:

      The problem is not fear of collateral damage. The problem is fear of engaging in effective, civilizational war. If the IDF took all the women and sent them to Tel Aviv, they would not have to fear bombing them. In a few short years they wouldn’t have to fear bombing kids either, as none would be born. And perhaps the arabs would discover the joy of having gay pride parades of their own.

      • peppermint says:

        …and they can’t do that because Israel isn’t a real country, they’re too comfy with foreign aid, like Boomers with cheap Chinese crap and exotic mistresses losing industry and control of their wives and daughters

        • peppermint says:

          (having exotic mistresses and Chinese slave goods is good. Losing what’s important and yours and replacing it with temporary stuff isn’t)

          • jim says:

            Yes, we need a nation state, but do not have one.

            Whereupon, for lack of our own nation state, Chinese made goods and exotic mistresses become the lesser evil.

  12. Andre says:

    Nations do not wage war. States wage war.

    • jim says:

      Hence Jews need a nation state, which they do not have, because if Arabs manage to get a nation state, they are going to kill the Jews and enslave their women.

      • Andre says:

        The state is the network of male initiates. There is no nation state. The very idea of one is a leftist abomination.

        • Doug Smythe says:

          The ideal State is organized along the lines of a motorcycle club, but with a bigger territory and more firepower.

          • Andre says:

            I don’t know much about the structure of motorcycle clubs so I can’t comment on that. I do, however, know what “nation state” means. It means communism. It means matriarchy.

            • jim says:

              A nation, in the original meaning, as used in the bible, was a people capable of acting cohesively, capable of making war.

              A state is approximately what they used to mean by Kingdom. A leadership capable of making war.

              Thus a nation state is people with a leadership that identifies with them, and they identify with their leader.

              Nationalism was a leftist idea, used to overthrow Kings, in favor of priestly leadership. And, each being lefter than the next, they proceeded to institute matriarchy.

              Which does not mean that nation state is not a good idea, just that good ideas tend to be captured by the priesthood and tortured into something subtly different.

              • Andre says:

                “Thus a nation state is people with a leadership that identifies with them, and they identify with their leader.”

                That is communism. If one identifies with the other, and the other with the one, then who is sovereign? The lines are blurred. Obviously a king has a relationship with his subjects, just like a husband has a relationship with his wife, and one would hope there is minimal bickering and conflict between the two, and that the wife isn’t completely incapable of acting without the husband. But that is not the heart of the concept. The idea has not been tortured into something different, it has simply been taken more and more seriously, until it got transcended through the dream of international socialism, which is just the purest expression of the idea. The state became the nation, the nation became humankind, humankind became mother earth.

              • The Cominator says:

                Westphalian Nationalism was not a leftist idea.

                Extreme 19th century Ethnonationalism was a leftist idea, but one that has been heretical among leftist (for non browns) since WWII.

                • jim says:

                  True.

                  Westphalian nationlism worked. And the peace of Westphalia worked.

                  As reactionaries, we are in the business of recovering and restoring lost social technologies.

                  Color revolutions are holy wars in which the dominant state religion of the US attempts to dominate other societies using its co-religionists, often co-religionists raised and educated within a short distance of Harvard.

                • Andre says:

                  “Westphalian Nationalism was not a leftist idea.”

                  Yes, it was.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Andre:

                  Insufficient argument. Pointing at thing and saying “leftist” does not a leftist make.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Ethnonationalism became heretical amongst leftist modalities almost as soon as it was innovated; it’s always something too close to right perennialism to ever be truly ‘of’ a leftist modality; it quickly and easily mutates (‘constructive interpretation’) into rightism.

                • Niiiidriveevof says:

                  It was. Westphalian nationalism was the shattering of the civil and religious union of Christendom, which was (among other, greater things) the finest social technology in European history. The religious wars involved nobles mobilizing peasants against clergy (high, low, middle) as well as against their emperor. They subjugated religion into the sphere of merely natural interests, of temporal power. That subjugation is one of the core doctrines at this blog, and the only one I dispute. The supernatural is not a Platonic means to an end, but real, and will judge all men when they die, and gives authority to men to that end.

                  The killing settled down when enough heretic rulers forcibly settled it down, in Cromwell-style, I can only assume. The Catholics should have fought on, but were weak.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Priests need to be subjected to military rulers (warriors). Every king needs to be an Emperor in his own kingdom.

                  Westphalian nationalism accomplished this. Ergo not leftist.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Cathedral is Wilsonian and hates Westphalian nationalism.

                  Trump and a few heretic realists in DC (Henry Kissinger) support Westphalian nationalism.

                  Universalism and internationalism are leftist, “self determination” ethnonationalism (when its allowed by the Cathedral) is also leftist.

                  Westphalian nationalism is supported by Trump, Orban, Bolsonarno, Netanyahu, Putin etc. Are you saying that the Cathedral is “right wing” and that these men are leftists (yes maybe compared to say De Maistre they are)?

                  Because when you argue that Westphalian nationalism is leftist that is in fact what you are arguing.

                • Andre says:

                  Frederick Algernon, as I see it, the fundamental difference between left and right, the core psychological reality behind those terms, is the difference between the masculine and the feminine drive. The masculine drive is for empire. The feminine drive is for surrender. Empire is individualistic by nature as power radiates from the individual. Surrender is collectivist by nature as power envelops the individual. The idea of nation-states is a surrender of sovereignty. Not just a loss due to practical reasons, not a civil cease-fire, but a psychological surrender. It is no different than deciding you won’t farm land because furry animals currently occupy it. It is a retreat from the natural world. If the furry animals are not your friends and allies, you might not actually want or feel it is worth the bother to barbecue them all, but you don’t say “well, it’s their land”. Anyone not part of your state is either an enemy or a subject, and must eventually be either subjugated, or exterminated. The eventually may take a very, very long time, but that understanding needs to stay alive in your mind.

                • Niiiidriveevof says:

                  The peace of Westphalia worked but the peace of the Albigensian crusade worked far, far better.

                  Westphalian nationalism is leftist and everything else that we have seen since is even further left. Westphalian nationalism was a “thus far and no further” Cromwellian/Stalinist hardening of the revolution of the reformation. The reformation was the germ of all subsequent evil in the west – radical protestantism is only the more radical version of what was already radical.

                  Priests are supreme in priestly things and kings are supreme in earthly things. Ultimately, supernature is above nature, so the earthly activity of kings is ordered to the priests’ heavenly concerns, not the other way around. Making kings ultimately superior to priests when their spheres overlap is an inversion of order, is putting what is base above that which is noble, and that is leftist.

                  Yes, of course all those men are leftists. Even Jim, our honorable host, is a leftist. Once upon a time cuius regio, eius religio was equivalent to communism and free love. It would have got you burned at the stake before Luther, & one day it will again.

                • jim says:

                  So, according to you Charles the Hammer was a leftist, Charles the Great was a leftist, and Charles the second was a leftist.

                  Nuts.

                • The Cominator says:

                  This is a papist arguement and the problem with papist arguments is that they don’t understand that the Reformation was an inevitable consequences of Gregory VII the great heretic claiming to speak for God.

                  It was Gregory VII who claimed to be above the Emperor, the Catholic Church is an Orthodox Heresy.

                  Make Catholics Orthodox again.

                • Andre says:

                  “Every king needs to be an Emperor in his own kingdom.”

                  And what to an Emperor defines the boundaries of “his own kingdom”?

                  “Priests need to be subjected to military rulers (warriors).”

                  There is no other type of ruler. In order for a priest to not be subjected to a military ruler, he must yield military power.

                  “Trump and a few heretic realists in DC (Henry Kissinger) support Westphalian nationalism.”

                  Which is why, assuming that is actually true, he will fail.

                  “Universalism and internationalism are leftist, “self determination” ethnonationalism (when its allowed by the Cathedral) is also leftist.”

                  Explain to me what you believe is the difference between the concepts of self determination and westphalian nationalism.

                  “Westphalian nationalism is supported by Trump, Orban, Bolsonarno, Netanyahu, Putin etc. Are you saying that the Cathedral is “right wing” and that these men are leftists (yes maybe compared to say De Maistre they are)?”

                  These men are very clearly, leftists. Assuming they are what they present themselves as, they might not be. They will all fail in their stated missions, which is to preserve their respective “nation-states”. The Cathedral is not right wing.

                • Andre says:

                  Niiiidriveevof says: “Priests are supreme in priestly things and kings are supreme in earthly things.”

                  Can you describe for me the difference between the two?

                • The Cominator says:

                  I would say if you struggle with this reread Moldbug and then spend more time reading Jim.

                  You are literally arguing for priestly rule and universalism both which go against reaction 101.

                  The king needs to be NOT a priest, but he also needs to embody God’s power on earth and since the priests are also on earth needs to be able to overrule the priests. Universal empires quickly spiral into catastrophic failure.

                • Niiiidriveevof says:

                  Priestly things are those which concern man’s supernatural end, his relation to God. Earthly things are those which concern man’s natural end, virtuous, good living.

                  “Reformation was an inevitable consequences of Gregory VII the great heretic claiming to speak for God”

                  The French Revolution was an inevitable consequence of kings and nobles claiming to have authority from God.

                  Investiture is clearly a priestly matter.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The French Revolution was an inevitable consequence of kings and nobles claiming to have authority from God.

                  Investiture is clearly a priestly matter.”

                  Who was supreme at the time of Constantine the Great, the Emperor or the bishop of Rome?

                  This point of view before Gregory VII was known as “The Donatist Heresy”. The Donatist were known to ask “What Has the Emperor to do with the Church”?

                • Andre says:

                  “The king needs to be NOT a priest, but he also needs to embody God’s power on earth and since the priests are also on earth needs to be able to overrule the priests.”

                  Thus making the king a high priest.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  It no more makes him a high preist that being able to overrule the pizza maker makes him high pizza maker.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Thus making the king able to fire or cutoff the head of the high priest.

                • Andre says:

                  “Priestly things are those which concern man’s supernatural end, his relation to God. Earthly things are those which concern man’s natural end, virtuous, good living.”

                  Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand. He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.

                  Is living in a proper relationship with God in some way vicious, bad living? What kind of God are you worshiping?

                • Andre says:

                  “Thus making the king able to fire or cutoff the head of the high priest.”

                  Based on what justification?

                • Niiiidriveevof says:

                  “So, according to you Charles the Hammer was a leftist, Charles the Great was a leftist, and Charles the second was a leftist. Nuts.”

                  Missed this. Charles II was a leftist, or at least his regime was – perhaps he did all he could. Charlemagne was not a leftist – investiture is an error very much within the pale, and Christmas 800 was as fine an expression of integralist Christendom as you may find. Charles Martel I don’t know what you’re referring to.

                  “Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation”

                  Distinction is not division. When two brothers work together, the house is undivided. Likewise the supernatural end of man is not opposed to his natural end, but it is distinct, and higher. God is infinitely above man, and does not suffer union with Him to be reduced to mere natural virtue, although it does include natural virtue.

                • jim says:

                  > Missed this. Charles II was a leftist, or at least his regime was

                  Nuts.

                  That is like Carlylean Restorationist calling me a Jew.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “investiture is an error very much within the pale”

                  Opposing investiture makes you a Donatist heretic.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Andre:

                  You make an interesting observation in terms of Left vs. Right being gendered modalities (Female vs. Male) and I would tend to agree on that interpretation in principle. The metaphor (and it is a metaphor) breaks down given that states (of nations, of regions, of orgs, etc.) can and in some sense must exist on a spectrum (given their piecemeal composition), whereas humans are either male or female or genetic mistakes (no in between state, no spectrum). The metaphor is very useful for snapshot analyses (USA was male in 1890 but female in 1912, or some such) in a kind of Uncertainty Principle for political alchemy. It comports well with Aidan Maclear’s Father Gov’t/Mother Gov’t piece (highly recommend).

                  You may have a point about settling for anything less than empire as being, in some sense, a surrender. If I want to bang my wife in all three holes but only manage to take two, I am in some sense surrendering. But what has defeated me? Her cries for mercy from my mighty, imperial phallus (surrender to an external)? My flagging stamina from hatefucking my fist instead of doing my homework (surrender to an internal)? Could it be my neverending list of chores and projects (surrendering to the inexorable passage of time vs. my agenda)?

                  Your analysis represents what Thomas Sowell identifies as an “unconstrained” interpretation of expectations. You see failure where there isn’t perfect success. You see compromise as submission, regardless of reasoning or reality. You disregard the constrained, or conservative, interpretation that demands we never let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good. Viewing the world in this way, an infinitely opposed binary potential, is an unconstrained view, no different than the eternal holiness spiral of the Left which views the struggle for equality as a choice between Perfect or Not.

                  Your view of Westphalian Nation Statehood as leftism is Leftism.

                • Niiiidriveevof says:

                  “Opposing investiture makes you a Donatist heretic.”

                  That is nonsense. The two have nothing to do with one another.

                • Mike says:

                  Calling it Westphalian nationalism is not exactly true. It was never about nationalism, it was about state sovereignty. The Thirty Year’s War had destroyed continental Europe and so the Peace of Westphalia created a new system where the states of Europe pledged non-interference in each other’s religious affairs, and generally promised to keep the peace more often, to avoid such devastation.

                  Not disagreeing with your main point though, it did work for the most part. Up until probably WW1, which then destroyed the Westphalian System.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Me: Opposing investiture makes you a Donatist heretic.”

                  “Niiiidriveevof: That is nonsense. The two have nothing to do with one another.”

                  What did they call the group of dissident Christians during the time of Constantine who refused to accept his authority over the Church (including his right to appoint and depose bishops) and asked “What has the Emperor to do with the Church”?

                  Donatism then, Donatism now.

                • Mike says:

                  If the church wanting to appoint its own bishops (investiture) is heresy, then isn’t the Orthodox Church just as heretical as the Catholic? Its not like Putin is appointing Russian Orthodox Bishops.

                • jim says:

                  But he could appoint his own Bishops, and probably would if they gave him trouble.

                  If, like Charles the Second, he found himself with a church full of enemies and heretics, would undoubtedly purge the whole lot from top to bottom as Charles the Second did, and would have right authority to do so.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Orthodox Church would not oppose Putin doing it but he sees no need. Opposing Putin appointing the bishops that would make them heretics.

                • Mike says:

                  I suspect that is true, but I don’t think that this is as traditional of an arrangement for the Orthodox Church as you might think. Yes, in the Byzantine Empire the Emperor was known to weigh in on or appoint many bishops. But in Russia, prior to the reign of Peter I, I don’t think many were. It wasn’t until Peter created the Holy Synod in the 1700s that every single bishop, including the patriarch, was appointed by the Tsar, which continued all the way up until the October Revolution.

                  What I’m getting at here is that total control over the priests by the warriors probably is not going to happen all the time and might not even be the best arrangement all the time. The Orthodox Church was pretty pissed off when the Tsar basically subjugated them, and even today they refer to that period somewhat disparagingly because of how many monasteries got closed down or shrank due to all the political turmoil. A more hands off approach, one that doesn’t intervene unless there is an issue that matters deeply to the sovereign, would probably do better. But perhaps the tough approach is needed.

                • peppermint says:

                  Is the theory here that Christendom under the Pope could only be supplanted with Progressivism under Harvard and can only be supplanted by a new Christendom?

                  Sure.

                  God made man and said he was good. Satan isn’t king of this world, Jesus is. Sin means wilfully choosing evil over good, so it is logically possible to avoid sin on your own, however, it’s hard, so the Holy Ghost offers mercy and encoragement.

                  Communion with God is offered to all men. Priests have the special power to absolve sin, but no special power to avoid temptation.

                  Rulership, especially informal rulership, offers great temptation, and the devil especially seeks to corrupt the Church.

                • Niiiidriveevof says:

                  “Donatism then, Donatism now.”

                  The Donatists spurned all authority, bishop and emperor alike. Not unusual for any heresy. They spurned it because of their heresy, not the other way round. Or even if that weren’t true, it wouldn’t matter. Doctrine is not a vain sequence of syllables, a password that the state uses to enforce order. It’s real propositions that are true or false. Donatism is one of the false ones.

                  Leftism is leveling and the greatest leveling is the one accomplished at Westphalia, the (imagined) subjugation of heaven by earth. And that’s a declaration of war, not peace, unending war akin to the war on inequality, because it can never succeed. The peace of the Albigensian crusade was true peace.

                • jim says:

                  Papal supremacy was heresy for a thousand years, and was the beginning of female emancipation and female consent to marriage, even for immoral women.

                  And it was this heresy that split Roman Catholicism from Orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is the original Christian faith.

                  The King should not meddle in the proper business of religion, but he gets to decide what is the proper business of religion. Moses appointed Aaron. Solomon appointed Zadok, and Zadok chrismated Solomon.

                  And, most importantly, in our culture, our history, the civilization that gave us science, technology, industrialization, and empire, the King appointed the Archbishop. Charles the Second purged the whole Church from top to bottom with an iron hand. Everyone in a priestly occupation was required to reapply for his old job, and he did not always get it.

                • Niiiidriveevof says:

                  In the first millennium, bishops could oversee other bishops, and the Pope of Rome was the first among bishops, with jurisdiction over the rest. The emperor had a role of de facto authority, especially in calling councils, but the council’s decrees would not be accepted as binding without the assent of the Pope. Theodosius the Great was excommunicated by St. Ambrose until he did public penance – Ambrose was only the bishop of Milan. Papal supremacy was not heretical.

                  Granted that afaict the church did too little against female emancipation, but who didn’t? What more did Anglicanism do?

                  The Church was created by God, with its heads given spiritual authority by God to govern and teach spiritual things. This was added around what was natural, the kingship, containing it and elevating it. Both king and bishop are within it, but the bishops have the teaching authority. Necessarily the bishops must decide what is the proper business of religion, but if they decide very wrongly, they undermine their own authority.

                  Science and empire are great, industrialization is a mixed blessing – by tending to reduce all value to exchange value, you damage martial virtue, and a man’s connection to the land and to his ancestors. But the spiritual unity of Christendom is above all price. It really does matter whether the religion is true or false.

                • jim says:

                  The Church is substantially responsible for female emancipation, in demanding female consent to marriage even in the case of badly behaved women, and failing to set the manly example of patriarchal family commanded by Saint Paul in his prescription of the requirements for a Bishop. 1 Timothy 3:4 “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;”

                  For a thousand years the Church kept demanding female consent and not getting it, ever since the Roman Catholic Church adopted the Donatist heresy, it also adopted a heretical position on female consent, thus for a thousand years the Church was not failing to resist female emancipation, but aggressively promoting it against a society that successfully resisted Church promoted feminism and Church promoted destruction of marriage for eight hundred years.

                  > But the spiritual unity of Christendom is above all price. It really does matter whether the religion is true or false.

                  If Bishops have supremacy over Kings, they have political authority. Whereupon one society will use religion to dominate another society. Holy war ensues, as for example Syria and the thirty years war.

                  These wars reflected the fact that the political domain of papal power was no longer the same as the political domain of the holy roman empire.

                  Orthodoxy, having humbler pretensions in earthly matters than the heresy of Pope Gregory, can be one religion in a world of several political hegemonies. Roman Catholicism could not.

                  The Peace of Westphalia was fundamentally conservative and reactionary, in that it made warriors supreme over priests, and in that it reversed the Donatist heresy of Pope Gregory, reversed the outcome of the investiture controversy, and restored this vital aspect of Christian Orthodoxy.

                  If it matters whether a religion is true or not, what happens when the King complains that the priests are untrue, as King Charles the Second complained?

                  And if it matters whether a religion is true or false, surely a religion that promotes Donatism and female emancipation is false.

                  Female emancipation is heresy against Gnon. For promoting this heresy, the Church today needs to be purged from top to bottom by the Sovereign.

                • Andre says:

                  “You see compromise as submission, regardless of reasoning or reality.”

                  In Islam, if you cannot currently defeat your enemy, either because you just don’t know how, or because that particular enemy is not a priority, you can “befriend” him. You can lie all you want, trade, do whatever you think is the most practical course of action. But you do not forget that he is the enemy, and as soon as it is convenient, must be brought into Submission, as per the example of its founder. This is the appropriate mentality to keep and the reason Islam will outlive basically all european nation-states, Hungary and Russia included.

                • Andre says:

                  “If it matters whether a religion is true or not, what happens when the King complains that the priests are untrue,”

                  Holy war.

                • jim says:

                  Observed holy wars (thirty years war, Syrian War, unending Afghan war) seem suggestive of priests in charge, rather than warriors in charge. The peace of Westphalia was successful, and was a result of Kings taking charge of priests.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “In the first millennium, bishops could oversee other bishops, and the Pope of Rome was the first among bishops, with jurisdiction over the rest. The emperor had a role of de facto authority, especially in calling councils, but the council’s decrees would not be accepted as binding without the assent of the Pope. Theodosius the Great was excommunicated by St. Ambrose until he did public penance – Ambrose was only the bishop of Milan. Papal supremacy was not heretical.”

                  1) As you said Ambrose was clearly the most powerful bishop and he was bishop not of ROME but of MILAN. The bishop of Rome was not that important compared to others until Gregory.

                  2) Theodosius was a weakling and by letting barbarians into the empire wholesale (Marcian who deserved the title the great reversed this and at least saved the East) is responsible for the fall of the Empire in the West.

                  3) Its nonsense that before Gregory that ANY ONE bishop outranked a council. A council with the Emperor acting as referee was the highest authority of the Church.

                • glosoli says:

                  ‘Priests have the special power to absolve sin’

                  @minty, yeah, and if not they’ll send you to purgatory, unless your family pay indulgence money to the priest.

                  PS None of the above is in the Bible.

                • peppermint says:

                  Jesus gives bishops the power to forgive sins in John 20

                • glosoli says:

                  I can imagine a Roman Emperor reading it to mean that, and assuming the power, and the money etc.

                  But it means that we believers have the Holy Spirit, and as the Lord’s Prayer says ‘forgive us our sins, as we forgive those who sin against us’.

                  I don’t recall an example of any Apostles forgiving sins on behalf of Jehovah though, do you? Would they dare?

              • Paulus Someone says:

                I think you shouldn’t say that nationalism is a leftist idea. Nationalism/Patriotism are fundamentally right ideas and a good king is one who will be a nationalist/patriot.

  13. peppermint says:

    Maybe the new quantum-superheterodyne radar the Chinese say they have will convince my cow orkers that stealth is irrelevant, since the Kosovo thing was ignored.

    The cost of faggots infiltrating tech will be felt over the next 50 years if they are purged tomorrow.

    • ilkarnal says:

      China doesn’t invent important things. To decide that that has changed we have to see working results, not rumors.

      https://westhunt.wordpress.com/2017/05/10/chinese-innovations/#comment-91340

      Stealth is relevant, it just doesn’t save the concept of flying up high and relatively slow. You can’t do that, stealth or no stealth. If you want to go high you have to go really high with sustained speeds of Mach 2+ and use extremely long range missiles. Failing that, go extremely low and slow, with low-cost replaceable planes. The current middle ground of extremely expensive, relatively slow high flyers is doomed and unrescueable.

      • jim says:

        China claims to be making quantum radar, which can in theory see through stealth, practical.

        As you say, we have not seen the results yet, and probably will not till stealth bombers attempt to deny China control of sea trade routes.

      • peppermint says:

        America doesn’t invent things because faggots took over saying “hello fellow engineers, I too am an engineer”.

        Under these circumstances China can compete.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          “Hello fellow engineers” – useful shorthand. I can’t believe it hasn’t shown up before (could it be the connotations?). Hello fellow hackers, hello fellow open source enthusiasts.

        • peppermint says:

          Why don’t I want a wedding and why do I call my posslq sexbot, housepet, or gf in polite company?

          “Hello fellow married people, we are also married”

          Why do I never want to go to the museum and see all the cool old stuff?

          “Hello fellow curators, we are also curators”

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Stealth isn’t currently irrelevant, its failure to provide complete invincibility not surprising anyone but journalists whose goal is to say the US should surrender if victory means suffering one casualty.

  14. Tumble says:

    This is a silly post. Not everyone in say, Texas supports the Mardi Gras in New Orleans.

    • peppermint says:

      Game theory. If bad behavior is on the table then bad behavior is on the table.

    • jim says:

      But everyone is compelled to pretend it is just fine.

      And if soldiers have to pretend it is just fine, they cannot love their comrades.

  15. Andre says:

    Regarding this “priests vs warriors” framework, let me ask this. If a priest is “those who get paid to be virtuous”, then they aren’t merely preachers parroting things but holy men. Forget the title “king” or “high priest”. Why would anyone follow a king, and allow him to rule holy men, if not for the fact that he is a holy man, the holiest of holy men, as his followers understand the religion?

    • jim says:

      Seemed to work fine for the last several thousand years. The Donatist heresy of Pope Gregory has only been going for a thousand years, has never been widely accepted, and has always led to trouble.

      • Andre says:

        My question is not “how could that work well” but “why do you believe that is how things actually work(ed)”? Why do you think Charlemagne, or Trump, are not holy men, as people in this age understand holiness? Looking at Trump and Bolsonaro, to me it is self-evident that they were elected for their purity. their campaign being basically a campaign to root out heresy.

        • The Cominator says:

          Can’t speak for Bolsonaro but Trump was basically elected on a campaign saying that the unofficial progressive state religion is stupid.

          So he did not run to root out heresy, he ran on a platform saying that the country needs a strong heretic as leader.

          • Andre says:

            He didn’t exactly do that. Trump is still a feminist for example. So is Bolsonaro. Are they feminists in their hearts? Maybe not, but they still have to reassure people that they don’t “hate women”, that they are the real feminists. The fact he isn’t synched up to the church, even him being perceived as a heretic by it, does not mean he isn’t synched up to the popular perception of holiness, and seen by his supporters as a purer expression of their beliefs. It does not seem to me that he was elected because he IS a heretic but because the church has lost its halo and is now being seen by way too many people as a mix between delusional heretics, outright evil does, and corrupt opportunists. Have you heard Alex Jones speak for example? Progressivism is as vulnerable to splits as christianity and islam. I have wondered if one of the reasons for Trump could be that, by marginalizing men from universities, they fell out of synch with “the current year”. The church has overeached and is freaking out. You can say trump’s movement is heretical, but heresy is simply heterodoxy, it isn’t a rejection of the holy.

            • The Cominator says:

              “He didn’t exactly do that. Trump is still a feminist for example. So is Bolsonaro.”

              Trump couldn’t go too far there because of the accursed 19th amendment, he just can’t win without some female voters.

              He has mocked #Metoo and Melania in one of the only comments she has ever made about politics has also disparaged Metoo (something that I imagine coming from a non-progressive country she finds very hard to understand).

              • Andre says:

                First, the way he raised his daughter suggests to me that he is very much a feminist. He is just not a 2018 feminist. I very much doubt he would ever try to get rid of the 19th amendment, and here is the thing, the only thing keeping the 19th amendment from being overturned is the overwhelming support of men for it, their religious faith in it as holy. I mean women can vote all they want, it’s the fact men accept the results of those elections that gives their vote power, not the vote itself. Men in the west today cannot even take a stand against the killing of babies… of a woman’s sacred right to butcher his own son, without having to ask his permission, or even let him know she is doing it. Everytime I hear about how bad the muslims are supposed to be because some isis fighter forced a mother to cook and eat her own son, I am reminded of abortion, divorce, rape and domestic violence laws and customs in the west. ISIS is by far more civilized than America and Trump’s war against them is evil, and could only be justified if he was actually trying to clean up his own house, Yet Hilary is still free and antifa feels safe to terrorize his supporters. I’ve tried to suggest to bolsonaro supporters that women’s suffrage had to be abolished, that subsidies for single moms had to end, and the overwhelming response from them was shock and outright disgust for such ideas. They would burn me at the stake faster than they would outright communists. I believe its the same for the bulk of Trump’s supporters. These people are my enemies.

                • jim says:

                  Relax. Havel’s Greengrocer.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Andre you do not understand American politics.

                  The single most common belief on the redpill right, the thing almost everyone to the right of Ben Shapiro and National Review agrees on is that the 19th amendment was a terrible mistake.

                  Male Republicans by and large at least privately (I’m not talking about your centrist cucks) have turned hard against the 19th amendment.

                  Go on a pro Trump facebook group and say women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, you’ll get 90% agreement.

                • Andre says:

                  “Male Republicans by and large at least privately (I’m not talking about your centrist cucks) have turned hard against the 19th amendment.”

                  So what are they waiting for? Do male republicans not control the police and military? I know there is a growing subculture of men who want to abolish the 19th amendment. I know this subculture supports Trump because they hope he is secretly their guy, and if not, at least he isn’t “those other guys”. Something similar exists in Brazil. But I would have to be blind to deny the fact that the bulk of their support, even among males, comes from people with quite normie beliefs that would turn on them if they didn’t constantly grovel.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You want a breakdown of forces if SHTF.

                  Progressives control most police forces even if the cops don’t tend to be progs themselves, cops NEVER disobey orders and defect unless its obvious they should historically.

                  Trump has almost full control of the marine corps.

                  The army’s alliegance is divided. Trump has the non coms who are the most essential people but the officer corps was pozzed in the previous decades. Also there are a lot of liberal millenials in the enlisted ranks now.

                  The Navy’s allegiance is also divided but because Trump has full control of the marine corps he basically has the Navy except for the subs as subs don’t have marines on them.

                  Progs control the air force.

                  Trump controls the most powerful national guard forces with Florida and Texas.

                • Andre says:

                  Say Trump went on national TV today and declared the 19th amendment null and void, calling for new elections for all levels of at least the federal government, with only male citizens getting to vote. How many men would actually fight to keep him in power, as opposed to overthrow him? Would those who today support him, continue to support him? Why doesn’t he? I am not in a position to judge tactics, perhaps he is working quietly to maneuver himself into a stronger position, keeping his enemies on the left distracted with trivial battles. But the very fact that he has to maneuver quietly indicates the level of resistance among combat capable men to such ideas is very high. And I don’t think he really has this master plan.

                • BC says:

                  >Progs control the air force.

                  The interesting bit about this is how little the Poz has been enforced on the air force. They desperately want a competent airforce and have limited the spread of women in the air force because of it. I think they expect to have to use nukes in the advent of a civil war, so they’re slow rolling the Poz to try and keep it useful.

                • The Cominator says:

                  He would probably lose if he did that but I’m not sure. Trump’s best chance for taking power in an announcement of an emergency would be that there was an attempted coup by Democrats.

                  If he put it down his scope for action would increase immensely.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Nobody is going to be willing to use H-bombs/ICBMs on the continental US. Maybe a few of the most fanatical progs (that idiot congressman who tweeted about it for example) are but there are too many actors involved in actually unleashing a nuke that it won’t happen.

                • BC says:

                  >Say Trump went on national TV today and declared the 19th amendment null and void, calling for new elections for all levels of at least the federal government, with only male citizens getting to vote. How many men would actually fight to keep him in power, as opposed to overthrow him? Would those who today support him, continue to support him? Why doesn’t he?

                  Because it wouldn’t work. Culthlu only swims left and no civilization has ever been able to openly roll back voting rights once extended. Elections have to be rendered meaningless before voting rights can be rolled back. No one is going to go for rolling back voting rights.

                • BC says:

                  >Nobody is going to be willing to use H-bombs/ICBMs on the continental US. Maybe a few of the most fanatical progs (that idiot congressman who tweeted about it for example) are but there are too many actors involved in actually unleashing a nuke that it won’t happen.

                  Easy enough to fix. Fire all the people who handle the nukes and replace them with Antifa. Now you’ve got anarchists with fingers on the button and they would certainly be willing to use them.

                • Andre says:

                  “Trump’s best chance for taking power in an announcement of an emergency would be that there was an attempted coup by Democrats.”

                  Maybe he needs to go visit France for a while so impeachment proceedings can begin and he has an excuse to cross the Rubicon.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Trump would welcome impeachment proceedings and they would strengthen him but the chances of the Senate actually convicting him and giving him the excuse to call in armed men to stop it (his supporters would not tolerate his removal if he resisted) is near zero.

                  I can’t see the Democrats flipping any Republicans except Romney and the women and that isn’t enough (not even for a simple majority but they need 2/3rds).

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Easy enough to fix. Fire all the people who handle the nukes and replace them with Antifa. Now you’ve got anarchists with fingers on the button and they would certainly be willing to use them.”

                  Antifa is almost entirely composed of Biolenist dregs. It requires some degree of competence to complete an Emergency War Orders procedure and I don’t think they could do it.

                  Furthermore word would get out and the entire military would defect to the right wing rebels if they tried.

                • Andre says:

                  “Because it wouldn’t work. Culthlu only swims left and no civilization has ever been able to openly roll back voting rights once extended. Elections have to be rendered meaningless before voting rights can be rolled back. No one is going to go for rolling back voting rights.”

                  I’m not saying it would work, I’m saying the reason it won’t work is that he and his supporters do not represent a break with the progressive religion, but those who look back fondly on “the good old days”, when things seemed to actually work. They are purists, breaking with the church because they believe they are the true believers. Bolsonaro for example talked about increasing welfare payments to single moms, and doing so by fighting against fraud. That is a purist opinion, as is the relentless complaints by normie brazilians against “corruption”, or the chant to “drain the swamp” in America, because obviously that is the reason the system is failing, not some inherit flaw in it but lack of purity.

                • Andre says:

                  “I can’t see the Democrats flipping any Republicans except Romney and the women and that isn’t enough (not even for a simple majority but they need 2/3rds).”

                  Just piss them off more. Some illegal wars perhaps. I mean if people in El Salvador need desperately to be within american borders, why not solve this problem by invading and redrawing said borders?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Andre yeah most of Trump supporters aren’t like Jim in wanting to go back 1660 (I don’t even want to go back THAT far).

                  I’d personally be fine with the 19th century (and I think ECONOMIC policy was optimized in the 19th century not earlier) but I would have absolute monarchy over a 19th century economic system.

                  My ideal is essentially the world as it would have continued on in the event of a complete victory for the Central Powers… I believe history’s great disaster was WWI and the fact that the Entente powers won WWI.

                  Most Trump supporters would probably be fine with the 1950s with some repressive mechanism to keep things from going further and no female voting. Most people are not going to think back centuries.

              • peppermint says:

                The 50s isn’t a static target.

                People in the 20s made cartoons that were laughably gay by today’s standards.

                And by gay I mean no one needs to work because it’s paradise where no one has to work. So the work to be done is entirely about ranking youself against others, not by strength, either to work or to fight, but by virtue signaling.

                And then a bad man comes and makes people work, or whatever. Maybe he rapes a woman instead of asking her nicely like he’s supposed to, and she’s angry about it, in the way a man would be.

                Entropy was discovered around the same time as Maxwell’s Laws. Neither were good enough. 50 years later people finally began to take entropy seriously and the fact that Maxwell’s Laws say everyone always sees electromagnetic waves as going at 1/sqrt(εμ).

                Figuring out how animals actually behave and how energy flows through an ecosystem took another 50.

                Another 50 years later everyone knows about animals and jokes that in a relationship a man should do what a monkey would do.

                The 50s could have been a great right-wing revival, but wasn’t, because conservatives thought it indecent to punish gommie youth organizations.

                • Andre says:

                  “The 50s could have been a great right-wing revival”

                  What makes you think that?

                • The Cominator says:

                  For the 50s to have been a great right wing revival would have required McCarthy to not have been (though he was right) something other then a shanty Irish drunk conman.

                  Yes he was right about the commies infiltrating our government, but almost entirely by accident and he was an opportunist. When he got discredited largely due to leftist pointing out his personal problems so did his message. It would have been hard to find a worse messenger.

                  Roy Cohn being a fag wasn’t the best person to be involved either… though he did somewhat redeem himself by mentoring the God-Emperor.

                • peppermint says:

                  (While I am demogogically downplaying the importance of statistical physics, technically, I can claim to only mean that in socially)

  16. eternal anglo says:

    U.S. Troops to Leave U.S.-Mexico Border Just as Migrant Caravan Arrives

    Federal Judge Bars Trump Administration From Refusing Asylum-Seekers

    Does this mean that if Trump is going to demonstrate that an air force commando outranks a federal judge, he is running out of time to do so.

    • Anonymous 2 says:

      IANAL but I suppose Trump should first seek an emergency stay and then put the SC on to quashing these overreaching judges. I seem to recall that Thomas basically threatened to shut these antics down in a footnote of the decision of the last episode of overreach. And it’s really qiute ridiculous that some twobit judge in Santa Dogshit, CA can issue such a sweeping statement and be taken seriously.

      While the WH is at it, why not find some Georgia judge to order California to comply with existing laws, assist ICE with enthusiasm, and halt and punish ‘sanctuary city’ activities. Then apply it to so many other scofflaw blue cities. Find a whole lineup of Southern judges and let them enter the ring one after the other.

      • The Cominator says:

        Trump is ignoring the Acosta order… so we’ll see.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Fake news about fake news.

          The White House has backed down.

          The principle that the judiciary gets to lay down the law to the executive has not been questioned. He merely tried to wriggle about a bit within that societal order.

          To be honest, after the comments about ‘the enemies of Antifa mobilising’, I’m done with Trump. It’s hard to see him as a moron so that just leaves malice.

          • jim says:

            Trump notoriously announces backdowns and then does what he pleases.

            We shall see.

            Acosta was barred for giving speeches instead of asking questions. The question then is, what happens when he next attempts to give a speech.

            If Acosta gets to continue patronizingly lecturing the president, then Trump has backed down. If the new rules forbidding reporters from acting like Acosta are, in fact, enforced, then we shall see.

            Presumably Acosta will continue doing what he does, violating the rules. He will be resuspended, in accordance with the new rules. At which point a judge then has to back down or order the president to stand and be lectured like an errant schoolboy.

            This is not capitulation. Rather it is a concession in confrontation. The matter continues.

            • Koanic says:

              He likes to start his handshakes with people he despises with his hand flat, palm up submissive. Then it rotates to perpendicular and perhaps in his favor, pulled into his center of mass – tables turned.

              The start of the gesture is publicly visible, the end of it is privately felt.

          • Andre says:

            I’m not paying that much attention to Trump or american politics. What comment are you talking about?

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [Deleted]

              • jim says:

                Deleted for Trump derangement syndrome too deranged to rebut.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re becoming really fucking annoying.

                  This is a factual citation which was REQUESTED you fucking lunatic.

                  Donald Trump, Daily Caller, November 2018:

                  “[Antifa] better hope that the other side doesn’t mobilize,” Trump concluded, “Because if you look, the other side, it’s the military. It’s the police. It’s a lot of very strong, a lot of very tough people. Tougher than them. And smarter than them.”

                  “They’re sitting back and watching and they’re getting angrier and angrier,” Trump said of the Antifa opposition.

                • jim says:

                  The reason I deleted your previous evidence is that you not only provided relevant evidence, you also attributed to Trump that he agreed with the standard progressive interpretation of that evidence.

                  I will not have you telling us what we think, and I will not have you telling us what Trump thinks.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Deleting disparaging references to the Emperor is a good way to keep out leftists as well…

                • Andre says:

                  CR, I fail to see what is wrong with Trump saying that.

                • jim says:

                  CR attributes to Trump’s words the thoughts that progressives claim that they express: That Trump is egging on his supporters to start Civil War II. I wish Trump was. That part I censored because I am sick of CR telling us what we think and what we say.

          • The Cominator says:

            “To be honest, after the comments about ‘the enemies of Antifa mobilising’, I’m done with Trump. It’s hard to see him as a moron so that just leaves malice.”

            You keep digging the leftist hole deeper Communist Revolutionary.

    • jim says:

      If Acosta gets to continue patronizingly and condescendingly lecturing us and the president, then the president is outranked by a two bit judge from dogpatch.

      We shall see.

      Yes, Trump is indeed running out of time to deal with an out of control judiciary.

  17. Oog en Hand says:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/11/darkstream-rethinking-capitalism.html

    “I started thinking more and more about the conceptual problems of capitalism because obviously the issue of debt is a massive problem, and I’ve demonstrated this, I’ve dealt with this before. You know, the biggest single problem with debt is that it completely warps the supply-demand curves, and this is without even getting into Steve Keen’s mathematical demonstration that there is no such thing as a collective supply-demand curve, that you cannot create a supply-demand curve by adding multiple supply-demand curves together so we’re still working within the concept of conventional economics, we’re still in the world of Adam Smith here. But once you add debt into the equation, then what you start seeing is people whose demand is lower than someone else’s suddenly have the ability to outbid those who have a higher level of demand and a greater ability to pay, and so this turns into a absolute warp of the demand process that completely eliminates the efficiencies of capitalism.”

    Well, well…
    Another Caloric Restrictionist?

    • Andre says:

      “We’re not talking about crony capitalism here. We’re not talking about the fact that there are favored parties and disfavored parties and that sort thing. We’re simply talking about the fact that you have the ability to spend resources you don’t have to outbid people who have more resources than you today is intrinsically introducing a level of inefficiency and a level of market misinformation that did not exist before.”

      So if a father hands his son $5 to buy lunch, that destroys the organizational power of money and dooms capitalism itself? Because that is all debt is. Handing someone who doesn’t have money, which is just organized social status, money, which again is just organized social status. It’s not really that different from all other forms of money exchange. With debt you expect that status back, the person becomes “bonded” to you. The end of debtor’s prisons (for everything except child support and alimony) limited the degree of bondage that can be contractually entered into but that is really all there is to it, the distortions of state intervention through fiat currencies having really nothing to do with capitalism. Vox says too many nonsensical things as far as I’m concerned.

      “Rational capitalism is based on the idea that all exchanges are to the benefit of the person exchanging, but we know that’s not true, we know that’s false.”

      Sure, but how else do you want to organize things if not on the basis of voluntary exchange? Capitalism already has a non-voluntary framework in the acceptance of property rights (the other person would usually rather not consent to you owning what they want to own). What else do you need/propose?

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        You’re discussing what we might call ‘naive lending to a related party’ here, but it’s not the appropriate analogy for how loans originate from banks today, nor for how they are regulated.

      • peppermint says:

        Debtor’s prison is for usury. With bankruptcy and for-profit banking, no one goes to debtor’s prison, because bad loans are on the banker, who is good enough at figuring out how not to make them that the reason for the whole Equal Lending thing was blacks weren’t defaulting on mortgages more than Whites.

        Everyone wants the comfort of the middle of the 20c back. Leftist Whites see the loss of that comfort as a result of economic policies they’re no longer allowed to denounce, outsourcing and insourcing, by individuals, not the government, because they intent to make better use of nice things than the people who have them. Thus CR’s strident denunciation of pizza, he wishes he could say kabaab instead.

        When I was a leftist I wanted the US to not be a rich country so it couldn’t pay for the wars and insourcing and outsourcing.

        The pen is mightier than the sword, and mightier than the almighty dollar, the demon-god of the leftists, whispered of in dread.

    • Alrenous says:

      Vox isn’t a Jew and probably shouldn’t act like one. None of that is relevant.

      A lot of people, perhaps most people, cannot safely handle debt. Moreover, these are exactly the kinds of people who won’t choose to responsibly refrain from debt.

      Instead they’re essentially enslaved. They accumulate debt until all of their spare revenue is captured by some Lord. Unlike traditional slavery they will actively seek higher pay, then accumulate more debt and thus raise their Lord’s revenue.

      However, this doesn’t mean nobody can handle debt. In shocking turn of events, there are other possibilities beside ‘mandatory’ and ‘forbidden.’ There’s a space between ‘everyone can get a loan’ and ‘nobody can get a loan.’

      Responsible loaners – one that don’t go out of business – in fact don’t loan to those without an ability to pay.

      Presently, many irresponsible loaners are underwritten by the government. This certainly buggers the price system, by causing localized inflation. E.g. student loans cause tuition to inflate. Naturally universities can spend the dollars before the market as a whole sees the inflation. There’s a dude’s name on this that I keep forgetting, I call it the inflation gradient instead.

      If irresponsible lending wasn’t being underwritten by the printing press, there would be little need for any specific law about who gets to take on debt. But that would be racist.

      Steve Keen is in the business of demonstrating that the ills of government policy is the free market’s fault. That’s what ‘Keynesianism’ means. But it’s neo-Keynesianism because the old style has been too badly abused by empirical results.

      • Andre says:

        “If irresponsible lending wasn’t being underwritten by the printing press,”

        Irresponsible lending is not underwritten by the printing press, it is underwritten by ability of the state to exercise power, and as such it isn’t so much irresponsible as it is a deliberate policy. If debt, tax debt in particular, did not have to be paid in dollars, the printing press would be useless.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Vox is an important piece of the puzzle.

      Ultimately though he over-thinks like all the other reactionaries and heavy alt.right philosophers.

      It’s very simple: the state seems evil to us because it’s doing things that harm the people who live under its jurisdiction. The Cathedral seems evil to us because it’s doing things that harm the people who live under its influence.

      Vox notices something that would get him censored here.

      It all reduces to the simple fact that the people ruling over us HATE us.

      • peppermint says:

        If you read between the lines, which you gleefully don’t, what he’s saying is mass government purchases warps the economy, emphasis on mass government.

        You’re supposed to be able to say capitalism bad, debt bad, and confuse your fellow Marxists into implicitly denouncing the government’s social policies.

        Instead you come here and say they hate us, they say they’re capitalists, so outgroup capitalists. It doesn’t work because words mean things.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      This is actually the most radical thing he’s allowed himself to think to date, and he’s not wrong.

      Rothbardians would respond by saying that some projects are so large, it’s just not practical to create the capital stock up front – the capital would inevitably be allocated to some other pretty good use before sufficiency were attained, therefore having debt, especially from anonymous lenders through the proxy of a bank, enables large-scale capital projects.
      The rebuttal to THAT is that there’s nothing to stop the state engaging in public-private initiatives if needs be, but it takes Vox so far from Rothbard that he’s effectively a fascist.

      (That’s a good thing in my view.)

      • peppermint says:

        Let me make this simple.

        Govt buys Saturn 5 to manifest destiny moon: good.
        Govt gives Bill Nye a career so he can say manifest destiny Mars will never happen and my sex junk is so much mo o or than either o o or: bad

        gas the professors, weltanschauung war now

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Well obviously, that goes without saying.

          You seem to have a very tenuous grasp of reality, imagining disagreements where none exist.

          Back on topic, do you agree or disagree with Vox Day’s assessment that debt is AS distortive of business planning as interference with interest rates?

          I agree with him entirely. Whether it’s a central bank interfering with the price of time, or whether it’s a consensus culture that of course one should leverage one’s assets, the result is the same: things that belong in the future are dragged into the present.

          The impact of this is widespread. Austrians tend to talk mostly about malinvestment and the tendency for bad entrepreneurs to mis-judge the potential growth of consumer spending in the future, but there’s much more to it than that.
          Shifting future resources to present existing users of capital has a depressing effect on innovation too, and perhaps even worse than that it pre-distorts assessments of future capacity before the future’s even arrived: the actual future that arrives is in effect living in the PAST!

          • jim says:

            Pretty sure that your conception of what Vox Day is saying consists of some keywords that also show up on your script.

  18. Eli says:

    Speaking of winning wars. An example of losing:

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/20/us/judge-denies-trump-asylum-policy.html

    “Federal Judge Blocks Trump’s Proclamation Targeting Some Asylum Seekers”
    Huge overstep of judicial authority in the executive’s matter.
    Here’s the judge:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_S._Tigar

  19. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Multi-national empires are gay. Ethno-nationalist states extirpating rival ethno-nationalist states is based.

    If an empire doesn’t clear out a subdued race to make room for more of it’s own race, if it works to make a space for them, even if ‘subservient’, it’s just delayed action cuckery.

    • peppermint says:

      Yes, professor, owning cows is gay, we should use machines to synthesize nutrients.

      The problem with telling all the professors to pursue prestige is no one is building important things we will need tomorrow, except for aliens.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Dogs, horses, or cows, are a lot stupider than humans, but they don’t occupy the same niches as humans, so their utilization can ‘fit in’; does not incur necessary rivalry by its own existence.

        So therefore, they can potentially be worked with. And, thanks to their good-behaving natures, they can be actually worked with.

        Niggers are smarter than dogs, or horses, or cows, but they occupy a similar niche as humans, creating ineluctable rivalrous situations. And, thanks to their misbehaving natures, can hardly even work with each other, let alone allied peoples.

        When two organisms that occupy the same niche find themselves in geographic superposition, the only stable equilibrium is one supplanting out the other.

        • Andre says:

          “Niggers are smarter than dogs, or horses, or cows, but they occupy a similar niche as humans, creating ineluctable rivalrous situations. And, thanks to their misbehaving natures, can hardly even work with each other, let alone allied peoples.”

          Most wild animals can’t be worked with very well. You need to domesticate them. I agree that sometimes you can’t, or don’t want to bother to, even with cows. That is not the same as the nonsense you are saying.

          “When two organisms that occupy the same niche find themselves in geographic superposition, the only stable equilibrium is one supplanting out the other.”

          Well I suggest you don’t occupy the same niche as niggers.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            I think you’re reading things that have not been said.

            Naturally, wild animals can’t be worked with very well, thanks to their misbehaving natures; the obvious implication.

            The more occulted point here is that it’s *not* simply cognitive horsepower that renders civilizational value (a sort of reflexive reductionism typical of ultimately misleading cognitive malpractice), the *steering* can matter as much or even more so. Topical example; a dog is a lot dumber than a khazar mutt, but i would consider my dog to generally be more valuable than a khazar, because the khazar’s steering makes it a rather negative spanner in the works in a way that a dog doesn’t.

            Compared to other forms of wildlife, domesticated animals are by far the most reproductively successful animals on earth, by a exponentially greater degree. It’s not just us who benefits from having nice animals around after all. That is to say, it’s not just a superior party that benefits from assorted relationships; each party in the whole edifice does.

            Assuming of course that there is in fact possibility of getting along and assorting by niches.

            The use of different species is the most obvious and dramatic illustration of the dynamic, in order to illustrate the dynamic, but the analogy extends to society function in general as well; the more or less intense, more or less related the subjects in question are.

            On the macro scale, hominids are a ‘society forming’ organism; that is their ‘extended phenotype’ if you will, like dams are a beaver’s extended phenotype. Their ecological niche in the broadest terms, essentially. The less related a set of hominids are, the more divergent their expressions of ‘societal formation’ will be. Conflict, confusion, and contraction are the necessary result.

            If you are a man presently in an area where the majority of men are of different sort, more greatly different sort than you; then you are by definition in contested territory.

            You bring a certain people to a certain space, and they will start making a ‘society’ more configured towards those people. Put Scotsmen in Madagascar and they will make Scotland there. Put Japanese in Finland and they will make Japan there. Bring multiple peoples to a space, then, of course, synergy becomes impossible, and in fact the worst traits of all become intensified, without the natural accretion of social technology (*Tradition*) that would normally (naturally) ‘patch’ such certain tendencies (until or unless one becomes supreme once again).

            • Andre says:

              “You bring a certain people to a certain space, and they will start making a ‘society’ more configured towards those people.”

              Only if you let them. Besides, I’ve been around my own kind enough to know it is as important to control them as it is to control anyone else. Races are created by this control as it shapes the genetic pool. States, multi-ethnic empires, create nations, not the other way around.

              “Bring multiple peoples to a space, then, of course, synergy becomes impossible,”

              Why?

        • Koanic says:

          All quite true, although you leave out the magic word: interfertile.

          If hybridization were impossible, niggers would pose no threat. They do not really occupy the same ecological niche as whites, not since the invention of guns, and well before.

        • peppermint says:

          no nigger ever called me planet-destroying capitalist sexist

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            Bantus behaved as well as could be expected in the south for generations; mores the pity, it didn’t stay that way.

            The antebellum south was quite possibly the greatest refinement of culture in the modern era; from aesthetics, to manners, to customs and traditions and classes. If there were ever any societies in history that could handle the regulation of disparate sorts of volk, that would be one.

            One can’t help but feel though that perhaps it was simply germinating a seed of destruction by the importation of aliens; a question not whether you *could* make radically different peoples behave in the same space, but rather, why go through the trouble? Could you not be even more besides, without bothering? Was it not simply a building kindling pile of potential ammunition, or footsoldiers, or magic totems even, that could be utilized by people with chronic backstabbing syndrome? (Such sorts of persons sometimes called ‘leftist’.)

            • peppermint says:

              They came from outside. They were the same people who tell me I should pretend wymen are interesting and capable engineers, the same people who stole all the free software and ruined it, the same people who force me to “work with” rice and curry African-Americans, and make me pretend to like curry and rice.

              CR would love it if I would outgroup anyone but him and ingroup him because then he could get a job babbling instead of having to do actual work.

              Jim is right. We don’t seek the destruction of anyone but gommies / SJWs / unofficial priests.

              The NYT has given up all pretense of selling pretension of sophistication for money, making it easy to identify it as an enemy NGO to have its staff and owners slaughtered. When it was pretending three decades ago, how could we have dealt with it? By ingrouping official priests and outgrouping heretics.

              • peppermint says:

                What is DevOps?

                Ops was given to incompetent unfireables.

                What is CI?

                Testing and building was given to incompetent unfireables.

                Who do we outgroup?

                The people who made incompetents unfireable.

                That’s a thing that almost sounds legal to say out loud, but almost certainly isn’t and won’t be next year. So, everyone just doesn’t notice anything.

            • Andre says:

              “Bantus behaved as well as could be expected in the south for generations; mores the pity, it didn’t stay that way.”

              Yea, but was it their fault (speaking in terms of both the bantus and the white southerners)? Or did an invading foreign power come, raise their status and fill their head with nonsense in order to use them as auxiliaries?

              “Was it not simply a building kindling pile of potential ammunition, or footsoldiers, or magic totems even, that could be utilized by people with chronic backstabbing syndrome?”

              The south was invaded by whites. Hey, let’s check something out:

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slave_states_and_free_states#/media/File:US_SlaveFree1858.gif

              https://www.270towin.com/historical_maps/2008_large.png

              I notice a pattern. Do you?

  20. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >Yea, but was it their fault (speaking in terms of both the bantus and the white southerners)? Or did an invading foreign power come, raise their status and fill their head with nonsense in order to use them as auxiliaries?

    Well, i more or less gave you the answer later in that same post.

    >The south was invaded by whites.

    Yes that was the implication; sorry if it was again not explicit enough.

    The thing isn’t really whether you *need* aliens for people with chronic backstabbing syndrome to incontrovertibly reveal themselves with unconscionable moves; people of such comportment would need to exist before hand in the first place. Rather, that the presence of aliens makes it a lot *easier* for the congenitally treasonous to come up with novel ways to commit treason, to hitherto impossible degrees.

    The most elegant thing then, of course, would be to learn to recognize the effects of people with chronic backstabbing syndrome even in environments without readily usable bioleninist chaff, so that they might be identified and physically removed before you even get to the unfortunate situation of having such problems.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Intended in reply to Andre above obv.

    • Andre says:

      “Rather, that the presence of aliens makes it a lot *easier* for the congenitally treasonous to come up with novel ways to commit treason, to hitherto impossible degrees.”

      Treasonous? The problem, or rather one of the problems, is that the United States was founded by a socialist revolution which enshrined communist principles as foundational values of the state, even though it couldn’t quite live up to them. The southern states were the actual traitors. Not that the union deserved loyalty, it was the original Soviet Union, but let’s call a spade a spade.

      “The most elegant thing then, of course, would be to learn to recognize the effects of people with chronic backstabbing syndrome even in environments without readily usable bioleninist chaff, so that they might be identified and physically removed before you even get to the unfortunate situation of having such problems.”

      I was thinking, elections aren’t that bad, they should be held once a year, with open ballots. That way, you know what has to happen to win with 100% of the votes next year. In fact, I believe elections held with open ballots are an excellent means to keep society coherent. The secret ballot was one of the greatest abominations ever invented, possibly worse than women’s suffrage (which you will notice, came after).

      • peppermint says:

        No one will ever hold a real election with open ballots.

        Knowing that you’re only 80% popular is valuable. Having men who openly voted against you that you’re not punishing is not.

        • Andre says:

          The ballot was open nearly everywhere until the end of the 19th century, sometimes into the 20th. The second they were closed, progressivism rapidly escalated. Any election held by secret ballot is an exercise in communism as The People and The Will of The People is abstracted. Is there a more obvious sign of the desire to engage in treason than asking to exercise political power anonymously?

          • peppermint says:

            How many people do you think would have voted for Trump if any Democrat could look up evidence that they did?

            Oh, but you mean no one would have voted for Roosevelt if Hoover could find out?

            Need to figure out when in history the good guys were cool and the bad guys won through voting.

            • Andre says:

              Any Republican could also look up evidence of people voting for Hilary. I’ll go back to my original point. If you lose an election and the ballots are open, you can always “elect a new people” and then vote again.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s90SRD5uJGg

              The secret ballot is an abomination, even if sometimes it happens to not produce the worse possible results. You are talking about a society that has used secret ballots for over a century as if that had not had an effect on it. The anonymous exercise of power is simply not acceptable because it divorces those exercising power from responsibility for their choices.

              “[Antifa] better hope that the other side doesn’t mobilize,” Trump concluded, “Because if you look, the other side, it’s the military. It’s the police. It’s a lot of very strong, a lot of very tough people. Tougher than them. And smarter than them.”

              “They’re sitting back and watching and they’re getting angrier and angrier,” Trump said of the Antifa opposition.”

              • peppermint says:

                Voting for someone cool is always justifiable after the fact. Radical ideas like punishing people for their vote is what conservatives mean when they say Nazis are leftists.

          • The Cominator says:

            It advanced mainly because of WW1 and women’s suffrage…

            There may be something slight to this but right now it would cause less people to vote for Trump…

            • Andre says:

              Would it really? Are you sure about that? I’m not.

              What caused women’s suffrage? Show me a single nation where women were allowed to vote (except under rare exceptions) before men gained the right to vote in secret. Every major nation involved in ww1 had implemented secret ballots. I’m not saying that was the cause of the war, but… perhaps there is some connection there.

              Also, in case you hadn’t noticed, Trump has already been elected.

            • Andre says:

              “There may be something slight to this but right now it would cause less people to vote for Trump…”

              Seriously think about this. How many people showed up for Trump rallies during the election, as opposed to Hilary rallies? Are the people who make a point to wear masks in protests pro or anti Trump?

              • peppermint says:

                > why don’t rightists wear masks, post death threats, and punch leftists?
                > was the kkk leftists?

                • jim says:

                  Towards the very end, in an effort to gain respectability, KKK was indeed leftist.

                  But in its prime, a true right wing movement.

                  Going leftist did not gain respectability, but did make it look ridiculous.

                • Andre says:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmRpLLs7SNE

                  I’m not saying there is never any value to exercising power from the shadows. I’m saying trying to build or hold together a society on that basis is lunacy.

              • peppermint says:

                Fine, I get it, Brazil and the South aren’t Boston, I’m paranoid bordering on blackpilling.

                But the only heresy that matters is the heresy with the coolness to win an open ballot vote, a.k.a. a mob hysteria. Here we pretend trannies are whamen.

                • Andre says:

                  What? I honestly have no idea what it is you just said but I’ll take a guess. The main complaint against open ballots was the ability of powerful locals, like large land owners, to pressure those in their area to vote according to what they (the local barons) thought best. Could be economic pressure, could be fear of outright murder. That is, when ballots were open, the public will was far less driven by crowd sentiments. The progressives forced ballots to be secret so the masses could not be influenced on an individual basis, could not be shamed for voting wrong, and could instead be manipulated by what amounts to mass marketing and act on their personal whims. They gave people freedom to have their own opinions, without fear of consequences for those opinions. Interestingly, legislators, who are far more vulnerable to physical and economic pressure than the average voter, do not enjoy the sacred right to absolute secrecy in all their political choices.

                • peppermint says:

                  Open ballot is tantamount to abolition of democracy, which is a good idea.

                  If Clinton had been elected 30 years ago by open ballots, would he have been required to take responsibility for the effects of his actions?

                • peppermint says:

                  Is the elected going to cuck out and not favor his supporters, or not cuck out?

                  Will men like me with more to lose than gain and limited reprisal options chance voting? Quasicriminals and the lower working class the left pretends are quasicriminals will, because it’s not like they can be punished.

                  Cuckservatives promising not to reward their supporters will attract votes from timid men like me. Liberals looking for quasicriminal votes won’t make any such promises and will be seen as alpha males.

                  When a king doesn’t leave a clear heir, we should probably not have a plebescite, or even an election amongst the nobility, but should probably get some kind of House of Lords or the cabinet to pick a replacement dynasty.

                • Andre says:

                  “Cuckservatives promising not to reward their supporters will attract votes from timid men like me. Liberals looking for quasicriminal votes won’t make any such promises and will be seen as alpha males.”

                  Then perhaps they are, and all you are good for is to be a serf/slave.

  21. glosoli says:

    Vox Day (and Tucker Carlson) clearly more interested in a cohesive and prosperous nation than Jim and (((Ben Shapiro)) who would prefer to let their buddies have it all, on the off-chance that their sons might get to go to space. Coveting Jim, don’t do it:

    http://voxday.blogspot.com/2018/11/are-you-joking.html

    ‘The duty of the nation’s leaders is to strive to benefit the actual nation, not “the economy”, not the corporations, and certainly not foreigners who happen to be in possession of paperwork that permits them to live among the nationals.’

    So easy to see the difference between the Christian leader, and the….parasitic leader isn’t it?

    • jewish pedophile says:

      Your Christianity is indistinguishable from Gaia worship.

    • jewish pedophile says:

      The guy you plagiarize, Miles W. Mathis, is full of shit, and likely on the CIA’s internet disinformation division’s payroll. Let’s look at his website. Let’s see what glosoli’s guru has been up to:

      NEW PAPER, added 11/16/18, Thousand Hoax. A guest writer blows the cover of the Thousand Oaks hoax.

      NEW PAPER, added 11/12/18, H. H. Holmes: America’s First Fake Serial Killer. Guest writers obliterate this one for us.

      PAPER UPDATE, added 11/3/18, Harry Potter. I have added a short update on p. 7.

      NEW PAPER, added 11/2/18, The Lie-Go Continues. Where we go another level down the rabbit hole. I link you to my science site for this one.

      PAPER UPDATE, added 11/1/18, Kent State Hoax. I have found more proof the event was staged. See the photos of the blood-jumper on p. 20.

      PAPER UPDATE, added 11/1/18, Pittsburgh Shooting Hoax. There are several updates to this paper, if you haven’t read it since it came out.

      PAPER UPDATE, added 10/30/18, Chris Pratt. I have discovered interesting confirmation that Tom Selleck is a Kennedy. See the section on him.

      NEW PAPER, added 10/27/18, Pittsburgh Shooting Hoax. The big clue is the name Bowers, in case you don’t have time to read it.

      http://mileswmathis.com/updates.html

      Why not have a discussion about MWM, glosoli?

      Why not go over the various theories he peddled over the years and examine their veracity and facticity?

      Your little guru is full of shit – and so are you.

      • glosoli says:

        Re Miles W Mathis, I challenge you and anyone to read his papers on JFK and John Lennon. He’s inevitably wrong on some matters, as is everyone (well, nearly everyone), but I sense Jewish Pedophile is a little on the glowy side. Hence, he fits in well here, Glowbug Central.

        • jim says:

          Leftists always tell rightists that they should hate each other, and they think that telling rightists that other rightists are Jewish is going to accomplish this goal.

          Leftist Jew detection is highly unreliable, and strangely selective.

          • glosoli says:

            You love the Jewish gold, anything to get the cash to enable just you and yours to escape to space, you’ll sell it to get there, including other people’s lives.

            It’s no wonder Australia is sinking, having produced nothing of note, ever, you’re all descended from the whores and crooks that England banished. China will sort you out.

            • jim says:

              Calling capitalism “Jewish sheckels” is unlikely to convince anyone that you are sincerely anti semitic.

              It has been said that anti semitism is the socialism of fools. No, socialism is the socialism of fools, and anti semitism an excuse for socialism, just as global warming as excuse for socialism.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Actually judoscepticism isn’t an excuse for anything. Every former philosemite I’ve ever met has told me the same story: they resisted it to the very last but the evidence became so overwhelming they just had to accept reality.

                If Purdue Pharma and blacked.com aren’t enough, five minutes around the neo-cons and central banks should be. If it’s not, there’s plenty to be seen in academia and the media, but if your goodwill survives all that, the lies and strategic misrepresentation soon overcome it.

                There’s a reason certain groups come under attack so frequently, and you can be pretty sure an unswerving love of all things German isn’t generally at the root of it.

                • jim says:

                  The solution to the Jewish problem is that Jews need to move to Israel or convert to the official state religion (which unfortunately is currently progressivism) Which in fact they are doing. Someone who wants to solve the Jewish problem by smashing capitalism and instituting socialism is indifferent to the actual Jewish problem, just as someone who wants to solve the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming problem by smashing capitalism and instituting socialism is indifferent to any actual climate change problems. Socialist antisemitism is merely a pose, just as socialist warmism is just a pose.

                  If someone says “Jews are terrible”, likely he is telling us what he truly believes. If someone says “Jews are terrible, therefore socialism”, he believes in socialism but he is lying about what he believes about Jews.

                  Reading the ClimateGate files it is obvious that the leading warmists do not care whether Global Warming is real or not, let alone whether it is Catastrophic or Anthropogenic. Similarly, whosoever tells us “Jews are terrible, therefore socialism” does not care whether Jews are terrible or not.

                • Koanic says:

                  After reflection, my attitude on the (((Christ-killers))) is as follows:

                  I greatly prefer and admire the right-wing nationalist warriors Jews to the left-wing priest prog Jews, and support the former over the latter. Israel should have her country, and America her countries. Then when the globalist Commies are routed worldwide, we can settle accounts as nation-states. The Jews are in debt past their yarmulkes for white Christian blood spilled, and the final solution for those who will not sincerely convert before the scythe starts swinging is elimination.

                  Ally with the Muslims to get it done; the elder heresy dies first. Then liquidate the Muslims in their turn.

                  Therefore I endorse Trump’s alliance with right-wing Jews in the USA as a temporally-appropriate measure.

                  Similarly, it’s fine for him to ally with based Kanye now, even though I envision the deportation of all halfricans to the motherland, followed by a gradual conquest of sub-Sahara, following the North American pattern of ethnic cleansing. There is a path to semi-whiteness and survival in the 90 IQ zones for the halfrican elite paternal bloodlines, which should secure the loyalty of the mixed-caste vanguard.

                  I write this not to be grandiose, but because envisioning a desireable grand plan can help the myopic discern between politic compromise and insidious betrayal. And even perhaps prevent the hotheaded from acting out of unwarranted despair. Dare to dream on the scale of the social engineers who have flooded North America with nonwhites. The stars will not yield their virgin vaults to those who dare not meet their twinkling eyes.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  People have been trying to ally with Muslims for a thousand years. Always a disaster.

                  Jews get unduly creative in interpreting contracts and promises. Muslims ignore contracts and promises.

                  Jews engage in crony capitalism. Muslims fly airliners into tall buildings.

                • Koanic says:

                  Ally is a strong word. Use them as cannon fodder to attack a common enemy and absorb possible nukes was all I really meant. Obviously perfidious Islam intends to conquer all, and that will never change.

                  If someone prefers to eradicate Islam first and then settle accounts with “Israel” afterwards, I don’t think it’s worth arguing about. Local circumstances will dictate prudent policy, and that is impossible to predict at this remove.

                  The relevant point is that Trump’s current alliances with right-wing Jews and the non-Democrat aligned portion of the House of Saud are not reasons to blackpill oneself into irrelevancy or suicide spree shooting. The role of the extreme Alt-White is to use Trump’s defense of traditional American values such as free speech to undermine and expose the internal contradictions of the Boomer Weimerican ethos that Trump represents. Overall, the Daily Stormer does a great job of this.

                • jim says:

                  This presupposes that there is something wrong with Trump’s position on Israel and his conspicuous alliance with right wing Jews and Zionist Jews.

                  Obviously, we should follow the peace of Westphalia with all who are willing to go along with the peace of Westphalia – And temple Judaism was always willing to go along with what we now call the peace of Westphalia. They only wanted to annihilate groups such as the worshipers of Moloch who kept successfully exporting their religion into Israel.

                  Muslims, on the other hand, are prohibited by their religion from adhering to what we now call the peace of Westphalia. Like progressives, they keep exporting their religion and imposing it on everyone. And since a religion is a synthetic tribe, this necessarily results in war or submission.

                  Israel should be Jewish, and America should not be Jewish. This means that only adherents to official Judaism should be allowed state and quasi state positions in Israel, and Jews should not be allowed state and quasi state position in America unless they convert to America’s official religion. And in practice, in America, they are not allowed state and quasi state positions unless they convert to America’s official religion.

                  Unfortunately, America’s official religion is progressivism, and Jews convert to it in large numbers in the expectation of getting state and quasi state positions. Having converted, they do not have Jewish grandchildren, which would be a fine solution to the Jewish problem except that our official religion is insane.

                • Koanic says:

                  > This presupposes that there is something wrong with Trump’s position on Israel and his conspicuous alliance with right wing Jews and Zionist Jews.

                  It’s not my presupposition. I got the idea from how seemingly all the Alt-White Gabbers have turned against Trump, while I keep supporting him. I tend to develop my thoughts in response to opposition.

                  I support Temple Judaism before Christ, of course. After Christ, the problem is that it is by definition only composed of people who reject Christ. Nothing good can be made out of such a self-selecting population, because everything good leaves it.

                  Otherwise, I agree with your analysis. I support an Israel with a temple, that returns from exile.

              • glosoli says:

                Now you’re doing that other thing that you say CR does, just producing scripted responses to my comments, but your script has nothing to do with my comment.

                Weird, yet more evidence you’re glowing in the dark.

                • peppermint says:

                  > You love the Jewish gold, anything to get the cash to enable just you and yours to escape to space

                  Jim did, in fact, say that capitalism is good and it’s the only way to space.

                  So it looks like you’re replacing capitalism with jewgolds.

                • jim says:

                  > So it looks like you [glosoli] are replacing capitalism with jewgolds.

                  Glosoli says “hail fellow antisemite”, but it is capitalism that he is pissed about, not Jews.

                • glosoli says:

                  Love to see Jim see he’d turn down jewgold if his nation was bankrupt, and would turf them all out.

                  Will never say that though.

                • glosoli says:

                  >’Glosoli says “hail fellow antisemite”, but it is capitalism that he is pissed about, not Jews.’

                  ***comment should be deleted for mis-stating glosoli’s position entirely***

                  >’Love to see Jim see he’d turn down jewgold if his nation was bankrupt, and would turf them all out.

                  Will never say that though.’

                  Crickets.

                • jim says:

                  I said that only capitalism can get us to the stars. You interpreted that comment as “need Jewish Gold to get us to the stars”

                  Thus you are using “Jewish” to mean “Capitalism”, not Jewish, much as a Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warmer, when he says “Climate Change”, means “whites, males, and capitalism”, not Climate Change.

                • peppermint says:

                  Crickets because I actually don’t know how to parse that.

                  Turn down jewgold
                  If the nation is bankrupt
                  And it would turf them out

                  Turf who out?

                  The nation that Jim would then own? Jim should take that deal instead of letting a cuck take it.

                  The jews? Why would jews offer Jim jewgold to turf them out?

                  Is the nation bankrupt? Bankruptcy is defined by norms and laws that don’t apply to nations.

                  Do the jews have enough jewgold to buy America?

                  Sort of, depending on how much jewgold the jews have and how much you need to buy to buy America.

                  They have bought off / infiltrated the liberals and cuckservatives. But liberals and cuckservatives are only relevant if there are elections.

                  A people can have elections or erections.

                  They do often buy our best women. But they can’t really buy our best men, they can only get lameos to shut the best men out.

                  Ultimately, jews and jewgolds aren’t the problem. Elections instead of erections is. We need a back to the kitchen movement of wymen.

                  As for you… the heresy of the low church, to refuse to recognize the bishop with the audacity to call himself bishop, is less heretical than the heresy of the high church, to refuse to recognize God with the audacity to call Himself God. But, low chuch means everyone just babbles about what they think the Bible means, instead of having norms and acting normal, as Jesus repeatedly told people. Then He told His bishops, repeatedly, to feed His sheep. But some of them decided it was cool to fag up the place.

            • peppermint says:

              Consider the parents of newborn American since our king descended the escalator and announced himself.

              They know the leftists, including the Boomers in their own family, hate them and their baby.

              They are the emerging leadership class of my generation.

              Consider that Australia stopped mass immigration first.

              Australia has a future. You do not.

            • glosoli says:

              Here’s the part of my comment you should try addressing Jim:

              >’anything to get the cash to enable just you and yours to escape to space, you’ll sell it to get there, including other people’s lives.’

              If any capitalist comes with any scheme and it helps your futile dream to get to the stars, you’ll run with it, even if they’re outsiders, Jews or otherwise, and you certainly wouldn’t care if they were non-Christian.

              In that regard, your economics is both predatory and anti-kith/kin, and to borrow your pithy description ‘crap’.

              Vox, OTOH, is very sensible and pragmatic, and of course, he’s a Christian.

              • The Cominator says:

                You are not a Christian either glos. You propose to establish God’s kingdom on earth before God himself returns to do so. This contradicts both scripture and tradition.

                • glosoli says:

                  You’re nuts because you choose to ignore Jehovah’s laws, because you lack faith, lack humility and want to escape His planet, but you never ever will, just as no other human has ever left the planet.

                  @The Cominator, just read the Lord’s Prayer, it’s not complicated.

                • The Cominator says:

                  That prayer is for god to do that.

                  Also the doxology of the Lord’s Prayer says “For THINE IS THE KINGDOM, the power and the glory forever and ever amen”.

                  The kingdom is not to be established before the 2nd coming, God has not allowed anything close to it in history. By believing man should establish God’s kingdom on Earth you make yourself a non-christian.

                • glosoli says:

                  You’re obsessing on the wrong line.

                  It says: ‘They will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven.’

                  So, follow the Law, with adjustments made for Christ’s sacrificial death, as noted in the New Testament.

                  The Law forbids trade alliances with heathen peoples, even if there is a dream that such alliances could result in escape (of the rats) to another planet. No can do, don’t trade with infidels, otherwise, Jehovah will curse your nation, and you’ll pick up all sorts of (((bad)) habits too, and forget God altogether.

                  Sort of like what’s happened to the West these past 500 years or so.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Not what Tucker Carlson et al said.

      And if he had said it, which he did not, he works for Fox News, which part of the official media, therefore everything it says is a hostile lie. No one who works for Fox News is within a thousand light years of being part of the alt-right.

    • jim says:

      Tucker Carlson says “capitalism is the best economic system” and you hear him say “We are ruled by evil capitalist overlords.”

      1. He did not say that

      2 If he did say we are ruled by evil capitalists, we would not care. He is not the alt right, he is not within a thousand miles of being part of the alt right.

      His economics is crap, and Vox Day’s economics is crap. But they do not think we are ruled by “The Capitalist Class”, and they think that capitalism is the best economic system.

      Trump’s economics are not crap. Trade has to take place under the aegis of the sovereign, hence trade between two nations requires two sovereigns to agree, and such agreements are apt to favor one nation and disfavor another, hence sometimes they disagree and trade war ensues. But trade wars should be resolved by trade agreements, and not run on forever.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Deleted for telling us what we think. We don’t think that. Moldbuggian economics is an explicit heresy from Randian economics. Try learning about and understanding the concept of “stationary bandit”.

      • glosoli says:

        It’s funny, you delete CR’s comments for re-stating others’ opinions and comments incorrectly, creating strawmen, and you do exactly the same.

        My comment didn’t even mention capitalism, yet you claim I attacked it?

        You should delete your own comment for breaking your own rules.

        Then try addressing the comment, specifically Vox’s quote. But perhaps try harder than ‘Nah nah nah nah, Vox is crap’.

        • peppermint says:

          You don’t get to say you’re speaking on code like Vox and Tucker when you said the things you said several threads ago.

        • jim says:

          Vox is crap on economics, but he did not say what you imply that he said.

          Not going to address Vox making a perfectly sensible comment on a perfectly sensible quote by Tucker.

        • jim says:

          I don’t believe that you believe what you say you believe, and you are plainly not arguing for what you say you are arguing for.

          Meanwhile we try to explain to you and Carlylean Restorationist what we believe, and he will not listen.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            We merely agree with Tucker that truck drivers should not be destroyed in the interests of slightly cheaper trinkets.

            I also agree with Vox that credit per se is a societal evil.

            • peppermint says:

              Hey, I always knew you would find someone to only agree against Jim with regarding economic policy…

            • peppermint says:

              CR, the next thing I hear from you better be global warming causes cold weather and forest fires you literal nazi

            • peppermint says:

              > when you realize that by going hard right on the WQ 4chan was the hardest right organization on the planet
              > when you realize that pretending to be hyperfocused in the JQ was a way to break the White women off from the minority groups
              > when you realize that we’re both just nationalists of our respective nations
              > when you realize that as a marxist you know that nationalists are natural capitalists

            • peppermint says:

              Bet it pisses you off to know that Gap is closing a bunch of stores to manipulate its brand image

          • glosoli says:

            Mmm, you’re slippery Jim, like a snake, like your father.

    • peppermint says:

      What if the king thought he owned the truck drivers and wanted to value their labor somehow while rolling out efficient trucks?

      What could a man capable of driving a truck do to improve the country?

      Could he pave a road or build a cathedral?

      • Andre says:

        “What could a man capable of driving a truck do to improve the country?”

        Join the army and help enforce good government at home and abroad.

    • peppermint says:

      > not “the economy”,
      FIRE sector

      > not the corporations,
      HR and senior management

      > and certainly not foreigners
      (())

      I agree. The nation, not those things. And the actual economy of men living together, not those things.

    • peppermint says:

      Not having a permanent labor shortage is historically abnormal. Foreigners are used by Democrats as a reserve army of labor to terrorize the population. Under these circumstances ordinary men who would otherwise be too timid to vote for a real conservative could vote for Trump.

      Going back to peacetime with liberals and cuckservatives is neither desirable nor possible. There will be no further plebescites, which are imposed by foreigners to humiliate a country’s leaders, open or closed, and only closed votes for a leader in the absence of a man of responsibility.

  22. serpent says:

    Face it, Jim. The entire alt-right has gone commie. Social Matter has fallen, Vox Day has fallen, Tucker Carlson has fallen, and all the rest are following suit, or have already joined Caloric Restrictionist. What do?

    • peppermint says:

      society has taken a hard right since the Discovery Channel

    • The Cominator says:

      Tucker Carlson I would argue is NatCap not commie. He just doesn’t want people out of work, quite sensible.

      Social matter has cucked but not commie.

      Not quite sure where Vox Day has gone yet.

    • jim says:

      You congratulate yourself on imaginary victories like Baghdad Bob.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      [*deleted*]

      • jim says:

        Comment deleted because as usual, it presupposes that whomever you think are our intellectual leaders agree that we are ruled by The Capitalist Class, that everyone knows this is true and it entirely uncontroversial, much as 9/11 troofers presuppose that everyone knows and agrees that World Trade Center Building seven abruptly fell straight down in free fall for no apparent reason.

        If you want to argue Marxist Class Theory, you are going to have to explicitly make arguments providing evidence for Marxist Class Theory, rather taking for granted that whoever you think are the intellectual leaders of your audience knows that it is true.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          “If you want to argue Marxist Class Theory, you are going to have to explicitly make arguments providing evidence for Marxist Class Theory”

          That’s very difficult when you refuse to allow evidence.

          [*rest deleted*]

          • jim says:

            You never present evidence that provides reason to believe that capitalism consists of rule by the capitalist class.

            You present evidence for all manner of things that presupposes that everyone already knows and agrees that capitalism consists of rule by the capitalist class, much as 9/11 troofer never presents evidence that World Trade Center building seven fell straight down at free fall speed onto its own footprint for no apparent reason, but presents enormous piles of undeniable and compelling evidence that given that everyone agrees, and absolutely no one denies, that it fell straight down on its own footprint for no apparent reason, it must have been demolished by Mossad.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              > “You never present evidence that provides reason to believe that capitalism consists of rule by the capitalist class.”

              Because I’ve never once argued that that’s the case.

              What I’ve argued, as well you know, is that the capitalists are just yet another part of the broad coalition of the people who rule over us. That coalition includes all the people you say it includes, but it also includes the capitalists.

              The evidence I presented was fwd.us and ProPublica and the reason you will never let that evidence through is that it’s prima facie proof that what I’m saying is 100% correct and what you’re saying (that they do it under duress) is 100% wrong.

              You’re not brave enough to allow people to judge things on merit so you come up with six million excuses as to why you’re reluctantly forced to censor it away.

              • jim says:

                Indeed you have never argued for Marxist Class Theory. And that is exactly the problem, for no matter what you purportedly are arguing for, you argue from within a frame that presupposes Marxist class theory, that everyone knows and agrees with Marxist Class Theory, that Capitalism consists of rule by The Capitalist Class, just as 9/11 Troofer no matter what he is purportedly arguing for, argues within the frame that everyone knows and agrees that there as no commercial airliner wreckage at the Pentagon, and that World Trade Center fell straight down at free fall speeds onto its own footprint for no apparent reason.

                Should you present an argument within the frame of Molbuggian caste theory, or similar reactionary class, caste, and tribe theories – for example Warrior, Priest, Merchant, I will pass it.

                But no matter what you purportedly argue for, it is always a trojan horse for smuggling in the appearance of universal consensus on Cultural Marxism. There is no such consensus, and I will not allow the continued pretense that their is.

                You could be purportedly arguing that the sky is blue, but you would present evidence for its blueness that presupposes shared agreement that capitalism consists of The Capitalist Class ruling.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re projecting Jim. You want to impose YOUR assumptions so you accuse me of doing that.

                  YOU assume that if capitalists are lobbying the government for immigration and prison reform, THEN Marxist Class Theory would be correct. I’ve never argued that because I don’t think it’s true.

                  I DON’T think that *all* bourgeois people share a common interest and I DON’T think that *all* proletarians share a common interest. World War One pretty much put paid to that notion once and for all.

                  That of course doesn’t mean the term “working class” has no meaning. There exists, in the real world, such a thing as people who will never own or run a business, nor will they live from capital gains or interest. Rather, they live through wages paid to them by somebody else for assisting in that person’s business.

                  If you’re going to deny that phenomenon ontological validity then I don’t know what to say to you.

                  Either way, ProPublica is a doxxing machine entirely funded by venture capitalists and Wall Street, while fwd.us is a lobby group that describes itself as entrepreneurial and innovative and consists of some of the richest people on the planet, none of whom obtained their wealth by providing governmental services at the barrel of a gun but on the contrary made their money selling products on the open market.

                  If you’re going to say that Bill Gates’ fortune is illegitimate on account of Windows’ ‘unfair market share’ then again I don’t know what to say to you because if anyone’s arguing from left-wing premises it’s not me.

                  Either way, my evidence stands and I respect the fact you allowed it through. (I don’t trust you to leave it there for a month, and I will check lol)

                  If people are curious, they can do their own due diligence and I’m confident they will NOT come out saying “damn, look what the government made *those* guys do”

                • jim says:

                  This evidence is not evidence for anything that anyone is likely to care about, except in the context and frame of Marxist Class Theory, just as the evidence provided by 9/11 troofers is not evidence for anything anyone is likely to care about, except in the context that there was no plane wreckage at the pentagon, and World Trade Center building abruptly fell straight down on its own footprint for no apparent reason.

                  Bill Gates is trying to win holiness points by doing pointless stupid hypocritical progressive things, but the stuff he does is damaging Subsaharan Africans, not me. Why should I care? If he was trying to earn holiness points by getting black male military age Muslims asylum in the US then I would care, if he was earning holiness point by actions in the US rather than actions in black Africa then I would care. But the more Africans he kills, the better.

                  That Bill Gates is doing stupid pious stuff in Africa only matters if The Capitalist Class rules the world. If on the other hand his actions merely show merchants desperately begging priests for status points by acts of foolish pointless piety, which is what they look like, who cares? No problem for me, only a problem for Black Africans.

                  Bill Gates in Africa looks very like a merchant begging priests for crumbs of status, just as World Trade Center building seven looks very like a building falling into the square south of it from fires and damage to its south side.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The thing is Jim, this is why I lost all respect for you.

                  You’ve proven yourself incapable of resisting the urge to just lie. That’s not a good quality, it’s the quality of someone with an agenda: you want to push your particular version of reality (basically NRx with a strong capitalist and weak nationalist flavour, at least that’s how I read it) and you don’t really care how many times you have to lie to do it.

                  I don’t respect that.

                  You couldn’t RESIST straw-manning. I linked fwd.us (funded by Bill Gates and others and couched in explicitly capitalistic terms, which lobbies government FOR certain policies, rather than going along to get along) and you replied to the imagined claim that Bill Gates is up to no good in Africa.

                  Now I’m sure he IS up to no good in Africa, but that isn’t what fwd.us is about, not even close.

                  They lobby the US government for particular policies, more specifically they advocate on behalf of the Dreamers, and for lax immigration in general, and they advocate on behalf of prison inmates for better conditions and, ultimately, less incarceration.

                  As for ProPublica, they’re a doxxing outfit that finds the names of American nationalists in order to have them persecuted by the American authorities and fired from their American jobs.

                  They may well undertake additional activities in Africa, but that’s not the point under discussion, as well you know.

                  You just couldn’t resist attacking Africa because it was so much easier for you.

                  Now no doubt you’ll selectively and strategically censor this comment and claim I’m talking about Marxist Class Theory or some other fiction.

                  This readiness to suppress the truth and spread falsehood is precisely what makes me suspect you of being Carlyle’s “superlative Hebrew Conjuror,
                  spell-binding all the great Lords”.

                  To put it rather mildly, I don’t exactly approve of that kind of thing. It’s rather filthy and disgusting.

                • jim says:

                  It is absolutely clear that capitalists are generally well to the right of the general population, and that they promote policies generally well to the right, and that members of the priestly classes shake them down.

                  As you say, fwd.us lobbies for policies immensely damaging to Americans, and is funded by a laundry list of capitalists, Bill Gates among them.

                  The Clinton foundation also promoted policies immensely damaging to Americans and it was funded by a laundry list of capitalists, Donald Trump among them. From this, should we conclude that capitalism caused the Clintons and that Clinton’s policies are the result of Donald Trump pursuing a profit, and are pursued for the profit of Donald Trump, that the Clintons pursued the policies that they did because they were in the interests of Donald Trump, and that regulating pizza baking will prevent the capitalist class from promoting leftism?

                  What will stop the capitalist class from promoting leftism is reducing priestly regulation of Merchants and the warrior class, rather than the priestly class, in charge of the distribution of honors to merchants.

                  Capitalists did and do cause H1B visas, which are in their interests. Illegal immigration, releasing criminals from prison and importing them from Africa and Latin America to come to the US to live on crime and welfare are very much not in their interests, and the argument that it somehow is in their interests is absurd and rests on Marxist Class Theory.

                  Bill Gates does some or most of the stuff he does out pursuit of status, but fwd.us is a much a mop for graft money as the Clinton Foundation was.

                  Property owners are well to the right of the average American median voter, holders further to the right than the average property owner, big shareholders further to the right that the average property shareholder, and left wing policies are absolutely hostile to the interests of shareholders.

                  In particular, and most importantly from the point of view of people like Bill Gates and Donald Trump, Sarbanes Oxley and the multitude of laws that the Human Resources Department deals with makes the board and the CEO criminals.

                  In the firing of Damore by Google, Human Resources prepared grounds for a hostile environment lawsuit against the upper management of Google should Damore not be fired. Maybe they wanted to fire him anyway, maybe they were not unwilling, but I am sure they do not want Human Resources and accounting preparing lawsuits against other branches of corporate management, and I am sure the CEO, whether or not he is happy about firing Damore, is not happy about Human Resources preparing hostile environment and sexual harassment lawsuits against CEOs.

                • peppermint says:

                  > YOU assume that if capitalists are lobbying the government for immigration and prison reform, THEN Marxist Class Theory would be correct.

                  …after we have repeatedly and explicitly denied that, offering status, not money, as a way of understanding behavior.

                  Pussy bitch fag.

                • peppermint says:

                  PS I bet the ads I’m seeing everywhere for high quality consumer goods and services, for the emerging upper middle class, has you pissed.

                  You probably want to shut down all the companies offering enough 4G hotspot data to replace a normal ISP more than you hate pizza.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive, lectures us on what we supposedly believe, and displays total and obstinate lack of awareness of our belief system, and thus is off topic and irrelevant to the original post, and irrelevant to the thread in which it appears.

                  If you want to change our beliefs, start by learning what they are.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling us what Moldbug believes. When you tell us what one of us believes, it is never what he believes, revealing that you are not one of us.

              • The Cominator says:

                > “The evidence I presented was fwd.us and ProPublica and the reason you will never let that evidence through is that it’s prima facie proof that what I’m saying is 100% correct and what you’re saying (that they do it under duress) is 100% wrong.”

                Most of the public doesn’t own individual stocks. Those who do are far more likely to support Trump then those who don’t.

                Small businessmen are far far far more likely to support Trump then the general public.

                Most bigger shareholders and businessmen are also more likely (just not in Silicon Valley) to support Trump then the general public.

                So I don’t agree and Jim doesn’t agree.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cominator doesn’t understand economics.

                  “Most of the public doesn’t own individual stocks. Those who do are far more likely to support Trump then those who don’t.”

                  Most stockholders go through brokers and move between variants of that firm’s ‘funds’. In fact most people just let their broker handle everything.
                  Most people in American stocks own Microsoft, Facebook, Apple, Netflix and Alphabet (Google).
                  That means most stockholders ARE bankrolling the poz.

                  “Small businessmen are far far far more likely to support Trump then the general public.”

                  Sure but big ones definitely don’t. Seriously, fwd.us – these are entrepreneurs acting AS entrepreneurs; they proudly say so. Then they take the profits we give them and lobby government for open borders and prison reform.

                  Sure the little guy doesn’t necessarily do that (but don’t ignore how he benefits from cheap labour and an expanding consumer-base).
                  But the big guys outweigh him ten to one.

                  “Most bigger shareholders and businessmen are also more likely (just not in Silicon Valley) to support Trump then the general public.”

                  I’ve given you umpteen examples and you’ve given none so I simply, flatly, do not believe you.

                • jim says:

                  Your evidence that big shareholders promote leftism can also be read as evidence that big shareholders are terrorized by hostile leftists.

                  You can make a case that open borders promotes the interests of capitalist, though it is absurd to claim that welfare and prison reform promotes the interests of capitalists. But regardless of whether it does or does not, it is obvious that giving Human Resources and Accounting the upper hand over big shareholders is not in the interests of big shareholders, and yet the the evidence you provide that big capitalists promote leftism, is also evidence that big shareholders promote laws and policies that make them powerless and afraid before accounting and human resources.

                  A more plausible interpretation of this evidence is that leftists get money in large part because big shareholders are frightened of human resources, and leftists therefore promote policies that give more power to accounting and human resources, and make big shareholders more frightened of human resources and accounting, much as the Clinton foundation received money from big capitalists, Donald Trump among them, and proceeded to promote policies that were not merely damaging to Donald Trump’s interests, but were hostile to and contemptuous of Donald Trump personally and individually.

                  Again, in the case of Google firing Damore, regardless whether the board were secretly for Damore or secretly against him, I am sure that they were secretly against Human Resources cooking up grounds for a lawsuit against them should they fail to fire Damore, that regardless of whether they were in secretly in favor of Damore, they were secretly against Human Resources and accounting having the power to destroy them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive, repetitious, and presupposes Cultural Marxist class theory while making no attempt to argue, defend and support Marxist Class theory. I see HR and accounting coercing and intimidating big shareholders, which falsifies Marxist Class theory. I present evidence falsifying Marxist Class Theory, and you make no attempt to defend Marxist Class theory.

                  Post a rebuttal that actually attempts to reconcile HR and Sarbanes-Oxley with Marxist Class Theory, and I promise I will approve it (provided that you refrain from telling me what I believe, what Trump believes, and what people that you imagine that I admire believe. And yes, I admire Ayn Rand, but I admire Charles the Second considerably more, and reaction is, like Trumpism, explicitly and overtly a heresy from Randianism.)

                  And please learn and understand that reaction is a heresy from Randianism, and learn the issues and reasoning that led us to heresy.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Most stockholders go through brokers and move between variants of that firm’s ‘funds’. In fact most people just let their broker handle everything.”

                  Fundcucks aren’t individual shareholders.

              • peppermint says:

                > fwd.us and ProPublica

                Liars.

                > capitalists are just yet another part of the broad coalition of the people who rule over us

                Tucker said FIRE sector, HR, and the echobergs and migrants, so that you would assume he said capitalists. Follow Tucker if you want to pretend to be a marxist.

  23. peppermint says:

    Article could also be titled “Israel succumbs to BDSM”

  24. Andre says:

    So I was standing around next to a tv. The main tv news program in Brazil, it was talking about how the government would give pregnant women the right to re-schedule their exams for the “military police”. I’ve also overheard stories about the military police forces (they are just state level police forces tasked with walking around and actually engaging with criminals, as opposed to investigating crimes) being sued for having requirements like not being hiv positive, or being “masculine”. And then people wonder why Brazil has 60,000 murders every year and they have to call in the army to occupy the urban slums and even then organized crime clearly has the upper hand. One of the reasons Bolsonaro got elected but that is a disaster (according to the media) is because he kept saying cops should shot criminals when they are being shot, while the media kept pumping out stories about the poor kids caught in the crossfire and the evil police that should be more careful and not cause criminals to fire around schools. I can’t help but feel this country is doomed and Bolsonaro is weak both in intent and ability. Brazil has gay pride parades. My only question is who is going to actually be ruling Brazil in 10 years.

    • peppermint says:

      You don’t know how comfy I felt reading that.

      It was like it was 1993 but Ross Perot just won.

    • jim says:

      Took Hungary about seven years to purge the priesthood.

      Duterte has death squads uses them liberally, but is still not in control.

      Thailand is doing OK, Hungary is doing OK.

      Caesar Augustus had the praetorian guard in his pocket and could execute anyone for any reason, but it took him eleven years to get the Roman government under control. And it was never truly under control till Constantine got a priesthood in his pocket.

  25. Boswald Bollocksworth says:

    You know some of those Israeli girls a hawt. When the Arabs over run Israel and they have to flee to the USA that will be our big chance to secure them ka-zar milkers and high IQ alleles.

Leave a Reply