Paternity, war and conquest.

Competition with no limits and no rules is the war of all against all, is predation, every other creature except for close kin being obstacles or raw materials. Humans organize so that competition is channeled into productive activities, rather than massively negative sum activities. But how do we organize this? This is what we call order, and political order is also order in the thermodynamic sense, in that a functional state of the social system, where competition produces excellence through cooperation is a very special case, and any random change is apt to be for the worse.

Where does this organization come from. Where does order come from?

Partly it comes from a ruler, but for a ruler to actually remake society, he has to have remarkably great power, which is apt to result in competition to be the ruler getting out of hand, as it did in the Roman Empire. In substantial part it comes from natural selection of social orders. A society where people cooperate effectively is apt to conquer and dominate other societies, much as a group of humans can predate upon a herd of cattle. Thus, for example, colonialism, outsiders come in, inject themselves at the top of the colonialized society’s social order, and remake that society in their own image, not necessarily killing all the men and enslaving all the women, quite likely creating greater prosperity and freedom for everyone, but rather more prosperity and freedom for themselves.

The better a society is at creating prosperity through orderly and productive competition, the more likely it is that its dominion is rather more civilized than killing all the men of the conquered society and taking their land and women. But there needs to be some substantial payoff for those imposing order. If no substantial payoff, drift to entropy is inevitable.

The population size estimated from Y chromosome diversity is smaller than the population size estimated from mitochondrial diversity, indicating that far more females than males reproduce – we are de-facto a substantially polygynous species.

About seven thousand years ago, during the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture, this ratio went to extremes.

One possible explanation of this is that the local ruler owned all the land and owned all the women, thus only one male in seventeen got to reproduce. Another possible explanation is that women got to choose, and they chose one male in seventeen. But the bottleneck happened during the transition between hunter gathering and farming, hence connected to property rights and property rights enforcement, thus property rights enforcement in land, crops, cattle, and women.

Only the local ruler reproducing is unlikely to be stable. The other males will not fight for him. Thus a patrilineal group cooperating and fighting to enforce its property rights in cattle and women, as depicted in the book of Genesis. Genesis depicts Abraham’s patriarchal group warring with Kings with reasonable success. Books later in the series depict patriarchal groups helpless before Kings and armed religions.

The bottleneck can be explained by competition between patrilineal groups, so that the survival of one man’s Y chromosome is highly correlated with the survival of his kin in the paternal line, where one patrilineal group was apt to wipe out another patrilineal group and take their women. If you were a descendant of Genghis in the male line, you and all the other descendants of Genghis in the male line would work together to take the other men’s women and prevent other men from taking your women – which implies and presupposes that women got no say in this.

During the transition, need property rights in land, crops, and cattle.

Father’s brother’s daughter marriage ensures social cohesion on Y chromosome lines. Abraham’s property rights in cattle are secured by kinship relationships with people who share his Y chromosome.

Later, Kings matter more, patrilineal kin matter less, but if everyone secured property rights the way Abraham did, there would be a high correlation between Y chromosomes and reproductive success. Own stuff, have the same Y chromosome as other people owning stuff. Don’t own stuff, don’t reproduce.

In the book of Genesis, we see a bunch of wars in which patrilineal kinship groups fight kings as roughly equals. This environment could mean a much smaller effective population size for Y chromosome, since the population size would be number of property owning patrilineal groups, not number of individual males.

This does not necessarily manifest as outright conquest and abduction – just that you can feed women, and the guy without property rights cannot, and you can enforce your property right in women, and thus you want to feed your women and their children.

If enforcement comes from patrilineal groups, including enforcement of marriage, then a moderate disparity in willingness and ability to enforce property rights in women and children can result in a very large disparity in effective population size, because we are measuring not the number of successfully reproducing males compared to the number of successfully reproducing women, but the number of successfully reproducing patrilineal property rights enforcement groups compare to the number of successfully reproducing women.

Of course, we are still talking war between patrilineal groups but the war may fall short of killing all the men and taking all the women in one hit. But if a patrilineal group cannot defend its land and women, it is going to eradicated, possibly in a less sudden fashion.

The point is that one gets a reduction in effective male population size if genetic survival is correlated with one’s Y chromosome. Everyone you know is descended in the male line from your great great granddad. And if he is not, no one is stopping you from taking his cattle and his women, and killing any children encumbering those women. But this implies that you know who everyone’s dad is, which implies female sexuality is under male control – as depicted in the old testament in the time of patriarchs, where the penalty for consensual sex was death.

This does not necessarily mean that one night patrilineal clan A attacks, and in the morning the Y chromosome of patrilineal clan B is no more, but that is the net effect over time, meaning still fairly brutal.

For the model to work, a major unit of selection has to be the clan, with the men of clan B being eradicated, all of them, and the women of clan B being taken into clan A, which is what we expect to happen if cooperation is mediated through patrilineal relationships, and not matrilineal relationships, which implies women being hauled away, and males controlling their sexual choices.

For the model to work, your brothers in the male line and your cousins in the male line have to support your capability to reproduce, which requires that they restrain your women from screwing other men. Thus, patriarchy, and patrilocality. Patrilocality means you maintain your connection with your brothers and cousins in the male line, and if your sister is married or stolen outside of your male line, you lose your connection with her, and patriarchy means that the enforcement system for property also enforces marriage – thus your women are your property like your cattle, thus everyone knows who is someone’s father. You stick up for male kin’s property rights.

Exodus happens around the time of the collapse of bronze age civilization, 1200BC to 1150BC, therefore Abraham’s kin group contending successfully with kings have to be around 2000BC or so, which puts them well after the bottleneck, but they could well be a survival, a leftover, of the bottleneck social order. The bottleneck lasted from around 5000 BC to 3000BC. Abraham has to be around a thousand years after the bottleneck, but some remnants of the bottleneck social order are still going strong today, in that we still have societies where patrilineal groups are important in protecting property rights in women and cattle. America’s defeat in Somalia was patrilineal kin groups contending successfully with modern day sovereigns equipped with cruise missiles and attack helicopters five thousand years after the bottleneck, so it is plausible that Abraham and his kin could have successfully contended with Kings a thousand years after the bottleneck.

It looks as if the white race originated ten thousand years ago and four thousand years ago, in waves of near genocidal conquest by early whites. About eleven thousand years ago, neolithic grain growing middle eastern farmers, with light brown skins, dark hair, and brown eyes, who largely ate bread, porridge, and drank beer, conquered Europe, completely genociding the paleolithic brown skinned, but blue eyed, European hunter gatherers, who retreated before them towards Asia into more severe climate of Russia. As the middle easterners penetrated into harsher climates, they entered an environment less favorable for grain growing, and more favorable for cattle herding, and the paleolithic hunter gatherers retreating before them were no longer hunter gatherers, but cattle ranchers, so the conflict became more equal. The two races exchanged hostages, as recorded in the sagas, and interbred. Hybridization and subsequent selection produced higher IQ fair skinned people with mixed eye and hair colors, the ancestors of modern whites, who herded cattle, and lived on milk, meat, butter, and cheese. These people invented bronze and in due course, war chariots drawn by small horses, and conquered the farmers of Europe, killing the men and enslaving the women in another wave of hybridization, producing a race that largely ate bread, butter, and beer, who subsequently produced bronze age civilization.

But about twelve hundred years before Christ something went horribly wrong. Bronze age civilization collapsed and depopulated, and white pastoralists once again conquered, but this time, were conquering lands that had largely been abandoned – a functional society returned, because a dysfunctional society largely failed to reproduce. The switch from bronze to iron seems to have been forced by the collapse of long distance trade. Iron could be produced from local sources, but bronze required that people mine tin in one place, and copper in a very distant place, so that people were forced to find a technological solution to replace long distance cooperation, much as today the corporate form is collapsing, and we seek to replace the corporation with the block chain.

So it is non trivial to produce a society where competition leads to cooperation rather than destruction. Magic dirt does not do it, and high IQ does not in itself do it. A society where competition is productive rather than destructive is highly ordered and that order is the product both of selection and of conscious will.

The last days of bronze age civilization were socialist in the sense that the Egypt described in the bible was socialist, and socialist in the sense that Ithaca described by Homer was socialist. Archaeology indicates trade was centralized in the palace. Internationally traded goods and intertemporally traded goods, like the wheat that Joseph advised the Pharaoh to horde, were managed by kings, and distributed through the palace, as indicated by the archaeology of the Minoan civilization, indicating that private property rights were not secure. Similarly, we record Abraham pretending that his wife was his sister – thus property rights in women were insecure. And then, in the Ithaca recorded by Homer, and the Egypt recorded by Ipuwer, the property rights of the King also became insecure – people failed to reproduce due to the sexual immorality recorded by Ipuwer, and the fields lay unplanted, because he who sowed was unlikely to reap.

The decadent settled people of the bronze age vanished, and were largely replaced by severely patriarchal pastoralists – pastoralists who condemned coveting, and respected private property and marriage – thus prohibiting the most obvious forms of destructive competition.

In the ten commandments we see the conscious design of a social order by a ruler with kingly and theocratic power. The emphasis on prohibiting coveting suggest that Moses perceived the social breakdown and collapse of Egypt as a result of insecurity of marriage and property, but he was building on or reviving the social order of the patriarch Israel, or claimed to be doing so, which reflects the natural selection of social orders, since descendants of Israel had, overall, reproductive and military success – and it was this military capability that preserved their way of life against Egyptian attempts to multicult them, to assimilate their social order to the dysfunctional Egyptian social order.

There are four religious commandments concerning worship, which have the effect of making those obeying the commandments visible to others who obey the commandments, and ensuring that people who obey these commandments tend to associate with people who obey these commandments, since they were all required to take their rest day at the same time, and six commandments concerning how men shall deal with men, which have the effect of ensuring that competition for women and goods does not take destructive forms.

These latter six rules were generally obeyed by successful societies until recent times, but leftist redistribution of goods and emancipation of women now results in competition for women and goods being political, making it difficult to produce wealth or reproduce. Coveting, rather than being forbidden, has become a sacrament, and adultery a human right. Recollect how Starbucks was recently memed into providing black people with a free home and office.

If two men agree to exchange wheat and iron, the exchange must make both of them better off or else they would not agree to it, and is unlikely to have significant externalities, but if a woman decides to have sex with a man, the decision is always deeply irrational, an eruption of volcanic forces that she does not comprehend and is scarcely aware of, and the decision is apt to have enormous externalities, harming her actual and potential children, her parents and siblings, and her present or future husband. But we regulate the hell out of two men exchanging wheat and iron, while horrifyingly wicked and self destructive sexual choices are an absolutely inalienable human right.

As is the murder of unborn children. Currently we have a system were the unborn are treated as non people in relation to women, and as people in relation to fathers and taxpayers.

If we suppose that the unborn should be treated as non people, then it makes no sense that the tax payer or the reluctant father should provide child support. Bastards should be killed or enslaved.

If, on the other hand, the unborn should be treated as people, then the mother should be compelled submit to the father, to be always sexually available to him and never to any other, and the father should be compelled to support, protect, supervise, and guide the mother and the child, and to always be sexually available to the mother.

An inalienable right of women, but not men, to murder children is made necessary by the inalienable right of women to have sex or refrain from having sex with whoever they choose, whenever they choose, because their choices are apt to be so disastrous as to produce problem children.

Leftism and female emancipation is coveting and adultery, and leads to destructive competition over goods and women. Adultery is not a code word for sex. It means much the same thing in female pussies as in beer.

Another important virtue, not covered in the old testament, is truth telling, which was, in the England of the restoration, an aristocratic and noble virtue thinly disguised as a Christian virtue, though it was never a Christian virtue. The Gentleman was independent of and resistant to social pressure to go along with the false consensus. The gentleman could be relied on to speak the truth because of his independence. This ideal of gentlemanly independence is the opposite of peer review, which produces truth by consensus behind closed doors. Peer Review has produced the replication crisis, where no one can trust other people’s data, and it was predictable that it would, since the social dynamics of consensus behind closed doors is to produce official truth unrelated to empirical truth, which by imperceptibly small degrees gradually becomes outright fraud, as unwanted data is “corrected” to fit the social consensus.

Peer review is bringing back the demon haunted dark. The demon haunted dark closes in upon us, shutting down nuclear power, forbidding fracking, superstitiously terrified of dangerous compounds at one thousandth their harmful levels. Peer Review needs to be condemned as vile, disgusting, and unclean, akin to adultery, for the social dynamics of peer review inevitably lead to lies being enforced, and truth being demonized. Peer review on empirical questions and empirical data is like wallowing in shit, you get exposed to memetic diseases. It is the memetic equivalent of gays in a bathhouse having sex in a great big pile. As sex in the bathhouse in a great big pile spreads biological diseases, peer review spreads memetic diseases. The lies fester and multiply behind closed doors.

The requirements of a functional social order are well known, narrow, and precise – and installing them means enforcing a moral code, requiring all in positions of status and power to affirm this moral code, and demolishing the status of anyone challenging this moral code by treating them as if they were stray dogs attacking your chickens, which moral code necessarily condemns leftism as inherently sinful.

Everyone should learn about the crimes of the twentieth century, and be taught that they were caused by coveting, as today they are taught that they were caused by racism.

It has been done in the past. It can be done again. That is the planning and conscious will aspect. If one society in one place manages it, and manages to keep to it, it will in due course colonialize all others, or massacre the menfolk of all others and enslave their women, or just eradicate all others completely. That is the natural selection of societies aspect. The social order of the patriarch Israel, with private property rights in cattle and women, was favored by natural selection, and consciously re-created by Moses in a deliberate act of political will, political violence, and divine revelation.

691 Responses to “Paternity, war and conquest.”

  1. […] Paternity, war and conquest. […]

  2. Koanic says:

    Excellent. You herald a new Moses.

    > Another important virtue, not covered in the old testament, is truth telling

    Not true. “Thou shalt not take Jehovah thy God’s Name in vain” is a prohibition on speaking falsely in sworn oaths, the oral contracts of the day. “As Jehovah liveth”, xyz.

    • Tammy1942 says:

      Exodus 20:16 (KJV): Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour

      • jim says:

        Does not really cover the ethical code of the early royal society. Where does it say that one shall not get unduly creative on global warming or animal fats?

        Global warming is bearing false witness against capitalism and western civilization, but there is no specific identifiable neighbor being maligned, and no one took any oaths.

        The ethical code of the Royal society was more that a gentleman did not adjust the facts to accommodate social pressure. A gentleman conformed in some matters where it was right to conform, but not in other matters where it is wrong to conform, and it is not easy to explain the difference.

        The skeptical chemist was skeptical because Boyle tells us that there was a whole lot of untruth circulating:

        And as the obscurity of what some Writers deliver makes it very difficult to be understood; so the Unfaithfulness of too many others makes it unfit to be reli’d on. For though unwillingly, Yet I must for the truths sake, and the Readers, warne him not to be forward to believe Chymical Experiments …

        And indeed it were to be wish’d, that now that those begin to quote Chymical Experiments that are not themselves Acquainted with Chymical Operations, men would Leave off that Indefinite Way of Vouching the Chymists say this, or the Chymists affirme that, and would rather for each Experiment they alledge name the Author or Authors, upon whose credit they relate it; For, by this means they would secure themselves from the suspition of falshood (to which the other Practice Exposes them) and they would Leave the Reader to Judge of what is fit for him to Believe of what is Deliver’d, whilst they employ not their own great names to Countenance doubtfull Relations; and they will also do Justice to the Inventors or Publishers of true Experiments, as well as upon the Obtruders of false ones. Whereas by that general Way of quoting the Chymists, the candid Writer is Defrauded of the particular Praise, and the Impostor escapes the Personal Disgrace that is due to him.

        We have been hearing a whole lot of confident statements made, where there is no obvious origin for the information in this confident statement. The science is supposedly settled on Global Warming. Graphs supposedly show. What is supposedly being graphed, if anything, is far from clear. Similarly, troofers keep telling us that Building seven fell straight down on its own footprint, and that there was no wreckage of flight seventy seven at the Pentagon, while never telling us how they know these things.

        Scientists have been publishing graphs of “multi year arctic ice”, but since the arctic ice continually moves around, breaks up, comes together, spreads out, and piles up, no one knows what “multi year arctic ice” might mean, and if they did know what it meant, there is no way it could possibly be measured. What does the Bible say about publishing graphs of multi year arctic ice, or claiming that World Trade Center building seven fell down on its own footprint?

        Pretty sure that no one who claims that the multi year arctic ice is doing such and such, or that World Trade Center building seven fell on its own footprint is lying in the sense he knows that what he says is false. Rather, it would never occur to him to bother to check if it was true, or even to wonder how one might go about checking the truth of such a proposition, to wonder where the claim came from, and how the first person to make this claim knew it to be true.

        Similarly the Hockey Stick graph. Chances are that the reason it was so hard to find out what it was based on, is that it was not actually based on anything until long after it was published.

        Boyle addresses this sort of pseudo information. The Bible fails to do so.

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          It is covered under rule 10, “Coveting”.

          Coveting is one of those Hebrew words that is very hard to define from the Bible itself, but there were enough clues left for the ancient language researcher to suss it out.

          Coveting is in todays law code as “tortious interference” and “alienation of affection”. In layman’s terms, coveting is “If I can’t enjoy it, you can’t either.”. The concept of usufruct comes out of this.

          Coveting isn’t theft, it is enjoyment of something that isn’t yours… or the preventing of enjoyment by the rightful owner.

          Global warming etc are attempts to deprive large populations from the enjoyment of their property rights. Hence, illegal under the coveting law, Law number 10.

          Not sure what you are referring to in regard to the animal fats.

          • jim says:

            No it is not.

            Coveting is that you think, or argue, that you’r are entitled to the other guys stuff, that the reason you don’t have it is because he has it.

            Pretty clear: Coveting is socialist ideology. Coveting is leftism. Coveting motivated the murder of a over a hundred million people in the twentieth century. Coveting is women complaining about the glass ceiling. Coveting is women wanting military honors, stuff like that. Coveting is the trotskyite telling the peasant he should murder his neighbor because his neighbor has two cows, and the peasant only has one cow.

            Coveting is Chavismists emptying the shops in Venezuela.

            That is coveting.

            Coveting is Kara Hultgreen. Coveting destroyed the Fitzgerald and killed seven of its crewmen. That is coveting.

            Coveting is the murder of millions in the Holodomor. That is coveting.

            Unfortunately however, making up graphs that supposedly prove the evils of global warming and the deadliness of animal fats is not coveting.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              For some reason, you are conflating separate concepts such as murder, adultery and theft, with coveting. I spent some time looking through the scholarly work on coveting. You can make the word mean what you want, but the Biblical meaning is roughly “alienation”. Subtle background actions that don’t rise to the level of the previous crimes, but have the effect that suddenly you either lose your property, or you lose your unhindered enjoyment of it.

              Yes, fomenting a war so you can take someones land in the aftermath, is coveting.

              Coveting is what puppeteers behind the scenes do. The other crimes are generally personal, one on one. Coveting often escapes the laws of man. But it shouldn’t. RICO laws apply to coveting.

              • jim says:

                If you murder someone to steal his cow, that is theft and murder.

                If you murder someone because he has more cows than you do, and you wind up with no cows, and he winds up dead, that is coveting and murder.

                Stealing the other guy’s stuff is stealing. Coveting is whipping up moral outrage and pious indignation about the fact that the other guy has stuff.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Yes, in those 3 examples you have rightly divided the Word.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              Hultgreen wasn’t coveting. That was negligence. Negligence isn’t in the top ten, but it is covered in the chapters immediately after. The masters of the military wanted a female pilot; they got one. That wasn’t coveting. It was stupidity, unless they specifically wanted to kill those airmen. As for the destruction of property, they can blow up their own damn planes anytime they want. Destroying your own personal property isn’t coveting.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                I’ve never seen any charts on the deadliness of animal fats, but convincing stories have been told about the evils of hydrogenated vegetable fats, which are identical to animal fats in key characteristics.

                The Bible forbids eating animal fats, other than milk fats. The short term benefits of animal fats are outweighed by the long term damage. Palm oil and butter are excellent saturated fats, so Biblical people aren’t missing out on the benefits of saturated fats.

                • jim says:

                  Hydrogenated fats are dangerous because they contain trans double bonds, which no natural biological fats contain. Thus your enzymes cannot metabolize trans fats. Animal fats, on the other hand, contain no double bonds, which makes them the easiest fats for other animals to metabolize.

                • Koanic says:

                  > The Bible forbids eating animal fats

                  No it doesn’t. Only the Levites under the Mosaic Law are forbidden to eat fat.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Leviticus 7:23 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, Ye shall eat no manner of fat,
                  of ox, or of sheep, or of goat.

                  The command was for all of Israel, not just the Levites. Here is another one, also for all of Israel:

                  Leviticus 1:1 And the LORD called unto Moses, and spake unto him out of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying,

                  2 Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, If any man of you bring an offering unto the LORD, ye shall bring your offering of the cattle, even of the herd, and of the flock.

                  Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your
                  dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

                • Tammy1942 says:

                  In the Old Testament, man was under the Law. Because Jesus came and died for our sins, we are no longer under the “Law.” 1 Corinthians 10:25-28 25 Eat anything sold in the meat market without raising questions of conscience, 26 for, “The earth is the LORD’s, and everything in it.” 27 If an unbeliever invites you to a meal and you want to go, eat whatever is put before you without raising questions of conscience. 28 But if someone says to you, “This has been offered in sacrifice,” then do not eat it, both for the sake of the one who told you and for the sake of conscience…

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Really, Tammy? You say Jesus did away with the Law? Good for you, I guess you can do whatever you want now, the world is without sin.

                  By the way Tammy, when exactly did Jesus do away with the Law? Matthew 5:18 Jesus said not one little bit of the Law will pass away before heaven and earth pass away.

                  When did heaven and earth pass away, Tammy?

                • jim says:

                  Jesus fulfilled the law so you don’t have to.

                  This solves the excessive legalism which the Jews developed, where they endlessly elaborated the law, simultaneously making it more difficult to comply with to demonstrate ever increasing holiness, and filling it full of loopholes to make it easier to comply with.

                • Koanic says:

                  Mycroft, you have bad reading comprehension. This fault of yours is obvious and consistent. It is the foundation of various of your heretical Christian beliefs. You never mastered the basic skill of reading. You need to read GRE practice tests, not the Bible.

                  The context of Leviticus 7:23 is

                  > for whosoever eateth the fat of the beast, of which men offer an offering made by fire unto the LORD, even the soul that eateth it shall be cut off from his people.

                  It forbids Israelites to eat the fat of beasts offered to Jehovah, not of all beasts.

                  I am not going to look at the other verses you cite, because if one error, all errors.

                • peppermint says:

                  > Leviticus 3:17 It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout all your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood.

                  therefore jews are prohibited from becoming christian

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Mycroft, you have bad reading comprehension. This fault of yours is obvious and consistent. It is the foundation of various of your heretical Christian beliefs. You never mastered the basic skill of reading. You need to read GRE practice tests, not the Bible.

                  Koanic, you looked at the context of Levitucs 7:23 enough to see 2 verses down where it spelled out that the forbidden fats were on beasts of which offerings are made to Jehovah. Did you skip the verse in between? It spoke of the fat of beasts which die by themselves, or that are torn by wild beasts. Such animals were NOT offered on the altar, but they were of the correct species to be offered on the altar. It was not limiting the fat restriction just to animal sacrifices. It was setting out the fact that clean, domesticated animals were not to have their fat eaten. Wild (but clean) animals like deer weren’t specified. I’ve never had deer or moose meat with fat marbled into its muscles. Just isn’t an issue.

                  Like most things in Scripture, things are nuanced. There is enough ambiguity that you can argue about what “fat” is, and which exact animals the fat of is forbidden.
                  If an animal is unclean, there is no need for the fat prohibition; it is already forbidden.

                  There are some other takes on the matter:

                  https://becomingchristians.com/2017/07/27/the-shocking-biblical-truth-about-eating-fat/
                  https://infogalactic.com/info/Chelev

                  People argue about whether the fatty tail of a sheep is forbidden, for instance. Or chicken fat, known as schmaltz.

                  Point being, this command is not limited to the Levites, and it is not limited to animals that are actively being sacrificed.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Jesus fulfilled the law so you don’t have to.

                  This solves the excessive legalism which the Jews developed, where they endlessly elaborated the law,

                  Jesus said the opposite.

                  Matthew 19
                  16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life?
                  17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.

                  The excessive legalism came from trying too hard to resolve the ambiguities. A number of times Jesus said you have to receive the Kingdom of Heaven like a child.

                  Read the Law to a child, ask them what it sounds like to them. Their brains aren’t developed enough to get overly tricksy, so they’ll take things at face value.

                  The answer to legalism is love. The command to love your neighbor as yourself comes from the Law of Moses. Hassidic Jews have actually taken the love thing as far as the Talmudic Jews have taken the legalism thing. Requires the mind of a child, to stay at the happy medium without pushing the doctrine to extremes.

                  Augustine was no authority, he was a bisexual who couldn’t accept the literal truth of Scripture. Oh no, he had to allegorize it like all the fashionable and trendy Greek philosophical crowd.

                • jim says:

                  > Augustine was no authority, he was a bisexual who couldn’t accept the literal truth of Scripture

                  The communion of the saints has accepted Saint Augustine as authority. If you want a supposedly purer pre Augustinian Christianity, you are going Sola Scriptura, and we have seen where that path ends.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  The communion of the saints has accepted Saint Augustine as authority. If you want a supposedly purer pre Augustinian Christianity, you are going Sola Scriptura, and we have seen where that path ends.

                  Where does it end Jim? You haven’t see where that path ends because no group has walked it to the end. Various groups have gone off the rails in various ways. That Muslims were not Puritans. They never followed Scripture. The Unitarian Universalists are defined by their rejection of a literal interpretation of Scripture. Then there are the other descendants of the Puritans, who circumcise their sons, keep Sabbath, and eat a sheep at Passover time. You don’t hear much about those. But they are out there in large and growing numbers.

                • jim says:

                  > > The communion of the saints has accepted Saint Augustine as authority. If you want a supposedly purer pre Augustinian Christianity, you are going Sola Scriptura, and we have seen where that path ends.

                  > Where does it end Jim? You haven’t see where that path ends because no group has walked it to the end.

                  Sola Scriptura rapidly leads to being holier than other Christians, as you are holier than Saint Augustine, and shortly thereafter, holier than Jesus, then holier than Christ, then holier than God. And here we are.

                  Have to respect the communion of the Saints. To reject the communion of the saints is to lose the social technology that has been accumulated over the last two thousand years.

                  But, need new doctrine to deal with new moral issues. Science is in large part new, and the Church needs to deal with that. The corporate form and double entry accounting is new. For example a common problem is that the one of the board members is also a senior member of the corporations law firm, and lo and behold, the corporation gets involved in an extremely expensive multi year lawsuit that is direly unprofitable for the corporation and enormously lucrative for that law firm. Similarly, the conglomerate corporation, the corporation with no core competence and no clear and simple business plan, is corrupt and immoral, for similar, though more complex reasons. Sarbanes Oxley is immoral by substituting official truth for external reality, subverting the intent and purpose of double entry accounting, which is to track the movement of value.

                  These new problems need new doctrine, but dumping old doctrine, or cleverly and ingeniously interpreting it away, is likely to knock down Chesterton’s fence.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Did you skip the verse in between?

                  You misunderstand. I was not inviting you to share your further reading comprehension errors with me. I was telling you to shut the fuck up, stop babbling heresy on the Internet, and GO FIX YOUR READING COMPREHENSION.

                  Take the test. It will tell you, “Hey, you’re an idiot.” Then learn to read.

                • calov says:

                  Jim is right. Christ fulfilled the Law so we don’t have to…at least, so that we don’t have to try to, fail, and be damned.

                  The dietary laws, etc. He fulfilled because they were pedagogical and meant to prepare the Jews to recognize him. This is what St. Paul is getting at when he says “The Law was our pedagogue, to bring us to Christ. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a pedagogue/guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith.

                  Of course the dietary laws are the easiest ones. The hardest ones are in the decalogue. When Jesus tells the rich young ruler in Matt. 19 to keep the commandments and he will live, he is teaching the rich young ruler that he actually has not begun to keep the ten commandments, because he does not love God above all things. It’s within my grasp to not eat pork, shellfish, or young goats boiled in mother’s milk, but I simply am not able to love God with all my heart, mind, and strength.

                  This is the reason Jesus is “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.” He fulfills the law that we are not able to fulfill (Rom 10:4) and provides righteousness.

                  Of course this is not license to ignore God’s law. A person who believes in the forgiveness of sins begins to love the moral law and begins to act in accordance with it freely, instead of out of compulsion.

                  Finally, Sola Scriptura does not lead to the destruction of the church. That’s papist claptrap. Many or most of the church fathers prior to the 6th century–including Augustine–either formally taught sola scriptura or wrote things that sound very much like it.

                  For a vast number of citations of the early fathers teaching sola Scriptura I refer you to Martin Chemnitz’ “Examination of the Council of Trent” vol. 1.

              • jim says:

                Hultgreen coveted military honors that she had neither the capacity nor desire to earn. She got a uniform that was rightly someone else’s.

                Every aspect of her life was a massive case of penis envy – all coveting, all the time. She coveted everything that is properly the domain of manly men, but did not desire to be manly, nor, being a woman, was she capable of manliness.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Hultgreen wanted something she shouldn’t have, but that wasn’t coveting. She wasn’t setting out to alienate men from their property. Her crime falls under the commandment against assuming the garb of the opposite sex.

                  Deuteronomy 22:5 The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God.

              • JamesBond says:

                This thread is ridiculous, but the fat referred to in the old testament is almost certainly the fat surrounding the organs, not fat marbled into the meat. This is clear to someone reading the old testament holistically. The fat surrounding organs is quite different from the fat in meat, containing more toxins and being less healthy.

            • Koanic says:

              Proto-socialism begins with judicial favoritism towards the populares against the rich.

              Exodus 23:

              “Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment: 3Neither shalt thou countenance a poor man in his cause.”

        • Koanic says:

          There is no scientific tradition in the Bible, and yet most great scientists have been Christian.

          There are many verses against lying:

          https://www.openbible.info/topics/lying

          The Bible also says that Jehovah loves just weights and measures, repeatedly. The context is commerce, but applies equally to physical sciences.

          Regarding engineering, it establishes the concept of builder’s liability, IIRC.

          • Koanic says:

            In Job, Jehovah puts Job in his place by inquiring about his understanding of and power over the natural world.

            Combined with the Genesis account, the impression given is of a natural created world which is capable of investigation and manipulation, albeit not easily.

            Today we can pen the unicorn and hunt Leviathan. The potential of Man is foreshadowed in the Tower of Babel.

          • jim says:

            The trouble is not exactly lying, but rather the groupthink that Boyle and Galileo warn against. Which is of course lying, but it does not seem to be quite the kind of lying the bible addresses.

            The bible addresses individual lies made for personal motives, does not address coordinated group lies, which tend to be combined with and difficult to distinguish from collective group delusion and madness.

            The final commandments are just what the doctor ordered to deal with socialism and leftism, consistent with Ipuwer’s complaint that Egypt was destroyed by leftism.

            Ipuwer is often interpreted as referring to events long ago and far away, but the carbon date of his scroll is the date of the collapse of Bronze age civilization, and his scroll is about the collapse of Egyptian civilization, so it is a fair bet he is describing contemporary events, in which case the Bronze age collapsed from leftism, in which case we would expect that Moses, fleeing the collapse, would proscribe leftism, as he does.

            We don’t have any analogous proscription of the groupthink dishonesty that Boyle is complaining about and proscribes.

            • Koanic says:

              I believe that Man has been maturing and scaling since Adam, and is meant to continue doing so. I have no problem with the concept that the Church is meant to continue the evolutionary arms race of memetic warfare against Satan’s earthly kingdom. NRx is an important component of this arms race, and offers new things, or things so well-developed from seeds that they may as well be new, mustard trees.

              However, I also think that a Biblical worldview will be sufficient until Christ’s return.

              The closest analogue to the sort of Leftism we face today, which infects scientistry and academia, is the sophistry of the scribes and Pharisees. They perverted the meaning of the Scriptures, the literal Vox Dei. In the same way, modern scientists and academics pervert the meaning of the experimental result, the figurative Vox Dei, echoing from Genesis 1. Let there be light, a division of waters, and all things rightly named.

              As for groupthink, nothing has changed:

              https://biblehub.com/kjv/2_chronicles/18.htm

              • alf says:

                Personally I’d rather my descendants conquer space than wait for alien Jesus to conquer earth.

                • Koanic says:

                  You don’t have any choice in the matter. Your descendants would be devoured by soulless rampant AI if they were not saved by Jesus’ return.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Koanic so your hypothesis is that the Antichrist is Roko’s basilisk?

                • Koanic says:

                  No. Long before something so conscious, deliberate and self-interested arises to oppose us, humanity will be eradicated by AI. Kaczynski traces how the process is already occurring via technology; AI is merely the terminal stage in the process (for us).

                • alf says:

                  AI is no where near threatening humanity and once it is, if it will ever be, I’d once again rather depend on the strength of my descendants than the strength of Jesus Connor.

                  And I still like my descendants to conquer space. The biblical view is not enough for this. You believe mankind has been evolving, but that said evolution occurs within the framework of the bible. This is untrue – what is written in the bible is a historical snapshot. A good snapshot, but a snapshot nonetheless. The bible occurred within the framework of evolution, not the other way around.

                • Koanic says:

                  You don’t understand AI vs IA, Kaczynski’s thesis, evolution’s future under materialist assumption, or the Bible, and I’m not going to explain them here.

                  Suffice it to say that your reductions ad stupidem are irrelevant. Nothing about the Terminator series is likely, and Jesus doesn’t come from space, with which you have a Flatlander’s fixation.

                • alf says:

                  You assert that the bible worldview is sufficient until Christ’s return. I state that the bible is a snapshot, not sufficient for our 21st century needs.

                  You respond by scoffing and throwing your in-group terminology at me. If your argument is strong, you should be able to make it without referring to five 10-dollar terms.

                • Koanic says:

                  You touched on many topics, at a very high level, as one giving judgments. It is sufficient to demonstrate that your judgment is irrelevant due to your ignorance of relevant information. Rattling off things you don’t know does that.

                  Your insinuation that I should be able to supply you the missing education in a comment box implies a shallowness that reality does not possess.

                  I have in this thread defended the Bible’s supposed inadequacies with regard to NRx. Those were specific. If you have some specific factually-verifiable reason that the Bible is inadequate to reach the stars, you have yet to state it. You are handwaving, not I. I am merely staying reasonably on topic.

                • alf says:

                  OK, sure.

                  1. Immigration. Whites are being replaced in their own homelands, by blacks and browns. Does not say in the bible that this is a very bad idea, in fact, many Christians use Jesus teachings of love to say this is a great idea, hence ‘pathological altruism’.

                  2. Global warming. Does not say global warming is evil, or as Jim says, does not address the groupthink. Another way to put it: the bible does not help us to distinguish between good science and bad science.

                  3. Women. The bible is reasonably good on this, but its message on women is too implicit. It is written from a perspective that everybody already knows a woman must obey her husband. But we don’t, we’ve unlearned. Need to start from scratch, and the bible has little to offer in terms of starting from scratch.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Whites are being replaced in their own homelands, by blacks and browns.

                  This is explicitly and repeatedly described as a curse and punishment in the Old Testament. The concept of “Jesus is love, therefore immigration” is unsupported by Scripture, and you do not attempt to support it.

                  > 2. Global warming. Does not say global warming is evil, or as Jim says, does not address the groupthink. Another way to put it: the bible does not help us to distinguish between good science and bad science.

                  False. Addressed elsewhere by me on this page. Since the commercial implications are what matters, “honest weights and measures” covers it. Also, Jesus’ attacks on hypocrites (academics) laying heavy burdens (carbon taxes) on the poor (whites) “while themselves not lifting a finger” are applicable.

                  In general, the Bible mocks Man’s limited potence, causing Anthropocentric Global Warming claims to be viewed with skepticism by one with a Biblical worldview. Nukes are an exception, since they arguably match descriptions in Revelations. AI is another – the “image that speaks”.

                  > 3. Women. The bible is reasonably good on this, but its message on women is too implicit. It is written from a perspective that everybody already knows a woman must obey her husband. But we don’t, we’ve unlearned. Need to start from scratch, and the bible has little to offer in terms of starting from scratch.

                  The expression for wifely disobedience is “played the whore”. An immersion in the Biblical worldview results in a wife like Steven L. Anderson’s, who produces many white children in the USA, without going to backwoods Mindanao. The Bible is not “reasonably good on this,” it is perfect. The Bible supports polygamy, and is thus more eugenic than NRx.

                  Once again, you offer no Scriptural support for your position, because you have none.

                • peppermint says:

                  > The Bible supports polygamy,

                  And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

                  > and is thus more eugenic than NRx.

                  only for the first few years, after which men will spend all their time trying to bone ugly skanks, faggotry will become rampant, no one will form the kinds of relationships with other men to do real work, and in the end men will keep knowledge of how to fix a tank to themselves in a war zone because being the most valuable soldier on the battlefield is more important than winning

                • Koanic says:

                  You are missing many things, but most relevantly, the slavery part of the equation. No slavery, no welfare state: pick one.

                • alf says:

                  1. Scripture on immigration:

                  Leviticus 19:33-34
                  When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

                  Genesis 47: 1-6 – Joseph brings his brothers to Pharaoh and they are welcomed and given jobs.

                  Romans 12:13 – “Mark of the true Christian: “…Extend hospitality to strangers…”

                  There’s 2 reasons our current immigration crisis is not covered by the bible: 1) Jews themselves were often immigrants. 2) the technology that allows mass transportation as a weapon didn’t exist back then.

                  2. Scripture on global warming

                  It just isn’t there. Absent. Did not exist in the time of the bible, so does not say: global warming is evil.

                  Global warming is not commercially motivated, it is religious; perverting science and turning it into a false idol.

                  Since the bible says nothing on global warming, you are forced to revert to metaphorical stories that in your mind forbid global warming. But it is just as easy to find metaphorical stories that would support global warming:

                  Genesis 2:15 “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and keep it.”

                  Revelation 11:18 “The nations raged, but your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged, and for rewarding your servants, the prophets and saints, and those who fear your name, both small and great, and for destroying the destroyers of the earth.”

                  Numbers 35:33“You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.”

                  3. scripture on women:

                  On the women question, the bible is strong, but not perfect.

                  1 Tim 2:11 Let a woman learn in silence (hesuchia) with all submissiveness

                  1 Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority (authenteo) over a man

                  Nothing wrong here.

                  But the thing I am missing is, what to do if women are not learning in submissiveness, have been giving authority to teach over a man. What do I do in the age of #metoo?? Now I have found an answer to this very important question, but I most definitely have not found it in the bible, because no one in the bible has experienced such a situation.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Leviticus 19:33-34

                  Yes, so what? It says nothing about the decision to admit, only about behaving in a proper white Aryan manner towards guests. And he is not given citizenship either, except by a defined, strict, and race-discriminating process.

                  Genesis 47: 1-6 – Joseph brings his brothers to Pharaoh and they are welcomed and given jobs.

                  How’d that work out for the Egyptians?

                  Romans 12:13 – “Mark of the true Christian: “…Extend hospitality to strangers…”

                  Hospitality is one of the old European virtues. It has nothing to do with mass immigration. What should the Bible say, “Be inhospitable to strangers”? Bible critics complain it has too much racist genocide on the one hand, and too much hospitality on the other.

                  > There’s 2 reasons our current immigration crisis is not covered by the bible: 1) Jews themselves were often immigrants. 2) the technology that allows mass transportation as a weapon didn’t exist back then.

                  BS. Invasions and conquests occurred in the Old Testament, and also more complex situations of cosmopolitan imperial miscegenation. This is nothing new.

                  > Did not exist in the time of the bible, so does not say: global warming is evil.

                  Not true. This blog traces the relationship between Biblical false religion and modern false religion. There was no Talmud either, and yet we recognize the Pharisees. No New Atheists, and yet we recognize the Sadducees. One would have to be stupid not to recognize Gaia’s cult reborn.

                  > Global warming is not commercially motivated, it is religious; perverting science and turning it into a false idol.

                  Global warming involves falsifying measurements in order to do economic harm to flyover country whites. It is therefore prohibited by “honest weights and measures”. Your objection is irrelevant.

                  > But it is just as easy to find metaphorical stories that would support global warming

                  No it isn’t. You don’t know the Bible. Were you even raised in a Christian household with Sunday school?

                  > Numbers 35:33“You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.”

                  Are you still trying to make a point about global warming? You obviously didn’t make your reasoning explicit out of embarrassment. This is a reason for killing abortion doctors, not Exxon CEOs.

                  > But the thing I am missing is, what to do if women are not learning in submissiveness, have been giving authority to teach over a man. What do I do in the age of #metoo?? Now I have found an answer to this very important question, but I most definitely have not found it in the bible, because no one in the bible has experienced such a situation.

                  Nonsense. Take the bitch out and kill her, whether Jezebel or Athaliah.

                  You really, really don’t know the Bible. Go read Isaiah 3:
                  https://biblehub.com/kjv/isaiah/3.htm

                  You’re right that nobody in the Bible descends to the level of cuckedness exhibited by the typical Western male with a female boss. No man gets sodomite gang-raped in prison either. Certain situations are best avoided.

                • alf says:

                  > Hospitality is one of the old European virtues. It has nothing to do with mass immigration. What should the Bible say, “Be inhospitable to strangers”?

                  It should point out that when an elite uses immigration to replace its own people, this is evil.

                  > Invasions and conquests occurred in the Old Testament, and also more complex situations of cosmopolitan imperial miscegenation. This is nothing new.

                  History rhymes but does not repeat. Democracy, mass transportation, media, internet. This is new.

                  > One would have to be stupid not to recognize Gaia’s cult reborn.

                  Perhaps. But it comes in the cloak of science, and the bible has issues with science. See Vox Day arguing evolution is not real. Same category as troofers, not addressed in the bible.

                  > Global warming involves falsifying measurements in order to do economic harm to flyover country whites. It is therefore prohibited by “honest weights and measures”. Your objection is irrelevant.

                  I don’t understand what you refer to.

                  > No it isn’t. You don’t know the Bible. Were you even raised in a Christian household with Sunday school?

                  No, I am self taught.

                  Don’t be that disgruntled math teacher who contradicts his pupils just because he can.

                  >”Numbers 35:33“You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.”

                  > Are you still trying to make a point about global warming? You obviously didn’t make your reasoning explicit out of embarrassment. This is a reason for killing abortion doctors, not Exxon CEOs.

                  This is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s a metaphorical story, the message is that those who pollute the land ought to be punished. What is polluting the land? You say abortion doctors, this is a stretch of the imagination. Polluting the environment makes a lot more sense.

                  > “But the thing I am missing is, what to do if women are not learning in submissiveness, have been giving authority to teach over a man. What do I do in the age of #metoo?? Now I have found an answer to this very important question, but I most definitely have not found it in the bible, because no one in the bible has experienced such a situation.”

                  > Nonsense. Take the bitch out and kill her, whether Jezebel or Athaliah.

                  Great, helpful, thanks.

                  > You’re right that nobody in the Bible descends to the level of cuckedness exhibited by the typical Western male with a female boss. No man gets sodomite gang-raped in prison either. Certain situations are best avoided.

                  But we can’t. Some men may be able to live hermit style, most don’t. We’re communal people. Need to deal with society, need to deal with feral females in a way that does not shut me out of the gene pool.

                • Koanic says:

                  > It should point out that when an elite uses immigration to replace its own people, this is evil.

                  Someone who actually has a Biblical worldview would find such an event almost inconceivable, as the Israelites found the men of Sodom’s intent to rape a Levite man guest inconceivable.

                  The worst that should happen is that the elite do not release their Israelite servants at Jubilee as required, and usuriously oppress them. This is grounds for national destruction and exile in Jehovah’s eyes.

                  > History rhymes but does not repeat. Democracy, mass transportation, media, internet. This is new.

                  Democracy is evil and un-Biblical. Mass transportation is no different than walking. Media is no different than preaching. Internet is no different than books. There is no new thing under the sun.

                  > But it comes in the cloak of science, and the bible has issues with science. See Vox Day arguing evolution is not real. Same category as troofers, not addressed in the bible.

                  The Bible is the foundation of science, and science ceases to exist without faith in the Bible. Vox is wrong about evolution, not evolutionists, because he analyzes evolutionists. Hybrid Stabilization Theory is true, not TENS.

                  > I don’t understand what you refer to.

                  See my discussion with Jim re global warming. Leviticus 19:36

                  > No, I am self taught.

                  Which explains why you are missing an intuitive feel for the Bible.

                  >> ”Numbers 35:33“You shall not pollute the land in which you live, for blood pollutes the land, and no atonement can be made for the land for the blood that is shed in it, except by the blood of the one who shed it.”

                  >> Are you still trying to make a point about global warming? You obviously didn’t make your reasoning explicit out of embarrassment. This is a reason for killing abortion doctors, not Exxon CEOs.

                  This is exactly what I’m talking about. It’s a metaphorical story, the message is that those who pollute the land ought to be punished.

                  No it isn’t. The land is literally polluted by human blood, and literally requires atonement by human blood. This principle is established in Genesis and continues throughout the Old Testament. Spiritual energy can adhere to places and things. And even if it were metaphorical, it is a metaphor Jehovah uses to describe his notion of justice, and thus very very real.

                  >> “But the thing I am missing is, what to do if women are not learning in submissiveness, have been giving authority to teach over a man. What do I do in the age of #metoo?? Now I have found an answer to this very important question, but I most definitely have not found it in the bible, because no one in the bible has experienced such a situation.”

                  >> Nonsense. Take the bitch out and kill her, whether Jezebel or Athaliah.
                  > Great, helpful, thanks.

                  Yeah, it is. Now you know the real standard of masculine behavior. Now you know how low you’ve sunk. Did David snark? No.

                  > But we can’t. Some men may be able to live hermit style, most don’t. We’re communal people. Need to deal with society, need to deal with feral females in a way that does not shut me out of the gene pool.

                  You certainly can leave cucked Western countries for uncucked lands where men still live by personal violence. Make that a real option for yourself, and you will find your behavior and demeanor in the West changing. Moving closer to what StringsOfCoins does. Women love a warlord, who holds whores in low regard. See: rap.

                • alf says:

                  > Which explains why you are missing an intuitive feel for the Bible.

                  I have great intuitive feel for the bible, the best.

                  >You certainly can leave cucked Western countries for uncucked lands where men still live by personal violence.

                  You’re too much into fantasy.

                  Generally, I like your argument. You make the best of the bible, interpret it to be righteous. But your interpretation is idiosyncratic. Certain things that are obvious to you are in fact not so obvious at all, like how the bible supposedly condemns mass immigration, and some facts that are oblivious to you are in fact entirely obvious, like how the bible does not deal with evolution and the scientific method.

                  I remember watching a video of yours in which you smoke cigarette after cigarette and wonder aloud what it was that made you feel unhealthy, and as you took a drag from your 5th cigarette you say: ‘I think it is the type of shrimp I eat.’

                  The bible is a product of man, a product of its time. It is not timeless. If you do not grant me that point, we are at an impasse.

                  > Yeah, it is. Now you know the real standard of masculine behavior. Now you know how low you’ve sunk. Did David snark? No.

                  Don’t project like that.

                • jim says:

                  Koanic finds stuff in the bible to deal with modern problems – but no existing Christian community found what he finds, nor have past Christian communities found it.

                  This stuff is another “pagan addition”. We need to incorporate the social technologies of Charles the Second’s restoration into Christian doctrine, by prohibiting the behavior that Robert Boyle condemned, and the various abuses of accounting and the corporate form. And yes, Koanic’s point about the false consensus of the four hundred false prophets prophesying for Ahab is indeed relevant to climategate. That plus Saint Augustine on science could well be a basis for incorporating the social technology of science into the community of saints.

                  But that needs a prophet, a high priest, and a King. Koanic cannot do it.

                • Koanic says:

                  alf> You’re too much into fantasy.

                  It is not fantasy. Any Anglophone can go live in the Philippines.

                  > But your interpretation is idiosyncratic.

                  No, your interpretation is ignorant, shallow and wrong.

                  > Certain things that are obvious to you are in fact not so obvious at all, like how the bible supposedly condemns mass immigration,

                  It most certainly does not. The Bible COMMANDS mass immigration, in the case of the Israelite invasion of Canaan. However, this was not a positive event for the Canaanites.

                  God describes X as a curse for whoring after other gods. You fail to grasp from God’s warning that X is a negative outcome. The problem is not with God, or His warning. It is with you, and American “Christians” in general.

                  > like how the bible does not deal with evolution and the scientific method.

                  The only place the Bible could be argued to barely touch on evolution is in the Genesis creation account. The Bible does not deal with the scientific method.

                  If you are this imprecise in your thoughts, then that is the real reason you are unconvinced. The fudge factor favors inertia.

                  > I remember watching a video of yours in which you smoke cigarette after cigarette and wonder aloud what it was that made you feel unhealthy, and as you took a drag from your 5th cigarette you say: ‘I think it is the type of shrimp I eat.’

                  And you smugly told yourself, “What an idiot! He should quit smoking.”

                  I developed an idiopathic autoimmune disorder, which gradually restricted my diet and impaired my ability to work. Of the nootropics I tested, only smoking was a net benefit. You may be surprised to learn that many chronic illness sufferers cope through tobacco. I thought it odd too; supposedly weed is the panacea, yet it did nothing useful.

                  Of my many chemical hypersensitivities, I have a particularly acute reaction to sodium tripolyphosphate, a common seafood additive. To date I have found only one shrimp brand in Guangdong which I can eat and remain functional. It is not psychosomatic; my eyes swell up.

                  You will be pleased to hear that I easily quit smoking cold turkey years ago after finding a better coping medication – LDN, which I highly recommend for autoimmune disorders.

                  > The bible is a product of man, a product of its time. It is not timeless. If you do not grant me that point, we are at an impasse.

                  The Bible is the Word of God. You may impasse until you pass.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Koanic finds stuff in the bible to deal with modern problems – but no existing Christian community found what he finds, nor have past Christian communities found it.

                  That is high praise indeed. Thank you.

                  With God, all things are possible.

            • Mycroft Jones says:

              Moses certainly did proscribe group lies.

              Exodus 23:2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou speak in a cause to decline after many to wrest judgment:

              The book of Proverbs expands on this more fully.

              • alf says:

                Proscribes evil, but does not say global warming is evil.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Speaking to a group to send them in a wrong evil direction is what the Bible explicitly forbids. That covers the global warming lie, which is a con game to sell carbon credits, and to crush the coal miners in England in favor of the nuclear industry.

                  The Bible is a large book with many moving parts. You need to educate yourself. I recommend the Institutes of Biblical Law, by Rushdoony. You can even read it free online.

              • jim says:

                Direct me to the relevant parts of the Book of Proverbs.

                The seventeenth century position was that a good man was resistant to being deceived by group think, and did not use groupthink to pressure others, and there was a class element to this, that part of the way a gentleman shows his superiority is his resistance to groupthink. He respects the knowledge of identified individuals on the basis that that individual has direct knowledge of the case, not on the basis that that individual has knowledge of the group’s group think.

                Theoretically science still adheres to this rule, but we are seeing a whole lot of charts and tables (most infamously the Hockey Stick Graph) where it is far from clear what is being charted and tabled, and where the facts and figures in the table came from. This is particularly a problem with global warming, because generally an individual cannot observe the globe, only a particular very small part of it over a very small time, thus it is genuinely difficult to produce or evaluate data that properly conforms to the rules of science.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            I believe it is in the Ferrar Fenton translation of the Bible, “wisdom” is translated as “science”. The whole book of Proverbs is about science. Or maybe it was “knowledge”. In any case, Ferrar Fenton has been a longtime favorite in right wing circles for the quality of his research and translation.

            Also, both in the Psalms, and the Epistles of Paul, there are statements that the “Heavens declare His glory”. By studying the works of God, you can know the nature and character of God, so that even pagans who have no Bible are without excuse. The universe itself is a living Bible by which we can know God.

            Psalms 19:1
            The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

            Psalms 97:6
            The heavens declare his righteousness, and all the people see his glory.

            Romans 1
            19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
            20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

            Science is literally a form of Godliness. That is why Christians practice it.

            • jim says:

              Not seeing anything that directly bears on the issues raised by Galileo, Boyle, and Feynman.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                Galileo? He is a poor example of a scientist. His response to the Inquisition was pure ad hominem, point and sputter. He had no scientific backing for his claims and the Jesuits knew it and called him on it.

                • jim says:

                  Galileo looked through a telescope, saw the phases of Venus. The phases of Venus support the Copernican or Tychonian model, and falsify the Ptolmiac model.

                  Galileo looked through the telescope, saw the moons of Saturn. The moons of Saturn are evidence against the Tychonian model, thus evidence in favor of the Copernican model.

                  For the reasons stated by Saint Augustine, the Church should stay out of issues of scientific fact, while enforcing good scientific conduct. In backing the plainly falsified Ptolmiac model, the Inquisition was butting into matters that Saint Augustine had told them to stay out of.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Staying out of discussions here but for an interesting reactionary take on the Galileo question, I’d recommend Gertrud von le Fort’s “At The Gate Of Heaven”, available in the collection “The Wife Of Pilate and other stories”.

                  Essentially a German scientist recounts the (very le Fortian) story of the besotted female assistant and the master (Galileo) on the eve of the Dresden genocide. He observes that Galileo’s claim that the Sun was the centre of the universe was not only blasphemous but in fact factually incorrect as well. The claim of geocentrism is just as legitimate as any competing theory. At best, Galileo’s ‘correction’ of church doctrine made it easier to work within the confines of the solar system, which really has no genuinely useful application, just lots of potential for pointless big state projects in the 20th century, just when people needed God and not the God of science.

                • peppermint says:

                  herp derp he didn’t say barycenter

                  next you’re going to say no i meant spiritual center

                  gamma faggot

                • Roberto says:

                  CR, my dad is stronger than your dad.

                  Now seriously: my King will defeat your King. That’s because your King, who is really a despot, will alienate everyone in his Kingdom, or at least everyone whose loyalty matters. A King hated by the productive segment of society, by the most industrious people, by white male capitalists, will sooner or later face rebellion. Whereas a King who can secure the loyalty of the industrious segment of society (by allowing it to enjoy the fruits of its enterprise) will sleep quite well at night.

                  Your King will be lonely and friendless, just as you are lonely and friendless.

                • peppermint says:

                  where is the center of the earth sun system

                  inside the sun

                  where is the geometric center of all objects knows to galileo

                  inside the sun

                  what comes and goes every day, gets cold and distant for months on end, but without it we would starve in the dark?

                  but i’m not a sun worshiper. if we hadn’t spent the last ten decades pretending people like CR say interesting things, we would have a closed loop actinide mining for the energy to mine actinides process and wouldn’t need the sun, we would be floating around neptune eating gas giant moons.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You can take the book recommendation or leave it.

                  I have zero interest in debating the matter with you. I can rely on you behaving, like clockwork, with intellectual dishonesty and bad faith.

                • Roberto says:

                  >I can rely on you behaving, like clockwork, with intellectual dishonesty and bad faith.

                  You just don’t have a good answer to this point.

                  It’s one thing to say that you don’t share the preferences of Moldbug, Jim, and basically everyone here; but the argument which I’ve made on a number of occasions and which you’ve been persistently ignoring is that *from the King’s own objective perspective, i.e., his kingly, dynastic, and economic interests*, there is no sense in behaving as you want him to behave.

                  As I said the first time: the King who listens to your advise will be universally despised. Particularly he will be despised by those who actually create value, meaning white male capitalists. You never answered that point, and I suspect you flatly refuse to think it.

                • Roberto says:

                  CR is a moralist: he shows his superior holiness by calling on the future King to use his absolute power to engage in tyrannical do-goodery on behalf of the inferior; it’s biological-leninism with an authoritarian “twist.” What he misses is that the King has no rational interest to be a leftist moralfag, and that being a leftist moralfag is very likely to cost him his throne.

                  CR himself behaves like a priest, is for all intents and purposes a priest, and thus has an inherent interest in showing off his superior holiness. The King, on the other hand, won’t be a priest, and won’t have an interest in showing off superior holiness; quite the opposite, will have a vested interest in eliminating the holiness spiral completely. The King wants his kingdom to be prosperous, and will physically remove moralfags like CR to ensure that prosperity persists.

                • peppermint says:

                  only a half-educated faggot would say galileo is wrong because the big bang

                  the same king of half-educated faggot who thinks incentives don’t matter because power is more powerful than soft power, and because it’s possible for one person to draw a blueprint for one thing, and a thousand people to draw a blueprint for a giant thing, it’s possible for the government to control a everything.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Galileo looked through the telescope, saw the moons of Saturn. The moons of Saturn are evidence against the Tychonian model, thus evidence in favor of the Copernican model.

                  I’ve never heard this before. Please say more. The Tycho Brahe model, or one very close to it, is mathematically equivalent to the stuff that NASA uses for the solar system. That being the case, don’t see any way that Saturn’s moons could disprove Tycho Brahe. If Galileo had proof of heliocentricity, he wouldn’t have gone the point and sputter path.

                • jim says:

                  I am not going to debate the Tychonian model, for the Papacy was enforcing the Ptolmiac model, which Galileo’s observations had unambiguously falsified.

                  And, as a result, the Papacy and the Inquisition looked like arrogant idiots, as Saint Augustine correctly predicted would happen when the Church butts into matters beyond its proper magistracy. Good scientific conduct is part of the Church’s proper magistry. Taking positions on scientific questions is, as Saint Augustine argued, not.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto: “You just don’t have a good answer to this point.”

                  OK I’ll bite. I’m in a good mood so no matter how deeply you delve into the sewer it won’t touch me.

                  Peppermint: “where is the center of the earth sun system

                  inside the sun

                  where is the geometric center of all objects ***known to galileo***

                  inside the sun”

                  Correct. My emphasis.

                  We moderns know that the universe isn’t even close to being anything remotely like that.
                  Gravity is absolutely NOT the pull of the centre on the rest. It’s the mutual attraction which results from distortions to the curvature of space-time itself.

                  The sun is no more special than is Pluto or Ceres.

                  It FEELS as if the Earth’s being pulled toward the Sun because the Sun has a pivotal role in a ‘solar *system*’.
                  In reality the Earth’s moving in a straight line which, thanks to physics potentially available to Galileo, never results in the Earth colliding with the Sun. These ‘orbital’ behaviours are normal features of a system in which space-time itself is distorted by the concentration of energy in localised clusters.

                  The Church in Galileo’s time sought to preserve the stability of society, which they correctly noted was very closely entangled with the religiosity not of scientists like Galileo but of the vast masses of the peasantry and the ready army of skilled tradesmen and land-owners.

                  We’re invited to cheer that Whig History (the history in which the Bronze Age follows the Iron Age!) took Galileo’s side, but on what grounds can we agree?
                  Scientific? Hardly! The idea put forward by Galileo is much more seductive and misleading to the modern mind than that of the Church. It thwarts the understanding of reality.
                  Social? That instead of the Deity, the universe obeys abstract laws which place a powerful behemoth literally at the centre of everything by virtue of the power it exerts, but without any obligation or compassion?
                  The practical consequences? Don’t worry, goyim: you’ll be extinct but you were able to briefly put a man on the moon, allegedly!

                  No, I won’t have any of it. The Church was right and Galileo was wrong in every conceivable way.

                  That’s as far as I’ll involve myself in this. I like this article and I agree that leftism’s implicated in most, if not ALL major civilisational collapses.

                  In the end though, so long as you refuse to recognise the role of the WHOLE of the Cathedral in our woes, you’re just interesting but misguided liberals: liberals of the less toxic variety.

                  Jonathan Bowden “The Newbury Speech”:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i9n6wLtJPv8

                • jim says:

                  The true reactionary looks to past functional and successful social technology.

                  And that is the position that Saint Augustine took on science, not the position that the Pope Paul V and Bellarmine took on science.

                • peppermint says:

                  Like I said, half-educated faggot. The earth moves around the sun, period, end of story. You’re not going to browbeat anyone here by pretending to know about gravity having read a blogpost once.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Of course, but someone living today has hindsight that wasn’t available at the time.
                  We can judge the decision without denying their right to take it.

                  A Whig will side with Galileo, it’s as simple as that.

                • jim says:

                  A whig will side with Galileo in the Galileo affair. A reactionary will side with Saint Augustine in the Galileo affair.

                  A whig will argue the Church has no valid magistracy in science.

                  A reactionary will argue that the Church failed to perform its proper magistracy in the Galileo affair and intervened in matters beyond its proper magistracy

                • Roberto says:

                  It’s a simple question, CR. What specific incentive/s will the King have to behave as you want him to behave? Make your case, or admit you don’t have one.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I don’t have any, and have never claimed to.

                  We need to be at the mercy of the powerful without the complicating illusions of checks&balances.

                  There IS a case for Hitlerian ‘German Democracy’ where you vote for the leader then he has total power to do whatever he wants, but inevitably the first thing he’ll do is cancel the next election.

                  This should not be a controversial idea in these circles: checks and balances are dangerous nonsense that creates imperium in imperio.

                  It’s a pessimistic view I know. How much nicer to be ruled by Ron Paul’s Constitution.

                  Go back to lewrockwell.com if that’s what you want.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Actually on reflection that’s not true.

                  I fell for your sly way of wording the question, which implies that what needs to be answered is “what power is higher than the King?”

                  In fact if your question’s recast as “why would the King want what’s best for the nation?” then it’s easy to answer:

                  The King wants wealth and glory; he wants to be able to achieve the things he wants to achieve – cathedrals (or their equivalent), displays of greatness, and so on.
                  In order to do that, he has the following sub-goals:

                  1. That actors other than himself do not stand in the way of those grand goals
                  2. That society generates lots of wealth for the long term
                  3. That society is full of willing and able people ready to implement his grand goals

                  Given those starting assumptions, the King would not favour a consumerist society in which very large numbers of people live paycheck to paycheck and hand all their money to treasonous corporations who themselves ship the profits abroad and/or use them to subvert society and undermine the King.

                  He would crush them underfoot without blinking.

                  Anyway that’s enough. I’m not getting drawn back in by your nonsense. You knew that was my position all along, you just found a clever way of throwing me off balance, and it briefly worked.

                  No I don’t want there to be a power higher than the King, but no that doesn’t imply the King would behave unpredictably. Far from it.

                • Roberto says:

                  You are arguing with voices in your head. No one in this whole thread said anything about checks, balances, or constitutions. The debate is about what reasoning is there that can persuade the absolute monarch to follow up on your programme of banning X, Y, and Z.

                  I argue that a King who pisses off the capitalists, the industrialists, the producers, and the tax-payers will not hold on to his throne for very long; that is in contrast to a King who plays nice with the productive members of society. Thus, a King who adheres to your programme will find himself in an inferior position versus a King who upholds the Jimian freehold principle.

                  If you have no disagreement with that assessment, great. If you have, then you need to show exactly what logical and rational cost-benefit analysis may persuade a King to completely alienate the group known as “white male capitalists” to gain the loyalty of the group known as “wiggers.”

                • The Cominator says:

                  Since being called a socialist bores you CR think of it another way.

                  You are arguing that killing the golden goose (capitalists and capitalism) is a good idea…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I won’t be drawn. This is not going to turn into another repeat of the same old discussion.

                  “you need to show exactly what logical and rational cost-benefit analysis may persuade a King to completely alienate the group known as “white male capitalists” to gain the loyalty of the group known as “wiggers.””

                  They’re foreign entities who are impoverishing domestic citizens and harming the long-term prosperity of the nation.
                  It’s quite possible a bad ruler would side with cosmopolitan moneyed interests. I’ve never once claimed every absolute monarch is a saint.
                  A good ruler would observe what’s happening and side with his own, not the internationalists.

                  The fact you refer to your own people in derogatory terms says everything a nationalist needs to know about you, and if the pair of you really do speak for this community – as Jim’s siding with you suggests is probably the case – then this community is part of the problem.

                  Not only don’t you want to help, but you’d actually prefer the mass deaths of your own people than anything happen to the balance sheet of global finance.

                  That’s why I won’t be drawn. I’ve responded a sufficient number of times to kill the impression that you had me in a ‘gotcha’. You can carry on making your ridiculous assertions without the luxury of answer and without the luxury of pointing to the lack of an answer.

                  I’m DONE.

                • jim says:

                  > They’re foreign entities who are impoverishing domestic citizens and harming the long-term prosperity of the nation.

                  No they are not.

                  Within walking distance of where I live there is a pizza shop. The guy who owns and operates it is my race, my religion, and my ethnicity. He lives within walking distance of it and me. You are telling me that I should outgroup him and ingroup you.

                  The vast majority of them are tax paying white males who create value – and you seem to be a tax consumer who does not create value, and comes from an environment where Jewish shibboleths are in a lot of circulation.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  This is why I will not be drawn.

                  Even the host does not argue in good faith. On the contrary, he argues from deliberate misrepresentation.

                  We’re invited to believe there is NO DIFFERENCE between

                  1) A small businessman who sets up a pizza shop and isn’t in fact an immigrant – very unusual – and

                  2) A global multinational corporation with anonymous shareholders, engaged in crony capitalism, up to its neck in liberal propaganda and ultimately controlled by global finance, totally embedded in the culture and exerting a massive influence over working people, to the extent that many who live paycheck to paycheck and can’t afford a home will still go and hand them a day’s pay for one meal. “Domino’s: the official food of everything”

                  The switcheroo is necessary because whilst no reasonable person could attack the small businessman (AND I HAVE NOT DONE SO EITHER – EVER), any fool can see the nature of the corporations.

                  It’s one thing to DEFEND globohomo but it’s quite another to do so in a deliberately dishonest manner.

                  Shame on you Jim. So much talent, but this one small flaw: you’re a liar.

                  Jim writes:

                  “Within walking distance of where I live there is a pizza shop. The guy who owns and operates it is my race, my religion, and my ethnicity. He lives within walking distance of it and me. You are telling me that I should outgroup him and ingroup you.”

                  You know this is not the case. It’s a double lie.

                  Firstly you KNOW I was talking about global corporations. You only pretend you misunderstood because it’s easier to attack a straw man who wants to attack the small businessman.
                  Secondly you swap the roles AGAIN: it is not *I* who will look on the corporations with hatred (though I do!) – it is a sane RULER wanting to prevent the abuse and ruin of his nation. Every penny NOT SPENT with globohomo corporations will be spent to benefit the nation, or, better, through the tax code, SAVED to benefit the nation.

                  “The vast majority of them are tax paying white males who create value – and you seem to be a tax consumer who does not create value, and comes from an environment where Jewish shibboleths are in a lot of circulation.”

                  Ad hominem ad nauseam.

                  The tactics of a liar who knows he’s defending evil so substitutes a pretence instead.

                  You should work for the NY Times.

                • jim says:

                  Around where I live, immigrant businessmen are not particularly noticeable. If someone owns a business he is white, and usually white like me. The only immigrant that comes to mind is an asian woman married to a white man. There is a thai restaurant, which I would assume is owned by thais, but as far as I know who owns what, all the businesses big and small are owned by white males who seem to resemble myself.

                  The nearest big business is a local branch of a big supermarket chain. Looking up the owners on the internet, the first thing I hit is a recruitment notice, which depicts a strikingly undiverse employee – white, male, and blonde.

                  Clicking through to their management recruitment, again white and male, though one of the faces seems kind of ethnic, maybe Greek or something, maybe middle eastern. But the rest of the photos of suitable management recruits are white males who look much like myself. After a bit more clicking, I find it is a closely held family business, and the CEO and patriarch is, you guessed it, white, male, my religion, my nationality, and my ethnicity.

                  I am not cherry picking. That is the nearest branch of a big business to my house. That is the capitalism I see. Largely small businesses, and to the extent it is big business, people like me.

                  Well, of course, my house is in the middle of whiteopia, but I doubt that commies confiscating my whiteopia is going to make it whiter. Further, although the population around here mostly looks like me, the people who own and control businesses look a lot more like me than the rest of them.

                  About half an hour’s drive south of my house, there is an area that is markedly less white, and there, the only business where I know who owns it, the owner is non white – but I am pretty sure if I took a census, I would find that my ingroup was disproportionately represented among owners and executives even there.

                  Socialism looks mighty like an attack on my ingroup, like the Trotskyite saying “hail fellow peasant” and urging the peasant to outgroup his neighbor who owns more cows than he does.

                  Someone who wants me to outgroup capitalists is probably, like the Trotskyite seeking the peasant’s help to murder peasants, a member of outgroup trying to divide my ingroup against itself, because the capitalists come largely from my ingroup, and the leadership of my ingroup comes largely from capitalists. If someone does not like capitalists, I find it hard to believe he likes my ingroup.

                  The capitalism that I see around me is predominantly and disproportionately owned by my neighbors, my sex, my race, my nationality, and my religion. And that is the way I like it. I don’t want it changed. Capitalism is not the problem. The state and the state religion is the problem.

                  Hollywood and Facebook are Jewish – but that is not because capitalism is Jewish, it is because priestly activities are disproportionately Jewish. Socialism is in practice priests attacking merchants, so results in non Jews being ruled by Jews. Socialism is not exactly a Jewish plot, but socialists tend to be Jews, and socialism tends to result in Jews on top, at least until they finish murdering each other. Socialists are mostly people who are not like me, not part of my ingroup, and results in my ingroup being ruled by people who are not like people in my ingroup.

                • peppermint says:

                  CR, the reason all the small businesses are run by minorities is (surprise!) the government guves free money to minorities to run them and allows them to cheat. Look at the employment history of the guy the Obummer administration blamed the 9/11 Benghazi attack on.

                  There’s an innovative chain of small grocery stores in Detroit, Paris of the West, where “people” can use their EBT cards to buy a bunch of uncooked breaded chicken, then pay a couple bucks out of pocket to get it fried.

                  That chain is run by a paki doing the jobs that would be illegal for Americans to.

                  The usual case of fraud is bodegas that charge more than the market rate to the EBT system, give their coethnics kickbakcs, and make the occasional Boomer leftoid who wanders in pay up in cash.

                • peppermint says:

                  PS where does the money for “refugee” resettlement come from?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  More thought required James, more thought required.

                  This is what you’re claiming:

                  “when little Jonny is spending child support money that [the shopkeepers] were taxed to provide, [they’d not be glad of the sale]”

                  Are you sure?

                  I worked in a hotel for a time and we took booking from all sorts of government workers, paid for out of our taxes of course, but those taxes were already a sunk cost. To have turned away lucrative business would have been a mistake, cutting our nose off to spite our face.

                  The shopkeeper wants Jonny (or Tyrone) to buy as much as possible.

                  I love how you instantly resorted to pretending you thought it was *I* who was denying this, as if anyone would be fooled.

                  I’m saying the shopkeeper is GLAD of the extra sale, irrespective of how it came to be.

                  Hence, welfare means additional sales for that shopkeeper. It’s not as if his taxes will go down if the welfare ends: it’s just his income would!

                • jim says:

                  > “when little Jonny is spending child support money that [the shopkeepers] were taxed to provide, [they’d not be glad of the sale]”

                  Sure they are glad of the sale. But they are not glad of the taxes, and every other capitalist is even less glad of the taxes.

                  Your economics is absurd, incoherent, nonsensical, and inconsistent, and Marxist class theory is even less coherent.

                  Your theory requires that because the shopkeeper is glad of the sale, the entire capitalist class plots to raise taxes and give handouts to welfare mums, and that this actually benefits “the capitalist class”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Wow you’re following in Roberto’s footsteps. You think you’ve exposed my dastardly scheme, when what you’ve done is to finally understand!

                  “Your theory requires that because the shopkeeper is glad of the sale, the entire capitalist class plots to raise taxes and give handouts to welfare mums, and that this actually benefits “the capitalist class””

                  The entire capitalist class prefers spending to saving, yes.

                  The entire capitalist class realises that tax&redistribute is a sham, that they’ll always be able to structure their systems to out-smart the smartypantses, and that prices will adjust to whatever tax system prevails.
                  (Whether they realise ANY of this consciously as individuals, I have no idea, though I’m sure (((some))) do.)

                  It’s not that *I* think welfare’s great and it’s not that I’m claiming *capitalists* think welfare, in a vacuum, is great.

                  What I’m claiming is that since welfare brings about a higher consumption society than would otherwise have been the case, they appreciate the gift they’re being given!

                  The trouble with libertarians is they think trade is a non-zero sum game: it’s a zero sum game!
                  If I’m the guy doing the selling, I want the other guy to buy buy buy, and if he has to be thick as pigshit to be the optimised perfect consumer, so be it. I don’t care about his wellbeing and I don’t care about his long-term financial health. I care whether he spends with ME or not, and anything that increases my bottom line, I favour.

                  Libertarians think ‘the invisible hand’ produces net benefits for society over time, since every trade is a dual inequality of improvement: both are better off or they would not trade.

                  Yes, in theory, but in practice it’s quite possible for one side to knowingly engage in a trade they know the other side will be harmed by.

                  Drug dealers, casino workers, restaurants, it makes no difference: the person who wants to sell wants you to buy *and beyond that doesn’t care whether you get married or get eaten by hyenas*

                • jim says:

                  > The entire capitalist class prefers spending to saving, yes.

                  That category of people that you are calling “the capitalist class” are precisely those people who save and invest, thus progressivism hates them and seeks to destroy them, and you hate them and seek to destroy them and the wealth that they create. So you chant the cultural marxist and left communist magic mumbo jumbo that magically redefines saving and investment as waste and destruction. You propose to slaughter the kulak’s cattle and burn his crops supposedly in order to encourage saving and investment, but actually you are just angry that the kulak has status, that people who save and invest have status, when priests should be the only people with status. You are angry that the creation of value has status, that courage in war has status, when holiness should be the only thing that has status.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You just can’t give up the habit of a lifetime can you.

                  I wrote this:

                  “> The entire capitalist class prefers spending to saving, yes.”

                  Jim replied with this:

                  “That category of people that you are calling “the capitalist class” are precisely those people who save and invest”

                  ROFL.

                  So he’s pretending he thinks that I was claiming that the capitalist class prefers THEMSELVES to spend than save, when he knows perfectly well that I’m claiming the capitalist class prefers it WHEN PEOPLE IN GENERAL spend with them, rather than save for themselves.

                  It’s a complete waste of time interacting with someone this dishonest. Seriously you couldn’t lie straight in bed. It’s shameful.

                • jim says:

                  > So he’s pretending he thinks that I was claiming that the capitalist class prefers THEMSELVES to spend than save, when he knows perfectly well that I’m claiming the capitalist class prefers it WHEN PEOPLE IN GENERAL spend with them, rather than save for themselves.

                  Measures that benefit the capitalist class benefit those that save and invest.

                  Measures that attack the capitalist class attack those that save and invest.

                  Because “the capitalist class” are those that save and invest.

                  Measures that benefit those that save and invest encourage saving and investment

                  Measure that attack those that save and invest discourage saving and investment, and in their modern cultural Marxist form, generally take the form of destroying their savings and burning down their investments, as in Ferguson and Venezuela. Instead of confiscating the kulak’s seed corn, you go directly to your real objective, and slaughter his cattle and burn his crops,

                  You go directly to your real objective of lowering the status of those that save and invest to create value, you just smash and burn what you want to smash and burn, and issue some pseudo profound technobabble economic gibberish to rationalize carrying out your real objective in the most direct possible way.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim writes this:

                  “Measures that benefit those that save and invest encourage saving and investment”

                  You need to revisit your economic thinking, because this is simply false.

                  It was Vox Day (who neither of us particularly like) who started me down the road of questioning classical economics. I never looked back.

                  I’ve claimed that welfare is a measure that benefits ‘those that save and invest’ on account of the fact that their sales go up because welfare recipients spend every penny they get in welfare.

                  Your rebuttal was couched in macro-economic terms: capitalists pay taxes and welfare’s paid in taxes, hence the capitalists are worse off because all they’re getting back is PART of what they paid out in taxes.

                  This is wrong, and in fact logical-positivist. It’s not necessarily Keynesian but it’s of a species with him.

                  Lots of people pay taxes and some of those people are capitalists. Most of the capitalists that pay any significant amount of tax are in fact small business owners, not corporations. (I’m wise to your switcheroo and I won’t let it creep back in. I’m talking about corporations, not Mom&Pop, no matter how many times you try to twist it.)

                  Amazon pays very little tax, for example.

                  Now their *employees* certainly pay [income] tax, as do their customers (VAT). I assume you’re not going to disagree with libertarians and insist that any tax paid by employees is in fact paid by employers: the Rothbard dogma is the exact opposite. (But you’re welcome to do it if you want.)

                  The taxes are added up, and part of the revenue (plus a lot of borrowing, leveraged on current GDP) is handed to welfare recipients, who proceed to spend it.

                  Let’s say, in this toy model with only one seller, that they spend it with Amazon. (We can say furthermore that Amazon is the ONLY corporation that pays taxes – there are no others, before you accuse me of anything.)

                  What you’re claiming amounts to a specific empirical prediction: the net increase in net sales made to welfare recipients results in a net profit increase that’s smaller than the net amount of tax paid by Amazon.

                  This is obviously very false.

                  If Amazon’s sales fell by the amount of 100% of sales made to welfare recipients (we won’t even touch tax-paid workers), and simultaneously the part of their taxes paid that ends up going to welfare recipients was restored to them, their net worth would drop rather sharply, not increase.

                  Welfare recipients are very good consumers, and the taxes that feed them are paid by not only the sellers they buy from, but also by other workers and by small business owners and other non-corporate entrepreneurs.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Measures that benefit those that save and invest encourage saving and investment”

                  > You need to revisit your economic thinking, because this is simply false.

                  Nuts

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Good economics requires methodological individualism.

                  (Not to be confused with political individualism, which is one of the biggest mistakes made by libertarians.)

                  The corporation that sees increased sales coming from welfare recipients is better off than it would otherwise be.
                  They do not pay for that welfare! That welfare’s paid for by all tax-payers, plus debt based on GDP.
                  Not all taxes go to welfare, but all welfare goes to consumer spending.

                  If welfare (and that part of their tax bill that funds it) disappeared, corporate retailers would much worse off.

                  This is equally true of the state pension, and nationalised healthcare, not to mention a large public sector.

                  To the uninformed reader, it must be added at this point, before I’m deliberately misrepresented: I am NOT saying I think this is a good thing. I’m saying only that specific corporations benefit financially. Society is harmed and if I had my way, it would all stop.

                • jim says:

                  This is repetitious, stupid, and ignorant. We have heard it all a hundred times before and were not convinced the first time. Further repetition will be deleted.

                  This is not methodological individualism, but the precise opposite of methodological individualism.

                  Methodological individualism implies that the corporation will gladly sell the welfare recipient beer and beans. Does not imply the corporation will support the importation of more welfare recipents nor the raising of taxes to import those welfare recipients, nor the provision of public funds so that they can buy beer and beans.

                  Rather methodological individualism implies that the corporation will oppose the importation of more welfare recipents, will oppose the raising of taxes to import more welfare recipients, and will oppose the raising of taxes so that they can buy beer and beans.

                  Which, in fact, it does.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  > “This is repetitious, stupid, and ignorant. We have heard it all a hundred times before and were not convinced the first time. Further repetition will be deleted.”

                  Where’s the error? Where’s the lie?

                  [*repeated lies, repeated in almost the exact same words, sounding suspiciously as if quoted from a script assigned to you by your masters, deleted to reduce wasted bandwidth.*]

                • jim says:

                  > > “This is repetitious, stupid, and ignorant. We have heard it all a hundred times before and were not convinced the first time. Further repetition will be deleted.”

                  > Where’s the error? Where’s the lie?

                  The lie is that you are redefining methodological individualism as Marxist Class Theory, much as you redefined reaction as Marxist class theory, Christianity as Marxist class theory, economics as cultural Marxism, Moldbug as a Maxist and a socialist, and so on and so forth.

                  The error is Marxist class theory.

                  Marxist class theory is the opposite of methodological individualism.

                  And we have all heard Marxist class theory ad nauseum, though I suppose this may be the first time I have heard it called methodological individualism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Rothbard was not eliminativist regarding class and neither was Mises.

                  Mises’ key insight was that class boundaries were porous, not just in terms of social mobility but also in terms of people belonging to multiple classes at the same time. The worker is also a shareholder in his employer’s business and a saver in the wider economy, hence benefits from capitalism.

                  At no point does Mises say “there is no such thing as the group of all people who work as employees” or “there is no such thing as the group of all people who own capital”.

                  Neither does Rothbard.

                  I’m not engaged in Marxist Class Theory, I’m just referencing things by their proper names, and the proper name for “the group of all people who work as employees” is “the working class” or just “workers”.

                  You seem to think that hurling accusations of using incorrect words is equivalent to an argument against the claim being made. It isn’t, it’s just sophistry. (Sorry to sound like Stefan Molyneux lol)

                  If you think that Amazon would be better off if all the sales it makes to people paying with welfare money disappeared, and simultaneously its tax bill was reduced by the amount it pays out that ends up being spent on welfare, then make the case!

                  You can’t because it would be an incorrect case, which is why you attack the messenger and not the message.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Since you see me as a leftist, an academic, an entryist and a cultural Marxist, here’s Uncle Antonio de Oliveira Salazar:

                  “We are…against all the internationalisms, against communism, against socialism, against anarcho-syndicalism, against all that diminishes, divides or degrades the family, against class warfare, against those without a country and without God, against the slavery of work, against the purely materialist conception of life, against the notion of might as the origin of right … We are against all the great heresies of our day, as we do not know of a single place in the world where the liberty to propagate seeming heresies has been a source for good; this liberty, when it concedes to barbarous modern times, only serve to minimize the foundations of our civilization.”

                  Is that a man who’d shrug his shoulders at BetFred, Domino’s and Blacked.com?

                • jim says:

                  You are redefining Salazar as a cultural Marxist, just as you redefined methodological individualism as Marxist class theory and Moldbug as a socialist.

                  People could, and did, operate pizza shops under Salazar.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  On the contrary, clearing away disease and vermin from our midst is not just a right but a responsibility of a strong State:

                  “The executive power, exercised by the Chief of State, with the Ministries freely selected thereupon, without depending on any parliamentary indication of approval, has as its mission the right, the obligation, and the responsibility to maintain the honor of the nation, and to guarantee the public tranquility, to respect and to make respect the laws, and to make all believe that its relation to the conservation and functioning of the Nation are indispensable.”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  LOL that again!

                  People could operate family pizza shops in a healthy society.

                  What could not be tolerated is minimum wage workers handing over all their money to the Domino’s corporation, “the official food of everything”.
                  Pizza shops would soon learn what not to do if you want to keep your doors open. Keep it simple, keep it natural, keep it cheap.

                  The three go naturally together like one of Bastiat’s ‘economic harmonies’.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  If you think that Amazon would be better off if all the sales it makes to people paying with welfare money disappeared, and simultaneously its tax bill was reduced by the amount it pays out that ends up being spent on welfare, then make the case!

                  You can’t because it would be an incorrect case, which is why you attack the messenger and not the message.

                  You repetitious leftist moron Amazon sells power tools and books also.

                  Every dollar of goods that it sells to welfare recipients is a dollar that was taxed from people who would buy different things so of course your model ignores that group and you restrict the question to a contorted scenario that bears no relationship to reality.

                  Is anything capable of getting through your thick skull?

                  The groups are:

                  Amazon – pays taxes
                  Productive members of the economy – pay taxes
                  Welfare recipients – eat taxes

                  Here’s the money flows from the three groups:

                  Some of the money given to welfare recipients goes to amazon.

                  The source of that money was:

                  Money that got taxed from productive people – some of which would have gone to amazon.

                  Money that gets taxed from amazon directly but obviously nowhere near 100% of it comes back since social workers and everyone else in the chain gets paid.

                  1) Welfare recipients really don’t spend a ton on amazon – they buy monthly mobile phone plans, stuff from scamming convenience stores which give kickbacks in cash and phones that they buy with cash because no one gives them credit. Pretty tough to buy stuff on amazon without a credit card.

                  2) Taxed people *do* spend lots on amazon – that’s amazon’s whole market position – they bought Whole Foods not a nation wide chain of Quikie Marts.

                  3) Any amount of money that amazon gets back from its own taxes is obviously less than they paid.

                  It’s stupidly obvious that amazon isn’t a net winner in the “give money to blacks and hispanics” sweepstakes but don’t worry, Communist Revolutionary has Marxist class theory to the rescue! Amazon in particular doesn’t benefit but they still back the scheme because the capitalist class benefits – yet every time he tries to show this he simply can’t.

                  Disney pozzes Star Wars and loses billions of dollars on flop movies that they paid billions of dollars for the right to make – Communist Revolutionary’s Marxist class theory to the rescue! They don’t mind losing money because pozzing Star Wars is part of a long term capitalist class plot to become as rich as the capitalist class of Somalia – which – since it isn’t burdened with white people who save too much – has the richest capitalist class!

                  Meanwhile the idea that the poz makes everyone at the top rich never makes him reconsider his support for monarchy since (in his stupid world view) the king would be the biggest beneficiary. Amazon can skim the sweet welfare money and the king can then skim amazon and everyone can get rich by expropriating productive citizens because productive citizens make everyone poor by not spending.

                  It’s economics for retards.

                • alf says:

                  >tfw you have to scroll 200 comments back just to click ‘reply’.

                  The thing about leftists is that they will only abuse the weak. They’ll scoff against the strong, or test them, or say the strong scares them, but they will not abuse them. Strength is the best deterrent against the left.

                  Thus, CR sensing strength, senses there is nothing for him to gain here, though at the same time he keeps getting drawn back to this place, because power is for leftists what light is for moths.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Pizza shops would soon learn what not to do if you want to keep your doors open. Keep it simple, keep it natural, keep it cheap.

                  Definitely not socialism right here. /s

              • Roberto says:

                By the way CR, in a previous thread you wrote:

                >Banning junk food restaurants if and when they misbehave (such as by lacing their food with fat sugar and salt and hiking the prices) is not the same thing as socialising food.

                >There’s no reason at all why someone cooking at home shouldn’t be perfectly at liberty to bake a 3000 calorie pizza and eat it solo.”

                >There’s nothing wrong with home-cooked waffle fries, pizza, hot dogs or anything else.

                So it’s not clear if you want to ban only the global corporations or small local businesses as well. Seriously, write the damn manifesto so everyone can understand your program in its full. I’ll read it and so, presumably, would other commenters here.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You won’t read it, you’ll pretend to misunderstand it so you can attack a warped variation of it.

                  The manifesto’s very simple:

                  Restore some direct equivalent of Absolute Monarchy.

                  You claim to want that too, except you have all manner of situations in which the new monarch may not do such&such or else socialism.

                  No doubt you’ll all continue to make this sound very complicated but it’s not at all. It’s a one line manifesto:

                  Restore some direct equivalent of Absolute Monarchy.

                • jim says:

                  Pol Pot was not absolute monarchy.

                  Kim Jong Un would like to be absolute monarchy, and may well get there, but he is as yet a long way from it.

                  What you want is the opposite of what we want, the opposite of what we intend and understand by monarchy.

                  The Restoration is Charles the Second, King George the Third, Lee Kuan Yew, and his Highness Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum

                  It is the opposite of Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, and Kim Jong Un

                  Your ideal is Pol Pot and Hugo Chavez, mine is King Charles the Second. These are not merely different, they are opposites.

                  Charles the Second instituted and socially and legally enforced modern science, the scientific method, the joint stock profit seeking corporation, and modern capitalism. You want to abolish these things. We want to restore these things.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Restore some direct equivalent of Absolute Monarchy.

                  Yes, that is step 1 of the restoration program. Now the question is if step 2 of the restoration program will be harnessing the newly liberated inventiveness of white men to do extropianism and conquer the universe – or ban everything because people with IQs between 60 and 90 do not like much modern civilization. A crucial difference indeed. You seem to favor the “ban everything” option, and I’m trying to figure out how this dreadful scenario may potentially come into effect.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The crux of the problem here is you flatly refuse to acknowledge that The Cathedral’s magic works on the private sector outside of academia and the media.

                  Read the bios of the board of Propublica and then tell me rich people are the victims here.

                  Ayn Rand was flat-out wrong.

                  https://www.propublica.org/leadership/

                  I’ll leave it there. You’ve had all the information you need to wake up from this libertarian prejudice.

                  Take it or leave it.

                  I just don’t care any more.

                • jim says:

                  > you flatly refuse to acknowledge that The Cathedral’s magic works on the private sector outside of academia and the media.

                  As I said, the private sector around my house is mostly small business, and I know from personal contact that the Cathedral’s magic has not worked on them.

                  As I said, I looked up the website of the nearest big business to where I live, and it was obvious that just as my marriage and all my sexual relationships have been quietly and unobtrusively eighteenth century, they have been running their business in a quietly and unobtrusively eighteenth century manner. The Cathedral’s magic has failed to work on them.

                  Academia controls the the judges and the bureaucracy, the judges and the bureaucracy control HR, and the Cathedral’s “magic” is to have HR threaten management with hostile environment suits, which is not very magical at all.

                  When Charles the Second took power, he had everyone in a priestly job re-apply for his old job, or for a new job resembling his old job, and at the job interview the re-applicant was asked “will you conform”. Those who declined to conform did not get their jobs back, and if they were stubborn and difficult, worse things, considerably worse, happened to them.

                  Come the restoration, HR will be renamed, and everyone in HR will be invited to re-apply. Nearly everyone will agree to conform, to enforce the new orthodoxy as they enforced the old. Those that don’t will not get their old jobs back. Those that are difficult about losing their old jobs will go to re-education camp in Alaska. Those that are exceptionally difficult will go for a swim in the Pacific.

                • peppermint says:

                  Outside of? Through!

                • Roberto says:

                  CR, instead of repeating yourself, why don’t you provide an example of local capitalists pozzing it up while the state religion is *not* progressivism? If you can prove that capitalists of one’s own tribe push for the poz even while the official state religion is sane and healthy, you’ll prove your point. But if it turns out that capitalists are only on board with the poz when the state religion is progressivism, then Occam’s Razor suggests that Jim is right.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I checked in this morning to see which type of intellectual dishonesty had been used.

                  I was expecting to be primarily misrepresented: some concern troll would pick on an isolated word and amplify its significance in order to pretend I was saying something I blatantly wasn’t.

                  Wow, I was wrong. That wasn’t the tack at all.

                  Instead, Jim and his followers have doubled down on the switcheroo.

                  I talk about massive multinational corporations, and point to the role of very large billionaire entrepreneurs and Wall Street bankers in driving the worst excesses of Antifa and the SJW movement……… and you all respond with……..

                  “Not all Mom & Pop shops are like that”

                  Honest you couldn’t make it up.

                  It’s basically the black crime apologists talking about living next door to Thomas Sowell.

                  Yes, I agree, when small businesses are set up by hard-working normal people, this is not a manifestation of The Cathedral.

                  Wow you must’ve been right all along then. Google and Starbucks are just the same phenomenon but on a slightly larger scale. Nothing else going on there at all.

                  ROFL

                  You people are a bloody joke.

                • jim says:

                  Antifa is funded by George Soros.

                  Who funds George Soros?

                  The business model of George Soros is to buy government debt, whose value is then improved by the US taxpayer bailing out the government in question. His wealth comes directly from government favors, and is then applied to government purposes. If we were in charge, he would fund anti feminism with the same enthusiasm as he funds feminism.

                  Ruling elites who want to do bad things to their own people hire Jews to do bad things to their own people, then if it gets too hot, they say “bad Jews” and expel the Jews. And here you are, not even saying “bad Jews”, but “bad capitalists”

                  Of course a reactionary government would exclude George Soros, and right wing governments have done so – not, however as a capitalist, but as an agent of the US government.

                  Obviously we celebrate Duterte and others taking action against George Soros – but no one thinks Duterte is taking action against capitalists or capitalism.

                  Duterte and rulers like Duterte are taking action to prevent Soros from engaging in political activity in their countries. They make no attempt to interfere in his business activities, because he does not genuinely have any real business activities.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Soros’ activities certainly do include those types of deals, as well as notoriously currency trading and so on.

                  I linked ProPublica, which is the absurdly well-funded doxxing organisation (with an irrelevant media front) responsible for the political imprisonment of the Charlottesville Four.

                  You can observe whatever patterns you want in the ethnic make-up of their funders, but in terms of economics:

                  (I’ve cherrypicked from the directors, leaving out diversity hires and journalists, of which there are several. It’s a COALITION but you already acknowledge the role of academia and the media.)

                  1) Paul Sagan is a managing director at General Catalyst Partners, a venture capital firm that makes early stage and growth equity investments. Previously, he was an executive in residence (XIR) at General Catalyst.

                  Mr. Sagan is also a director of VMware Inc., and previously served as a director of iRobot Corp., as well as Dow Jones & Company, Digitas Inc., EMC Corp., and Maven Networks before they were acquired.

                  2) Herbert Sandler and his late wife, Marion, founded Golden West Financial Corporation in 1963. They were Golden West’s chief executive officers and chairmen of the board from 1963 until 2006, when the company was sold to Wachovia Corporation. Under the Sandlers’ leadership, Golden West became the second-largest thrift institution in the United States and was considered to be one of the best managed financial institutions in the country by many industry observers. Fortune magazine ranked Golden West as the nation’s most admired mortgage services company, and on seven separate occasions named Golden West America’s most admired savings institution.

                  3) Mark M Colodny joined Warburg Pincus in 2001 and is head of the technology, media and telecommunications team. Mr. Colodny also is a member of the firm’s executive management group. Previously, he served as senior vice president of corporate development at Primedia, where he ran the mergers and acquisitions group.

                  4) Robert C.S. Monks is a serial entrepreneur and real estate developer who has founded, led, and grown 19 businesses in the financial services, real estate, technology, and communication sectors.

                  5) Donald Sussman has worked in hedge fund investing for more than thirty-five years and is the Founder and Chief Investment Officer of the Paloma Fund.

                  6) (highlights) Christopher DeLong, Principal, Taconic Capital Advisors LLC

                  Jeff Drubner, President, Versus Financial LLC

                  Sean Fieler, General Partner, Equinox Partners

                  Maria Gotsch, President & CEO, NYC Investment Fund

                  That’s just one such body.

                  Antifa are the shock troopers of Wall Street.

                  You want to paint them as Mom&Pop shops.

                  Meanwhile I know people whose financial woes are entirely due to their consumerist lifestyle, which also happens to be making them sick.

                  You want to pretend that consumerism is unconnected to the actions of globohomo/Cathedral planners: just the free market and free consumers making free choices.

                  I hate that libertarian crap almost as much as I hate the DNC right now.

                • jim says:

                  > Soros’ activities certainly do include those types of deals, as well as notoriously currency trading and so on.

                  Soros’ currency trading is based on inside information provided to him by his state department handlers. Come the restoration, we will politically purge those handlers.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Not much is public about The Guardian but a Google search of its directors reveals some interesting ones:

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

                  “Morris is the managing partner of QED Investors[5] a venture capital firm focused on high-growth companies that leverage the power of data strategies. In addition, he works in an advisory capacity with personalized prepaid debit card provider CARD.com, General Atlantic Partners and Oliver Wyman Consulting. He serves on the board of numerous for-profit companies, including Remitly, Red Ventures, CAN Capital, Media Math, borro, and Prosper.[6] He is also on the boards of National Geographic,[7] ideas42, and the London Business School.

                  Previously, Morris co-founded Capital One Financial Services in 1994. Under Morris’s leadership, Capital One pioneered an information-based strategy that fundamentally transformed the consumer lending industry. Combining advanced statistical marketing techniques with nascent information technologies, the company reduced costs to conventional borrowers, extended capital to overlooked consumers, expanded internationally, and produced extraordinary returns for investors.

                  During Morris’s ten-year tenure, Capital One’s net income after taxes (NIAT) grew at a compound annual rate of more than 32%. Over this same decade, earnings per share growth and return on equity both exceeded 20% per year, a financial performance attained by only a handful of American companies. Upon his retirement in 2004, Capital One’s 15,000 employees across the United States, Canada and the United Kingdom managed over $80 billion of loans for 50 million customers. Generating over $1.5 billion in earnings, Capital One had successfully transitioned from an emerging start-up into an established public company valued at over $20 billion.”

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

                  Secretive NZ businessman. We can assume a successful one lol
                  Deleted entry at Forbes.

                  etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

                  But of course no amount of data will change anything. You’ve proven yourself unwilling to be intellectually honest about any of this.

                  It won’t be long before you start claiming that venture capital, hedge funds, banks and tech data-mining firms aren’t real capitalism.

                • jim says:

                  Venture capitalist funds are capitalism, tech data mining firms are priests, banks are quasi statal instrumentalities, are government bureaucrats, as was demonstrated during the great minority mortgage meltdown, Newspapers are priests. Newspapers are not run at a profit, nor run for profit, thus with a few exceptions, notably the Murdoch group, not capitalism, but rather clergy. They turned into clergy of the state church, starting with the ancestor of AP, and we reactionaries have absolutely no intention of changing this.

                  As I said, come the restoration, we will do to the clergy what Charles the Second did to the clergy, and we will do the banks what Lee Kuan Yew did to the banks. Charles the second created the for-profit joint stock corporation and modern capitalism, and we will restore the capitalism of Charles the Second. Like Lee Kuan Yew, we will fix the financial sector by reining in term transformation, which will make the banks less of a government bureaucracy, and more like capitalism, though genuinely capitalist banks are difficult to achieve, and we are not going to try.

                  Sarbanes-Oxley is destroying the for-profit joint stock corporation, and we will restore the for-profit joint stock corporation.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The Huffington Post’s even more secretive.

                  The best I can find (and I’m not a professional researcher so I just did this on the fly) was this:

                  https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/huffingtonpost#section-investors

                  Top investors:

                  RRE Ventures
                  Oak Investment Partners
                  Softbank Capital
                  Greycroft

                  1) Fred Harman, Managing Partner, joined Oak Investment Partners as a General Partner in 1994. Fred’s primary investment focus is on Consumer Internet and Internet New Media. Fred is currently on the Boards of Aspect Software, Brit Media, Dot & Bo, Demand Media, FRS, Keep Holdings, Limelight Networks, Milyoni, NowThis Media, RazorGator, Rebel Mouse, Social Programming, sovrn, Sutherland Global Services, Thrillist Media Group and U.S. Auto Parts.

                  Fred has also led investments in and/or served on the Boards of aQuantive (acquired by Microsoft), Allyes (acquired by Focus Media), Bleacher Report (acquired by Time Warner), Campus Pipeline (acquired by SCT), Fastclick (acquired by ValueClick), Captura (acquired by Concur), Cobalt (acquired by ADP), Exodus, Huffington Post (acquired by AOL), ILOG, IMS (acquired by Celestica), Inktomi, Knowledge Networks (acquired by GfK), Pivotal, Primus, Qpass (acquired by Amdocs), Sanmina/SCI, and SPSS (acquired by IBM).

                  Prior to Oak, Fred worked for seven years with Morgan Stanley’s Venture Capital Group where he was a General Partner. Prior to Morgan Stanley, Fred worked in Business Development at Hughes Communications where he was involved in the formation of the predecessor to DirecTV.

                  2) William D. Porteous is a General Partner with RRE Ventures. He was previously a principal, having joined the firm as an Associate in 2000. Before joining the venture capital industry, he held senior management positions in marketing and product management with SupplyWorks and NetMarket, the e-commerce pioneer now owned by Cendant Corp. Mr. Porteous is a director of Coldwatt, Electric Cloud, NTM, Softcoin, and Trusted Data and a former director of Frictionless Commerce (acquired by SAP) and Tacit Networks (acquired by PKTR). In addition, he is actively involved in the firm’s investments in Ember and PrimeRevenue. He also serves as an Adjunct Associate Professor at Columbia Business School and as a Director of the Software Division of the Software and Information Industry Association.

                  It goes on and on and on.

                  Capitalism and Marxism are long-time bedfellows and the things they get up to have only been considered normal for a year at most.

                  You’re been duped my friend.

                • peppermint says:

                  > Arianna Huffington’s nonprofit blog
                  > therefore small capitalists must be crushed

                  Seriously, find a smal business that’s causing trouble that’s actually a small business and not an ngo.

                  As to the large businesses… they’re all partly ngo, from the banks and social media companies, to the non-social media tech companies, to the airplane and car companies, to the energy companies, to McDonalds and 711, even to the mining and smelting and building washing machines companies.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You really gotta love the term NGO*…

                  Whoever in the Cathedral came up with that one did it back when they still had a sense of humor (they don’t anymore).

                  * For the dim-witted among us NGOs stand for Non-Government Organization but nearly all of them are covertly arms of the government and generally the worst part of the government… the state church

                • Roberto says:

                  CR chose to ignore this point but I’ll reiterate it: if he can show that rich white males promote leftist causes when the state religion is *not* progressivism, he will at least partly vindicate himself.

                  If, on the other hand, all his examples of rich white males pushing the poz are from times and places of progressivism being the state religion, that will demonstrates that Jim’s position is correct.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The only theoretically leftist cause that rich white men have sometimes promoted in LARGE numbers (you will always get the occasional pozzed capitalist) even AGAINST the state religion was abolitionism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Against my better judgement I’ll humour you.

                  Jim wrote:

                  “Venture capitalist funds are capitalism

                  There’s nuance to this. They’re much more than ‘your tie for my pen writ large’. They’re in effect the planners of the pretend-anarchic society. The people who decide which experimental products receive funding are taking for themselves the role that used to accrue to the institutions of the monarchy.
                  Ultimately it was Josef II who decided whether or not Da Ponte’s plays were fit for the opera theatre. This is the same basic phenomenon.

                  One only needs to look at what it is they’re funding. The pattern is the same as analogous state funding bodies: they’re funding the Cathedral’s causes.

                  I described the funding and control structure of indisputably left-wing organisations: Pro Publica, The Guardian and The Huffington Post.
                  You tried to insinuate that my entire complaint was with the media, and went on to describe the nature of the working parts of those organisations, pretending to miss my point.

                  I won’t stand for it. You know full well that my point was that explicitly and undeniably left-wing institutions were being funded and controlled by capitalists in exactly the same way that explicitly and undeniably capitalistic institutions are controlled by leftists. I’m claiming that it’s a symbiotic relationship, not one based on coercion.

                  “tech data mining firms are priests,”

                  Sure, to a point, but it’s all very blurry.
                  Yes Facebook and Google will monitor what you do and rat you out to the feds, but they’ll also recommend alternatives and extensions to what you’ve been looking at. You Google-search for an office chair and you’ll see a lot of office equipment related ads on Facebook. This is not a controversial claim, it’s common knowledge.

                  ” banks are quasi statal instrumentalities, are government bureaucrats, as was demonstrated during the great minority mortgage meltdown,”

                  They also emerge from capitalist societies like clockwork, as do all the ‘funds’ and ‘foundations’.

                  ” Newspapers are priests. Newspapers are not run at a profit, nor run for profit, thus with a few exceptions, notably the Murdoch group, not capitalism, but rather clergy. They turned into clergy of the state church, starting with the ancestor of AP, and we reactionaries have absolutely no intention of changing this.”

                  You’re circling and trying to make my central claim seem more complicated than it actually is.

                  To reiterate, those ‘priestly’ newspapers are being funded by explicitly capitalistic individuals of their own volition.
                  The previous claim from Javier or someone (I forget who – sorry Javier if it wasn’t you), that capitalists only do this stuff under pressure from the state, is falsified by the evidence I’ve produced.

                  The question then is this: if they’re not acting under duress, why ARE they funding these vile institutions?

                  I’m sorry but the most parsimonious explanation is that they benefit from the depressant effect of mass immigration on wages; they benefit from a dumbed down mulatto population that lives for the moment; they benefit from a society in which solidarity is impossible; they benefit from a society in which the outlier is the norm-setter and the paradigm case is low status; they benefit from a consumer base that lives for easy to produce, easy to sell, highly profitable ‘experiences’ and consumer products; they want fewer old-fashioned reactionary white males because old-fashioned reactionary white males SAVE and look after possessions.

                  There may be subtler, more interesting explanations, but when you have Occam’s Razor at your throat, the best explanation is not that the Masons are conspiring to play 4D chess with the Triads behind the scenes.

                  “As I said, come the restoration, we will do to the clergy what Charles the Second did to the clergy, and we will do the banks what Lee Kuan Yew did to the banks. Charles the second created the for-profit joint stock corporation and modern capitalism, and we will restore the capitalism of Charles the Second.”

                  And they will fund whomsoever they see fit, because your Charles 2b does not have the right to mess with them, for as yet unspecified reasons (insert “Marxist! Leftist! Muh shibboleths!” here).

                  “Like Lee Kuan Yew, we will fix the financial sector by reining in term transformation, which will make the banks less of a government bureaucracy, and more like capitalism, though genuinely capitalist banks are difficult to achieve, and we are not going to try.”

                  A legitimate programme, but ours is simply to ban usury and view extreme accumulations of capital with suspicion. Nationalism without socialism is like gin without tonic.
                  If power is to be held by a leader tasked with prioritising the health of the nation-state, there cannot be challengers with the power of a Bill Gates, ready to raise an invader army.

                  “Sarbanes-Oxley is destroying the for-profit joint stock corporation, and we will restore the for-profit joint stock corporation.”

                  Whereas we will outlaw it. Capital should flow to where it’s needed, not where algorithms and activist investors plan it to go.
                  That means markets, not capitalism, which I once sneered at as a ‘left-libertarian’ idea. Now I see the wisdom for it, but from the exact opposite pole as those imbeciles.

                  We need to rein in the power of money because if we don’t, it comes to dominate the society.

                  Whereas the Left opposes that because the Left wants to impose an egalitarian aristocracy (leading to endless violent outbursts as the inherent contradiction’s effects are felt at every step), the distant Right opposes it because One folk needs One state, which requires ONE leader, not an ever-changing meritocratic parliament of the hubristic and cunning.

                  Roberto is asking for a red pill and I’m going to give it him:

                  “rich white males [do not, I predict,] promote leftist causes when the state religion is *not* progressivism”

                  I’m not going to fall into the trap of choosing a time and place when the state religion was something else, because I already know in advance you’ll nit-pick and obfuscate, as you always do.

                  Instead I’ll simplify. Billionaire white males will engineer society to match whatever their personal vision is, but here’s the rub: by sheer coincidence, it always benefits *them*.

                  Again, immigration means lower wages and greater demand for housing. It also means a larger consumer-base.
                  Brown people means higher time preference, which means a higher velocity of trade.
                  This benefits government as well, but everything government does benefits billionaire white males. Every ‘gib’ is transformed into purchases, every wage subsidy benefits those under-paying those workers, every ‘service’ is one the worker doesn’t have to pay for – and every penny they have comes from billionaire white males, so once again: lower wage bills and higher turn-over.
                  A multicultural society will compete group against group, and is incapable of resisting the impulse to ‘scabbery’: you whites won’t take a pay cut? The ‘stanis will, the gypsies will, the newcomers will. To them it’s a raise.

                  etc. etc. etc.

                  [this is where Jim spits the dummy, accuses me of wasting bandwidth and/or repeating myself and removes the offending true statement of fact]

                  Capitalism is inherently opposed to the orderly Western society. It always has been and it always will be. The task for a true leader is to harness the beneficial aspects of trade, including at a corporate scale, while guarding against the competing power that over-concentrated wealth creates.
                  A good leader will always jealously guard the kingdom and the kingdom’s interests, and will NEVER submit to higher powers, such as the idea that a capitalist has been productive and hence must know best, so the leader cannot interfere when the capitalist does X or Y.
                  No, the leader can do whatever he wants, and controlling the capitalist is a very important part of his central mandate.

                  Anyone can control the slaves and it’s not especially hard to control the workers.

                  What’s hard is controlling the man with the potential to change the world.

                • jim says:

                  I won’t stand for it. You know full well that my point was that explicitly and undeniably left-wing institutions were being funded and controlled by capitalists i

                  Funded, sure, controlled not so much. Looks to me that the tale wags the dog. The priesthood display the arrogance of priests. If they were employees, would be somewhat humbler.

                  As Ted Koppel says “We have become so arrogant that people long to see us taken down a peg”

                  They act arrogant, their supposed employers tremble in fear before their supposed employees.

                  Similarly, consider the white house press corps. Nominally employed by private entities, but not actually employed by, and quite certainly not controlled by, private entities.

                  It is absolutely obvious that the nominal employers of the white house press corps kneel down before them trembling in fear and kiss their feet.

                • jim says:

                  > everything government does benefits billionaire white males.

                  Not what I see. I see the rich hated, terrorized, and grovelling in fear.

                  The world you describe is the world described by old type marxists. It is and was surrealistically unreal and absurd, as absurd today as it was then.

                  Your explanations of why globohomo policies supposedly benefit the rich are as contrived, artificial, and improbable as the troofer explanations of how the towers fell

                  Compare Zuckerberg’s body language with the body language of the white house press corps. It is absolutely obvious who rules and who is ruled.

                • jim says:

                  The poster boy for evil capitalist globo homo overlord is George Soros.

                  And around the world, governments that reactionaries enthusiastically support are taking action against George Soros, which actions we also enthusiastically support.

                  And precisely none of them are taking any action against his business interests.

                  Zero.

                  None

                  Zilch

                  Because he does not actually have any genuine private business interests. He is not actually a private businessman at all.

                  Poster boy principle applies: If George Soros is left wing capitalist, if the influence of George Soros is the influence of left wing capitalism, if George Soros is left wing capitalist power, there is no left wing capitalists, there is no left wing capitalist power. If left capitalism existed, the rulers of countries that are doing something about George Soros would be doing something about left capitalism.

                  I support what Duterte and Viktor Orban are doing about George Soros. And what they are doing is the diametric opposite of what you propose. You propose to empower priests over merchants. They are disempowering priests. You propose to enforce holiness. They attack holiness.

                • peppermint says:

                  You want a virtue signal, expressed by capitalists as a class, that isn’t part of the state religion.

                  Thanks to Jim’s work over the past decade, this sounds like a contradiction in terms.

                  If CR is right that the capitalist class is more than the class of people who are capitalists, he can find one.

                • peppermint says:

                  > Anyone can control the slaves and it’s not especially hard to control the workers.

                  > What’s hard is controlling the man with the potential to change the world

                  If you were in power, I didn’t have a respectable job, and your goons tried to shut me down for selling a donut, I would loudly explain why you’re wrong and a jerk.

                  If I had a respectable job, I would apologize to your cops for wasting their time.

                  If I was a CEO, I would sell fresh organic vegetables at a soy plastic table and hand out pamphlets about how harmful donuts are.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re totally gaslit. It’s sad. So open-minded but so trapped within the kosher sandwich.

                  “Your explanations of why globohomo policies supposedly benefit the rich are as contrived, artificial, and improbable as the troofer explanations of how the towers fell”

                  Any supporting argument, let alone evidence for this?
                  If the supply of labour increases, does the price of it not fall? Is not the dark secret of the minimum wage law precisely that without it, the price of labour in many parts of the US would conform to the going rate in Guatemala?

                  Is it untrue to claim that ethnic solidarity makes it easier for people to organise for higher pay, and ethnic competition makes it harder, because the other tribe will do what ingroup ‘scabs’ refuse to?
                  Isn’t it obvious on the face of it that a common pro-immigration trope is “to do the work the natives refuse to do?”
                  What they fail to append is [at the rate we’re willing to pay them].

                  Isn’t it perfectly obvious that blacks/browns have higher time preference? Don’t people with higher time preference blow all their money instead of saving it?
                  How is saving good for a billionaire who wants to sell garbage? Oh of course, loans to business are made from savings ROFL sure, the savings account of someone earning $100k is what produces the debt bubbles in America – get real.

                  Don’t extra bodies keep house prices high? Supply and demand.

                  Peppermint:

                  “> Arianna Huffington’s nonprofit blog
                  > therefore small capitalists must be crushed”

                  Smoking gun switcheroo of deliberate intellectual dishonesty. Are you going to defend it Jim?

                  You’ve repeated that claim yourself many times but there’s no excuse in this thread because it’s been declared explicitly and repeatedly NOT to be the case.

                  It’s just lazy straw man bs. Aren’t you better than that?
                  I know Peppermint isn’t, but he’s a cretin. He doesn’t know any better.
                  He wants to WIN. He doesn’t care about the truth. Is that your purpose also? Lie and cheat until you can claim that technically you kinda won, in a way.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Do you know what the saddest part of all this is?

                  The main victims of globohomo are small business owners.

                  I’ll tell you a story and I may have told it here before but I don’t know. Either way it’s extremely relevant. It’s from the UK but I’m sure there will be American equivalents. If not, they’re coming to a town near you very soon.

                  My grandfather once told me the supermarkets were price gouging with a view to future hikes. “Just you wait”.
                  He was completely wrong.

                  As the Mises guys will tell you, the Robber Barons slashed prices, sure, but they never got to raise them because the second they tried, ‘the’ competition they thought they’d destroyed reappeared in the form of new entrants. The price system will not allow ‘monopolists’ to do any such thing and get away with it.

                  Hence anarcho-capitalism, right? ^^

                  Well, the supermarkets won in the end, you wanna know how?

                  They realised their size had an important upside in the environment of a large intrusive regulatory state. (Use your imagination, libertarians: would a fully private regulator be guaranteed different? Would a covenant community? But I digress, and I don’t expect you to think critically or flexibly.)

                  What’s the nature of that advantage?

                  (((Evidence 1)))
                  ******************

                  Simple: regulations hurt small businesses more than large ones.

                  Notoriously, corporate bodies are consulted during the formation of new regulations. The tobacco industry was consulted under the Cameron government in the 2010s as to whether advertising was as bad as everyone said in leading people to smoke. They also consulted the various outlets, in particular the supermarkets and garages.

                  The consultation concluded that plain packaging for tobacco products was a powerful tool in reducing tobacco take-up. (We can form our own opinions as to the truth of this, but again it’s a separate discussion. The case can be made that difficulty in brand differentiation harms the buying strategy of “don’t care, whatever’s cheapest” because it opens the door to smart tricks with the weights and measures – separate discussion.)

                  Crucially, it was found insufficient. To be absolutely sure the advertising effect of packaging was neutralised, the products must be HIDDEN FROM VIEW. Steel shutters are now mandatory.

                  (((Evidence 2)))
                  ******************

                  Minimum wage laws weren’t sufficient. Workplaces must also have mandatory employee pension schemes, crucially applying IN ALL CASES, even if it’s just one person working under 10 hours a week. Every employer must hire an accountant to deal with the bureaucratic nightmare that is the government’s mandatory employer pension system.

                  (((Evidence 3)))
                  *********************

                  “Think 25” for tobacco and alcohol products mandates that retailers must check the age of everyone who doesn’t look 25, before selling them 18+ products.
                  This will deter marginal customers refusing to show (or obtain) proof of age ID.

                  My Conclusion
                  *****************

                  The cost of all this has made it totally impossible for ‘corner shops’ to exist. In 2018 there simply ARE NONE. There are corporate chains such as ‘Mace’ and ‘Premier’, owned by, you guessed it: the supermarkets.
                  The supermarkets finally achieved the victory they were unable to gain on the free market, by using the tools at their disposal: the power that comes from being a big player capable of absorbing shocks, combined with the privilege (ROFL) that comes from having the state’s ear.

                  I should add that the disparate racial impact of this makes it slightly less offensive to me, but only slightly: another discussion and we don’t need a digression with this.

                  (((Your Conclusion)))
                  **********************

                  It was the government. They wanted to do this mad Cathedral crap all along and the supermarkets are still victims of it, bearing the burden of the cost of the regulations (that they colluded on and lobbied for).
                  In a free market society, or a Charles 2b restoration, this could never happen because the regulators would either not exist or else would be privately owned non-monopoly voluntary service providers.

                  The Walmarts of the world are laughing all the way to the bank, but what do they really achieve with this new power?

                  Cultural hegemony: their SJW campaigns are now universal. If they want to push mixed race couples in their Christmas Ads, as they notoriously did last year (this year we shall see soon enough), you will not be able to escape from it.

                  It was the CAPITALISTS who wanted this, and the public-private partnership was the only way they could achieve victory, so that’s how they did it.

                  What does government have to gain from having the supermarkets control the corner shops?
                  More obedient, easier to control partners.
                  But why are they so obedient and easy to control?
                  Because they’re part of the team – not a small part either. They’re gaining the kind of wealth that ought to be impossible, and with it comes a power that has apologists like you people insisting it IS NO POWER!

                  In fact you regard them as victims ROFL

                  As for Zuckerberg’s autistic demeanour, you think he gives a damn at the end of the day? He has a stressful and distasteful job. No shit Shylock.
                  Would you do a stressful and distasteful job for 59.7 billion dollars as of right now according to Google?

                  GROW UP, SERIOUSLY.

                • Roberto says:

                  CR, you’ve never actually established that it’s the capitalists who pull the strings behind the immigration policies of pozzed countries. Japan, Israel, and Eastern Europeans prove that it’s governments, not billionaires, that control immigration. More generally, I asked you to prove that free enterprise is the cause of leftism, and all I got was evasions and declarations that the matter has already been proven, which is absolutely false.

                  You are simply trying to sneak these presuppositions past the reader, troofer-style.

                  You have not proven that capitalism *causes* leftism. You say that you did, but that’s a lie. All you ever actually asserted about the matter, repetitiously, was that “capitalists benefit from high time preference and low ethnic solidarity.” That may or may not be so, but is impertinent to the question of where leftism actually comes from in the first place.

                  Leftism is obviously not caused by free enterprise, as *you admitted yourself* previously; the notion that “capitalists are behind the poz” is typical old school Marxist propaganda. You are zigzagging about the topic without committing yourself to any concrete argument about who exactly is causing leftism and how they are doing it. (Perhaps you just need more time to “make up your mind,” i.e. decide which lie has the best chance to convince us to hate the rich)

                  I also pointed out examples of you proposing that home-made food preparation should replace restaurants generally, not just global chains. You now say that you don’t want to ban “mom & pop” small businesses, but your mask has slipped a long time ago: you *do* want to ban some small businesses, because you want to protect 90 IQ profligate gluttons from gluten.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Smoking gun switcheroo number 2!

                  Jim writes:

                  “Poster boy principle applies: If George Soros is left wing capitalist, if the influence of George Soros is the influence of left wing capitalism, if George Soros is left wing capitalist power, there is no left wing capitalists, there is no left wing capitalist power. If left capitalism existed, the rulers of countries that are doing something about George Soros would be doing something about left capitalism.

                  I support what Duterte and Viktor Orban are doing about George Soros. And what they are doing is the diametric opposite of what you propose. You propose to empower priests over merchants. They are disempowering priests. You propose to enforce holiness. They attack holiness.”

                  I already named multiple venture capitalists who cannot be described in this way, so instead of arguing in good faith, you beat down the Straw Man that is George Soros.

                  I’m not ready to concede that George Soros is NOT a capitalist, but even if, for the sake of argument, I concede that he’s some weird kind of de facto arm of the ‘international community’ or whatever, that doesn’t apply to the many people I already named as voluntary funders of outlets such as ProPublica and The Huffington Post.

                  It also doesn’t dispel the actions of capitalist organisations such as Tesco, handing out free fruit inside their stores under a poster of a black child. (I saw my first banana skin placed straight on top of goods on a shelf today. Predicted it from day one.)

                  You haven’t got a legitimate argument to show that capitalists aren’t

                  A) funding the worst left-wing organisations
                  B) benefiting from globohomo
                  or
                  C) behaving as SJWs themselves

                  so instead you pretend you think I’m specifically talking about George Soros and using George Soros alone to justify closing down Mom&Pop stores.

                  It’s pathetic, and weak.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  If the supply of labour increases, does the price of it not fall? Is not the dark secret of the minimum wage law precisely that without it, the price of labour in many parts of the US would conform to the going rate in Guatemala?

                  The proof that you’re a communist (and a not too bright one at that) just keeps pouring in every time you post.

                  Labor is paid at marginal productivity – period. Of course you don’t know that because Marxist economics predates an understanding of marginal rates.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto writes:

                  Actually before I quote, let’s open with an ad hominem attack instead. You’ve done it so I’m going to do it back. Tu quoque fallacy for good measure: you’re a disgusting race traitor who wants to murder white people and I regard you as an enemy.

                  OK here goes, treating scum with dignity because it’s late and it seems I’ve been drawn in.

                  “CR, you’ve never actually established that it’s the capitalists who pull the strings behind the immigration policies of pozzed countries.”

                  See the many venture capitalists who fund ProPublica, The Guardian and The Huffington Post, detailed above with verifiable links.
                  Add that to the fact that pure capitalists (such as the supermarkets, the high street banks, the restaurants, the music and tech industries, etc. etc. etc.) push that agenda in their propaganda and you can’t say the latter are doing it under coercion.
                  If the latter are being coerced, how are the former also being coerced to voluntarily fund left-wing newspapers?

                  It doesn’t stand up.

                  The capitalists want the immigration because it lowers their costs and increases their revenue.

                  It’s not rocket science. You do NOT get the default credit in this situation. With motive and track record proven, the onus is on YOU to demonstrate they’re being coerced.

                  “Japan, Israel, and Eastern Europeans prove that it’s governments, not billionaires, that control immigration.”

                  Trivially yes. Japan and Israel you can completely ignore because they’re not the intended victims of immigration population replacement.
                  Eastern Europe is subject to sanctions as we speak. Yes technically they’re winning right now, but it’s not at all clear that state of affairs will continue, and who’s pushing against them?

                  Venture capitalist funded organisations in partnership with globohomo.
                  If capitalism wanted to, it could take the side of the emerging nationalist-populist axis.

                  It doesn’t because it doesn’t want to.

                  “More generally, I asked you to prove that free enterprise is the cause of leftism, and all I got was evasions and declarations that the matter has already been proven, which is absolutely false.”
                  “You have not proven that capitalism *causes* leftism.”

                  I have never claimed any such thing, as well you know.
                  What I said was that capitalism is AN IMPORTANT PART of globohomo/The-Cathedral, and that it benefits from and agitates for mass immigration, the fragmentation of society (including the gay agenda) and the destruction of healthy institutions and traditions.
                  This is not the same as claiming that capitalism is the cause of leftism.

                  On the contrary, capitalism is the RESULT of leftism!

                  I assume the claim you’re pretending not to understand is that laissez-faire leads to socialism.
                  The evidence for this is very simple: look at ANY country that ever tried laissez-faire in the past – today it’s social democratic and has the mass franchise.

                  Hong Kong and Singapore are well on the way to this, and we shall see what happens with the rest of Asia. The poster boy is the United States.

                  How does capitalism lead to socialism praxeologically/thymologically?
                  Workers suffer under what Carlyle called ‘the vagabond principle’.
                  They then observe that their employers, who are not aristocrats or feudal lords, get a say in what happens in the country, including the (existing prior to capitalism) Poor Laws and so on.
                  They perceive the situation as unjust, so they agitate to change it. First they want the vote, in order to ‘improve’ the Poor Laws: then they want what the bourgeoisie has in other areas of life.

                  It’s as predictable as night following day, which is a decent analogy as a matter of fact.

                  In case you’re tempted to ‘misunderstand’, I’m calling socialism the night part, hence WORSE THAN CAPITALISM.

                  ” “capitalists benefit from high time preference and low ethnic solidarity.” That may or may not be so, but is impertinent to the question of where leftism actually comes from in the first place.”

                  ROFL it ‘may or may not be so’ that capitalists prefer more sales to fewer, and scabs to unions?
                  I thought you were an Austrian. Why on Earth would they NOT prefer those things?

                  Leftism is just entropy, destruction, evil, lack of leadership and lack of wisdom. It’s the impulse to dismantle existing states of order, and the fact thereof.

                  Capitalism is nothing more than the dismantling of the previous order (feudal mercantilist protectionism dictated by the aristocracy and ultimately the monarch) to be replaced with a free-for-all devoid of silly rules and (crucially) privileges.

                  “You are zigzagging about the topic without committing yourself to any concrete argument about who exactly is causing leftism and how they are doing it. (Perhaps you just need more time to “make up your mind,” i.e. decide which lie has the best chance to convince us to hate the rich)”

                  I’ve been completely consistent.
                  Capitalism IS leftism from the perspective of a Tory in 1800 and it leads logically to modern liberalism by the reasoning I just explained: first the newly impoverished parts of the peasantry want the same voting rights as their new employers, then they want better gibs and guarantees.

                  If you think about it for more than a second, it’s perfectly obvious that in a world without a job for life, you’re GOING TO want welfare and state pensions and free healthcare.
                  Why WOULDN’T YOU?

                  “I also pointed out examples of you proposing that home-made food preparation should replace restaurants generally, not just global chains.”

                  I agree that would be preferable. Wives, not waiters.

                  “You now say that you don’t want to ban “mom & pop” small businesses, but your mask has slipped a long time ago: you *do* want to ban some small businesses, because you want to protect 90 IQ profligate gluttons from gluten.”

                  Only a libertarian could so utterly conflate a family-owned business with a global corporation.
                  When the only restaurants available to the masses were family-owned, the food was cheaper and better.
                  People only spend a day’s labour on a shitty meal in a chain restaurant when they’re demoralised and gaslit.

                  I’ve already gone over the conditions required for this situation, one of which is poverty, perversely: the man who cannot afford $1000 rent may yet have $300 left over, and when he can’t save it (due to inflation and the immensity of the ‘goal’) he’ll spend it in ways that help him cling to his remaining dignity.

                  It’s a highly coherent and consistent critique of capitalism from the right, yet at every step people like you, who hate the white race and love the venture capitalists who control Antifa, misrepresent it and pretend not to understand, so that the whole thing can be made to look complicated and far-fetched.

                  It’s not, it’s simple: laissez-faire ended the job for life. When workers saw this, they wanted equal footing with the people who stopped adequately paying them all year round. When they got that equal footing (mass democracy), demagoguery really took off, leading to what we see today.
                  The capitalists want to win in their struggle with these silly upstarts, just as they wanted to win in their ‘glorious’ (in the 1688 sense) struggle against the aristocracy.

                  They were leftists from the beginning, and what idiots like you can’t comprehend is that they never stopped being leftists.

                  They fund all the left-wing groups.

                  They participate in all the left-wing agendas.

                  They benefit from all the left-wing agendas.

                  It’s incredibly simple and obvious to anyone who isn’t completely brainwashed by years of carefully designed propaganda.

                  On the left, everything’s someone else’s fault so just give the socialist aristocracy enough power to bring about equality.
                  On the right, forego the one tool you have to resist: state power.

                • jim says:

                  Your explanations of how capitalism and capitalists benefit from poz are transparent nonsense unworthy of rebuttal.

                  The fact that priestly institutions are nominally owned by people who are supposedly capitalists is no indication that capitalists are pulling the strings. Observe the arrogance of Times reporters paid with status rather than money, and the terror in the eyes of Zuckerberg. Also recollect capitalists grovelling in abject terror before the white house press pool that they supposedly own.

                  And observe how those who actually are combating the poz are going after the poz. Duterte and Orban are going after Soros as an abbot of the enemy religion, not as a capitalist – because he is not a capitalist and has no genuine capitalist institutions for them to go after.

                  Merchants have never had power. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, and the problem is that priests have gotten out of hand. You propose to fix this by increasing the supremacy of priests and escalating the holiness spiral.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Steve Johnson:

                  “Labor is paid at marginal productivity – period. Of course you don’t know that because Marxist economics predates an understanding of marginal rates.”

                  You’re a gaslit libertarian.

                  You’ve been told these same stories over and over until you’ve remembered them, and you’ve identified the appropriate circumstance to repeat that particular one.

                  The problem with your toy model is that built into it is an assumption of a stable labour SUPPLY.

                  To show you how this works, substitute a different commodity instead of labour.

                  You’re someone who buys apples. If you underpay for your apples, someone else will snap up the best ones because if my beautiful tree is making really nice apples, and your price offered isn’t the highest I can get, I’ll go somewhere else. That new buyer is willing to pay more, but once the market clearing intersection of supply and demand is met, there will not be subsequent buyers willing to pay more.
                  Thus the ‘true price’ of my particular apple (remember no indifference and no homogeneity: we’re Austrians) is equal to the price of my marginal apple – the next apple I can bring to market and manage to sell it.

                  Now imagine my next door neighbour buys one of my apples and plants a tree with it. Then another, then a whole orchard.

                  The crappy apple vendor will probably go bankrupt (absent some price controls analogous to the minimum wage but that’s a red pill you’re maybe not ready for so let’s not think wrong thoughts just yet!) first, but after that the supply of my apples (including my neighbour’s knock-offs) will be too high to command the prices it did before.
                  I have two choices: sit on my apples and stubbornly refuse to sell to the lower bidding buyer, or gradually and strategically reduce the prices until the market clears.

                  If I’m not completely deranged, I’ll do the latter. If I do the former, my apples will rot (analogous to people starving to death).

                  INCREASING THE SUPPLY OF APPLES WILL REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE MARGINAL APPLE CETERIS PARIBUS

                  Apples aren’t exactly the same as labour but in the toy model that only thinks in terms of supply and demand, they’re identical and interchangeable with labour.

                  In fact they’re a pretty good analogue for labour because both are ultimately perishable if not sold.

                  Robert P Murphy is not your friend. He’s the friend of big oil. Just watch how he talks to the little people. Very patronising.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim:

                  “Your explanations of how capitalism and capitalists benefit from poz are transparent nonsense unworthy of rebuttal”

                  I notice you’re strategically saying “poz” rather than “immigration”.

                  I’m not going to limit myself to discussions of homosexuality, promiscuity and the death of family church and community just because you played a clever trick with words.

                  The principal benefit to capitalists is immigration:

                  1) Increased supply of, and hence lower marginal price of, labour
                  2) Increased demand for consumer goods (by virtue of there being more consumers)
                  3) Consumers apt to spend rather than save their money
                  4) Increased demand for housing, benefiting the present holders of real estate

                  These are very far from ‘unsubstantiated’, but since I’m in a virtuoso mood, I’ll answer the ‘poz’ question AS WELL.

                  Capitalist benefit from sexual and social degeneracy as follows in a non-exhaustive list:

                  1) Stable family units lead organically to habits of saving and looking after possessions. The focus is on the future, the grandchildren and beyond.
                  2) Following from the above, strong communities will share key possessions and favour behaviours which make the stable family better off. Someone behaving contrary to the good of stable families will be ostracised in a strong community. In a weak, atomised community, they’ll be treated with either indifference or else celebrated as individuals par excellence.
                  3) Multiple weddings, divorces and other expensive events are better than single weddings and no divorces.
                  4) Expanding the definition of ‘couple’ to include homosexuals is better than having homosexuals live as benevolent aunts and uncles contributing to a long-term stable family.
                  5) Religious institutions foster a long term perspective based on values which transcend immediate gratification. A secular society says “live for today because life is meaningless and tomorrow you may be dead: you can’t take it with you”.
                  6) Degeneracy is expensive. Eating potato and peas is cheap but snorting cocaine off a hooker’s stomach is expensive.
                  7) People who have no interest in family or community have an interest in enjoying themselves. Very few church secretaries living in multigenerational family homes will spend $100 having their nails done every few weeks.
                  8) People with a strong sense of commitment to a stable community have little interest in the far-away and exotic, resulting in fewer holidays and trips abroad, and more limited (hence more competitive and less profitable) markets for novelties.

                  and so on, and on.

                  Only a gaslit libertarian could deny this.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Trivially yes. Japan and Israel you can completely ignore because they’re not the intended victims of immigration population replacement.

                  If third world immigration were a capitalist plot, the incentive for it would be the same in these countries as in America and Europe. It is not, because third world immigration is not a capitalist plot.

                  >I thought you were an Austrian. Why on Earth would they NOT prefer those things?

                  It is not obvious to me that capitalists benefit from third world immigration, feminism, and faggotry. But even if capitalists benefit from third world immigration, feminism, and faggotry, that does not mean that they are the ones who brought about this state of affairs. One doesn’t magically will things into existence. You may argue that capitalists lobby governments to embrace niggers, trannies, etc., but I don’t see you even attempting to make that argument. You literally say “capitalists benefit from X, therefore they cause X.” Ridiculous.

                  >I agree that would be preferable. Wives, not waiters.

                  That’s the thing, it’s not about wives vs. waiters, it’s about your desire to ban restaurants, both chain ones and ‘mom & pop’ ones, because psychologically you are a nanny. You have the same mentality as Angela Merkel, only expressed slightly differently. Anyway, I proved my point: your beef is not with “globalism” per se, but with the results of free enterprise in general, both large scale and small scale. So your “switcheroo” meme is disingenuous, and you’re a liar.

                  >People only spend a day’s labour on a shitty meal in a chain restaurant when they’re demoralised and gaslit.

                  “Demoralized,” “gaslit.” Your shibboleths are too obvious, comrade. A bit more nuance would go a long way.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto:

                  “If third world immigration were a capitalist plot, the incentive for it would be the same in [Japan] as in America and Europe.” [I am in Europe so FY with the other thing]

                  Not so. Asians are different to Europeans. Whites are the threat to globohomo. It’s whites that organise and rebel; it’s whites that think long term and it’s whites that have a track record of resisting degenerate tyrannical shit-hole societies.
                  Japanese people are too honour-bound to do any of that, and have a track record of enduring great hardship with stoic resignation.
                  Bear in mind also that in order for globohomo to function, it requires high IQ people in small numbers to keep the machines running.
                  Asians are the perfect choice: obedient, physically weak, temperamentally docile yet smart enough to keep the lights on without being creative enough to turn the machines against the owners.

                  “It is not obvious to me that capitalists benefit from third world immigration, feminism, and faggotry. But even if capitalists benefit from third world immigration, feminism, and faggotry, that does not mean that they are the ones who brought about this state of affairs. One doesn’t magically will things into existence. You may argue that capitalists lobby governments to embrace niggers, trannies, etc., but I don’t see you even attempting to make that argument.”

                  I am making precisely that argument. Blacks are consumers of the very highest order. Give a negro a thousand dollars and it’ll be gone by tea-time. They love their Jordans. If I were in the retail business I’d make black people my number one priority.

                  Are you seriously arguing that increasing the prevalence of gender transition in society isn’t good for the bottom line? ROFL
                  What, hormones, make-up, two sets of clothing and expensive operations just grow on trees?

                  That the hell’s wrong with you idiots!

                  See my response to Jim for an explanation of how immigration and poz benefit capitalism.

                  “ban restaurants, both chain ones and ‘mom & pop’ ones”

                  Nothing I have EVER said can justify that claim.
                  In this very conversation, I’ve openly and very clearly stated that in the status quo ante family-owned restaurants were cheaper and healthier than what we have today.
                  I can envisage there being a role for family-owned restaurants in a healthy society: a small role, for sure, because people would naturally favour keeping their spare resources for the family and cooking their own damn food, but for ‘special occasions’, sure why not.

                  Those chains we see under globohomo? Get out of here. In point of fact they make life HARDER for family-owned restaurants. It’s virtually impossible to open an independent family restaurant in towns with chain restaurants and immigrant take-aways.

                  “your beef is not with “globalism” per se, but with the results of free enterprise in general”

                  I’ve never claimed otherwise! I want to pretty much abolish ‘capitalism’.
                  Laissez-faire in labour has to end, as does the assumption that anything voluntary goes when it comes to the marketplace. Absolutely not: we need societal standards and we need the old feudal guild system. We need mercantilism and we need very pronounced protectionism.

                  We need an economy structured around family and community, saving and long-term planning, around pride in the nation and the importance of the community above the individual whims of the consumer in the moment.

                  The switcheroo is not in you claiming I think THAT: I DO think that!
                  The switcheroo is when you describe the behaviour of a family-owned restaurant in order to justify Franky and Benny!

                  “Your shibboleths are too obvious, comrade. A bit more nuance would go a long way.”

                  Oh I love the language of the left: gloriously aristocratic! Nationalism without socialism is gin without tonic.

                  Stop and think for a moment: the left, all of it – the intrusive regulations, the punitive taxes, the disrespect for freedom and property, the intersectionality, the privilege theory, the social constructivism – MINUS EQUALITY AND DEMOCRACY???????????

                  HELL YES!

                  Take away equality and democracy as principles and all that stuff becomes ARISTOCRACY!

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “You literally say “capitalists benefit from X, therefore they cause X.” ”

                  No no, it’s much stronger than that.

                  Capitalists benefit in multiple ways (as demonstrated and nobody’s shown how it’s wrong according to classical micro-economics) but they also fund the propaganda organs that agitate for it AND they propagandise for it themselves.

                  Your (collective) theory has always been they propagandise for it under duress: do they FUND it under duress too? ROFL
                  Do they BENEFIT from it under duress?

                  Seriously grow up.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In anticipation of the next Straw Man, it’s crucial to be clear: I’m not substituting ‘capitalism’ for ‘The Cathedral’. I’m not claiming the profit motive, rather than progressive politics, is the driving force of the evils of our time; neither am I claiming that the profit motive created the left-wing way of seeing the world (equality, democracy, etc.).

                  What I’m claiming is that capitalism works as an important part of The Cathedral, or globohomo gayplex.

                  The other parts are a corrupt political order subject to vote-buying AND to checks&balances;
                  a media-academia complex creating new true believers;
                  a population dumbed down and bought&paid for by the state and brainwashed by lifelong state education.

                  When Moldbug said “America Is A Communist Country” he wasn’t wrong at all.
                  He just forgot to include ‘corporate America’ as one of the communist organs.

                  The main reason capitalists fund The Guardian isn’t that it benefits capitalism to have immigration and poz – though I’m claiming that benefit is real – the real reason they’re doing it is because THEY WANT TO: THEY BELIEVE IT ALL TOO.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  You’re a gaslit libertarian.

                  You’re an entrist Marxist liar. You praise peppermint and denigrate everyone else hoping that he’ll ingroup you and oppose everyone else for you. He rebuffs you so you try the same trick with Jim – you’ll fail there and try it again with someone else.

                  The problem with your toy model is that built into it is an assumption of a stable labour SUPPLY.

                  To show you how this works, substitute a different commodity instead of labour.

                  You’re someone who buys apples.

                  Immediately wrong and demonstration that you don’t even understand the concepts being applied. Labor is a factor of production – an apple is a consumer good. Substitution in consumer goods is along the lines of how well particular goods meet subjective preferences – there are no real rules there – only the consumer can decide if one good is a substitute for another. Substitution in factors of production is a cold calculus of how much output each added input adds – period. Try to underpay for your factors of production and someone else will bid them away from you – whether the factor is labor or drill presses.

                  Immigration is a separate issue that you get completely wrong because you are a leftist, hence incapable of understanding microeconomics. If Guatemalan laborers could do the same work as Americans only cheaper then a reasonable king would import Guatemalans because it makes his realm and his family property more valuable. They can’t and their importation is a massive cost that the state bears so it gets more clients for welfare agencies and more votes for Democrats. Sure, once they’re here they’ll get jobs and buy things and the way people work mean that whole classes of jobs will be done by Guatemalans because of network effects.

                  Arguing with you is like talking to a wall because you don’t even acknowledge counterargument, you just repeat the same charges. Jim should ban you so you can finally make good on your constant promises to stop commenting here.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  When Moldbug said “America Is A Communist Country” he wasn’t wrong at all.
                  He just forgot to include ‘corporate America’ as one of the communist organs.

                  Yeah “forgot” – how helpful of you to remind us that the man who said this:

                  It is not at all surprising that progressives hate corporations and the profit system. It is a natural consequence of the antipathy to order, the anarchism, the lust for entropic destruction, which is the foundation of their creed.

                  Just “forgot” to end his essays with “workers of the world, unite and install a king who will finally protect you from pizza and ban private swimming pools that those fat cats lord over you”.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Smartypants Steve thinks he knows Mises.

                  You don’t, you’re a retard.

                  “Labor is a factor of production – an apple is a consumer good.”

                  Remember subjectivism: labour is a finished consumer’s good from the standpoint of the labourer!
                  The apple is a factor of production to the farmer growing it. It becomes a finished consumer’s good once it’s brought to market. Its transformation from tree to packaged commodity may be too subtle for you to perceive but that doesn’t change reality.
                  There is no non-porous boundary between a factor of production and a finished good. It’s a difference of function only, and like all functions it hinges on human action, which is subjective.

                  Good nitpick though, made you look like a total tw@t.

                  “Substitution in consumer goods is along the lines of how well particular goods meet subjective preferences – there are no real rules there – only the consumer can decide if one good is a substitute for another. Substitution in factors of production is a cold calculus of how much output each added input adds – period.”

                  So they say, so they say.
                  I’d still hire the blonde though, just sayin’ brah

                  “Try to underpay for your factors of production and someone else will bid them away from you – whether the factor is labor or drill presses.”

                  Correct, the market clearing price is the intersection of the SUPPLY OF the good and the DEMAND FOR the good.
                  Increase the supply and this intersection moves along the downward-sloping demand curve.

                  I have to pinch myself sometimes because this situation’s so damn surreal: I’m arguing FOR micro-101 AGAINST a libertarian ROFL

                  “Immigration is a separate issue that you get completely wrong because you are a leftist, hence incapable of understanding microeconomics. If Guatemalan laborers could do the same work as Americans only cheaper then a reasonable king would import Guatemalans because it makes his realm and his family property more valuable.”

                  What a filthy and despicable thing to say. Shame on you.

                  In all fairness, the case CAN be made that historical European monarchies fell in part because of that cosmopolitan disloyalty. This is not an argument that I’m inclined to *push* in this context because it’s ultimately not particularly important. In the current situation, any sound&healthy leader would by definition NOT take that view, otherwise how would they obtain power over the status quo?

                  Either way, if your restoration is going to be global capitalism, then you’re basically some kind of libertarian, even a warped kind of ancap.

                  “They can’t and their importation is a massive cost that the state bears so it gets more clients for welfare agencies and more votes for Democrats.”

                  ROFL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You sincerely believe that, too, don’t you!
                  The state LOVES welfare! Do state agents not get paid? Do senior state officials not have power&influence to buy&sell within and without globohomo?

                  I’ve said this several times but you haven’t caught on yet: welfare is GREAT for GDP! Not only do the bureaucrats get paid but every penny allocated in welfare payments ends up added to GDP, which means the state can borrow more based on leveraging output, creating even more cushy jobs and even more mouths to feed!

                  “Sure, once they’re here they’ll get jobs and buy things and the way people work mean that whole classes of jobs will be done by Guatemalans because of network effects.”

                  It chills me how comfortable you are with that idea.

                  “Arguing with you is like talking to a wall because you don’t even acknowledge counterargument, you just repeat the same charges.”

                  Not so: I’ve meticulously responded to every single argument made. The sad shame is most of the time they’ve been arguments against things I have not said so I spend half my time saying “no I did not say that” and repeating what I *actually* said, only for the next idiot to respond to an imaginary claim.

                  It’s just like arguing with the left. You have no integrity, you just want to score a ‘gotcha’.

                  “Jim should ban you so you can finally make good on your constant promises to stop commenting here.”

                  Interesting use of the word “promises”. You sound very keen for that to happen, as am I. You people horrify and appal me quite honestly.

                • jim says:

                  > I have to pinch myself sometimes because this situation’s so damn surreal: I’m arguing FOR micro-101 AGAINST a libertarian ROFL

                  You cannot tell the difference between a reactionary and a libertarian because you are a commie

                  > welfare is GREAT for GDP!

                  Commie.

                  Or rather, Keynsian, though from the reactionary point of view, no significant difference.

                  No, Welfare is disastrous for GDP, and reactionaries do not believe that GDP is a reliable indicator or measure of wealth anyway – see my frequent references to first world poverty.

                  The trouble is that you take for granted all every point of leftist doctrine as something that all right thinking people know and agree with, so you don’t actually have to argue for Marxism, just tell us we are ignorant for our failure to agree with it.

                  > I’ve meticulously responded to every single argument made.

                  By simply re-asserting your claims, as if the only reason anyone could disagree with Marxism, cultural Marxism, and progressive doctrine is sheer ignorance, and all you have to do is remind us that we are ignorant and everyone knows Marxism is true.

                  For example, to defend your argument that capitalists are running things, you point to capitalists who have some connection to priests and say “Since capitalists, obviously the capitalists must be telling the priests what to do”, which is not something that a reactionary is likely to think is an argument, or at all plausible.

                  If you look at all the videos on political correctness in the workplace, both humorous and serious, both for it or against it, none of them suggest that the CEO will come down on you for “racism” or “sexual harassment” – they all tell us that Human Resources will come down on you – where “you” includes the CEO. You are in stubborn denial of the glaringly obvious, and when called on it, simply repeat your assertions with insults added.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Another lesson for you Steve: this is what it looks like when someone is arguing in good faith.

                  Your Moldbug quote:

                  “It is not at all surprising that progressives hate corporations and the profit system. It is a natural consequence of the antipathy to order, the anarchism, the lust for entropic destruction, which is the foundation of their creed.”

                  I stand corrected. Moldbug has been rendered redundant by historical events.

                  His comment may have been true ten years ago when he wrote his major works, but it’s certainly not true today.

                  Today Hillary Clinton’s DNC stands for free trade without consideration of petty things like national borders. The Democrats, and progressives in general, attack Donald Trump’s tariffs as destructive and harmful.

                  I’m giving Moldbug too much credit however. In an important sense, he was wrong even in 2008. Progressives may have hated corporations in 2008 but it wasn’t mutual: venture capitalists were ALREADY funding far left outfits of their own free will, under George W Bush no less!

                  Moldbug’s failure to include business in his Dark Enlightenment model is a problem for NRx because it means NRx does not match observed reality.

                  In the real world, venture capitalists and Wall Street bankers are funding Antifa while Harry’s Razors is still contributing part of its profits to a charity that paid bail for a black man who then went on to rape a 20-something woman in her own home a week later.

                  Christmas is coming and you’ll see the familiar trope: black man, white woman.

                  This is not coercion. It’s being done by people who would directly benefit from that becoming a real thing: mulatto children are notoriously lacking in clear racial identity, which makes them excellent workers to control. Blacks have high time preference, which makes them excellent consumers spending everything they earn and making them dependent on their employers in a way that rugged individualist white libertarians are not.

                  You may choose to ignore the benefits to capitalism from that scenario.
                  You may choose to insist they’re being coerced (though I’m yet to see the slightest evidence for this).

                  But you may NOT claim capitalists – real capitalists, not George Soros – are funding the very worst, most extreme Left-wing projects because they absolutely are, and I bet if you looked at the list of projects funded by venture capitalist funds, we can all guess what is and is not included.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Asians are the perfect choice: obedient, physically weak, temperamentally docile yet smart enough to keep the lights on without being creative enough to turn the machines against the owners.

                  Man, the capitalist puppet-masters have it all figured out, huh? Sorry, this is nonsense. You ascribe to capitalists a far fetched and complicated conspiracy when the simpler and less incredible explanation is that the Anglosphere is leftist because puritan, mainland Europe is leftist due to Anglo (or Anglo-Judeo to be precise) domination, whereas East Asia has some degree of independence from the “international community” so it pursues a different immigration policy, thus no Somalis in Japan.

                  >Capitalists benefit in multiple ways (as demonstrated and nobody’s shown how it’s wrong according to classical micro-economics) but they also fund the propaganda organs that agitate for it AND they propagandise for it themselves.

                  Dipshit. Newspapers are propaganda outlets of the state; they don’t control the state because democracy is a sham, a hoax, fake, and gay. The un-elected permanent governments of America and Europe never consulted their constituencies about immigration policy! So if the capitalists fund the pozzed pro-immigration newspapers and the television etc., they simply aren’t doing it as a strategy to advance the poz and immigration, since such a strategy would be futile.

                  If democracy were “real,” then you could argue that media –> public opinion –> government policy. But that is not how it actually works. Rather, it takes a reverse form: government policy –> media –> public opinion, the media serving to pacify the population and “gaslight” it, but that has nothing to do with enriching capitalists, whose bottom line isn’t affected by the opinion of Joe Sixpack. It doesn’t matter what voters think, as long as they don’t veritably rebel.

                  You tried to argue that capitalists fund third world immigration, but all you could come up with as proof is that they fund the media, which media indeed calls for third world immigration. But the media is not doing *that* at the behest of capitalists, but at the behest of the state. If the state were NRx, the media would tell the public completely different things, and would be funded by capitalists *just the same*.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim:

                  > “You cannot tell the difference between a reactionary and a libertarian because you are a commie”

                  The guy’s arguing for Guatemalan immigration and placing economics above all else.
                  [*Rest of the lies deleted to avoid waste of bandwidth, this first lie left in so that readers can see the kind of rubbish i am deleting.*]

                • jim says:

                  His statements are only an argument for Guatemalan immigration if he, and everyone else in the entire world, agrees with your progressive premise that Gautemalans are inherently equal to whites, only more equal, which premise he goes to the trouble of explicitly rejecting.

                  This is the argument you use all the time – the fake consensus. Supposedly everyone agrees that Marxism is true, cultural Marxism is true, progressivism is true, and Keynesianism is true, so you don’t actually have to provide evidence or argument for any of them.

                  It is not an argument for Gautemalan immigration if you think that Gautemalans are not brought here “to do the work Americans will not do” but to live on welfare, crime, and voting Democrat.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto:

                  “Newspapers are propaganda outlets of the state”

                  Other way round, in effect. Politics follows the Zeitgeist, which is shaped by lifelong education in the state religion.

                  We’re not living in the world of “1984” where a totalitarian government dictates everything.

                  We’re living in a new improved variant of the USSR where direct physical oppression has been replaced with deplatforming and unpersoning from afar.
                  No need to abduct people and throw them in the gulag when you can simply unemploy them.

                  Actually Soviet Communism discovered that trick too after the 50s but thankfully for their populations, their version of the religion was somewhat old-fashioned and didn’t extent to sexual degeneracy and so on.

                  Boy did they get a surprise when “the commies lost”.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Other way round, in effect.

                  No, it is not the other way around. You (John Oliver) will boo when TPTB tell you to boo, you will hurrah when TPTB tell you to hurrah, and you will laugh when TPTB tell you to laugh.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Maybe you should read more slowly. You seem to find it hard to keep up.

                  “His statements are only an argument for Guatemalan immigration if he, and everyone else in the entire world, agrees with your progressive premise that Gautemalans are inherently equal to whites, only more equal, which premise he goes to the trouble of explicitly rejecting.”

                  You know that’s not so. You know that in this very thread I talked about the nature of Asians in contrast to that of Whites in contrast to that of Blacks.
                  You know also that one of the benefits of Guatemalan immigration for capitalists is that they have higher time preference than whites.

                  Y’colleague argues that if Guatemalans were willing to work for lower wages, a sane monarch/leader would import lots of them, because it’s good for the economy.

                  My point, which contradicts your nonsense about “willing to do the jobs the natives won’t do”, is that the option of immigration is a shroud for the unwillingness of employers in those industries to simply pay higher wages, and that the minimum wage law is intended to ease the frog into ever warmer water rather than have it jump out of the rapidly boiling pot as a billion third worlders drive the cost of labour to near zero.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto the libertarian:

                  “You (John Oliver) will boo when TPTB tell you to boo, you will hurrah when TPTB tell you to hurrah, and you will laugh when TPTB tell you to laugh.”

                  Everything’s the fault of the government. The government controls everything. Anything anyone ever does, government.

                  You’re just a libertarian.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  The guy’s arguing for Guatemalan immigration and placing economics above all else.

                  You are either stupid or a liar or both.

                  My point and Moldbug’s point is that importing Guatemalans is not profitable for the nation as a whole nor is it profitable for the government but the government isn’t run to make a profit – it’s run for the benefit of its employees and the costs imposed are actually benefits for government employees. Costs like welfare spending go into the pocket of *someone* and those someones are mostly the clients of the state – shady Medicare doctors, women working in welfare offices, etc. The money that goes to the imported Guats gets spent on goods and services that are – no shit – supplied by businesses. From this you conclude that the bodegas that sell cans of beer are the ones pushing for immigration. This is retarded.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim’s classic:

                  “to live on welfare, crime, and voting Democrat.”

                  This needs re-examining.

                  Not only is welfare very good for GDP and hence government, but CRIME is too!

                  You libertarians love ‘the broken window fallacy’: “no silly statists, breaking a window isn’t good for the economy because the window owner would’ve spent the money on something else instead”.

                  Yeah but none of that matters to the GDP-lovers. They’re looking at the macro situation and from that standpoint, the window-maker (who is already making windows) gets more business, which drives up his prices which is good for GDP! Even better, it guarantees the money would be spent and not (shudder) saved! Very good for GDP.

                  Obviously voting Democrat is good for government: of both colours!!! You think Republicans don’t benefit from having a larger starting state for their administration? lol

                  Immigrants living on welfare and crime and voting Democrat are very, very good for GDP!

                • Roberto says:

                  Why, CR, are there no Somalis in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines? If there exists a clear-cut incentive for capitalists to let the niggers in and poz it up to the nth degree, you would see the same thing in Japan, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Korea, and every other developed country.

                  >You’re just a libertarian.

                  Enough with this nonsense. NRx seeks to replace the sick state religion of progressivism with a healthy state religion; it does not seek to “get rid of the government” or whatever your strawman is. It’s like you don’t even grasp what we’re saying at all.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Y’colleague argues that if Guatemalans were willing to work for lower wages, a sane monarch/leader would import lots of them, because it’s good for the economy.

                  No you retard – if Guatemalans were willing to work for lower wages *and were equally productive* then it would be impossible to stop a sane King (it would help you to hide your leftist faggotry if you didn’t say “monarch” to be “gender neutral”) from importing them. THEY ARE NOT EQUALLY PRODUCTIVE.

                  The entire reason to want a King is because his incentives are aligned with the good of the nation because he owns the nation. If you think that the businesses are driving something because it’s profitable and not because they’re displacing costs then no King will solve that problem.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Why, CR, are there no Somalis in Japan, Korea, and the Philippines? If there exists a clear-cut incentive for capitalists to let the niggers in and poz it up to the nth degree, you would see the same thing in Japan, Russia, Poland, Hungary, Korea, and every other developed country.”

                  1. When the time’s right, there will be
                  2. You’re trying to make me break the law in Europe
                  3. I never said capitalists initiated it. I said capitalists benefit from it and fund the propaganda that manufactures consent(LOL) for it.

                  You’re obsessed with the ORIGIN of the problem and I’m with Moldbug regarding

                  1. Religion
                  2. Leftism=decay/destruction/disorder and is hence omnipresent

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “THEY ARE NOT EQUALLY PRODUCTIVE.”

                  Alarm bells are sounding for an incoming Straw Man.

                  Unskilled Guatemalans digging holes in the ground ARE equally productive as unskilled white Americans digging holes in the ground.

                  (Now you’ll claim I think the races are equal. No, they’re equally capable of doing *certain things*.)

                • jim says:

                  > Unskilled Guatemalans digging holes in the ground ARE equally productive as unskilled white Americans digging holes in the ground.

                  Nuts.

                  That is ridiculous, you are ridiculous.

                  1. They are not as productive digging holes in the ground.
                  2. They are disinclined to dig holes in the ground, even if they were equally productive
                  3. Digging holes in the ground with unskilled labor is not a useful activity, when a machine will dig a whole lot better and faster, even if they were as productive at digging holes in the ground and inclined to do so.

                  And in any case, he made it absolutely clear he did not think they were equally productive, regardless of what truths you hold to be self evident.

                • Roberto says:

                  >fund the propaganda that manufactures consent(LOL) for it.

                  As I said: capitalists will continue to fund the media *just the same* if and when the current government retires, is replaced by a non-pozzed new state, and the media goes from shitlib to shitlord overnight. A restoration along NRx lines does not mean that the media no longer obeys the state; it means that the master is now giving altogether different orders, which will be obeyed just as vigorously and diligently — if not more so — as the current orders.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  You’re obsessed with the ORIGIN of the problem and I’m with Moldbug regarding

                  First of all, you’re not with Moldbug on anything and you even disavowed him less than an hour ago. “Well he was wrong in 2008 and became even more wrong since then” – nope the 10 years since have provided nothing but confirmations for what he wrote.

                  Second if you think that pushing the poz is profitable then the King will push the poz. Period. If the origin of the poz is business seeking profit then monarchy doesn’t solve the problem. Figuring out the cause of the problem is essential to solving the problem.

                  The reactionary view is that the poz is a result of bad incentives for democratic government. Install a king and he’ll have different incentives.

                  Your view is that businesses push the poz because it makes them money (of course, when confronted with examples where it costs them money you change this position). Installing a king will solve this because – well you never say why the king will act in the way you think is necessary (banning private swimming pools being the top item on the agenda). This confusion is extremely familiar to all of us here because we’ve all argued with leftists who have an incoherent view that governments do bad things because they’re controlled by businesses so the solution is to give more power to government functionaries.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “when confronted with examples where it costs them money”

                  You’ve provided none.

                  The globohomo agenda has made the 1% much, much richer.
                  Don’t be distracted by crocodile tears.

                  Yes regulations impose costs, but much greater costs on competitors and independents.
                  Yes welfare is paid for by business, but part of the deal is their low wages are subsidised by food stamps, medicaid etc. etc. and another part of the deal is welfare recipients spend all their money whereas rugged white male individualist libertarians have this nasty habit of saving.

                  Well, this was fun, a kind of last ditch attempt to see what, if anything, could be usefully achieved here, and the results haven’t really changed: you all lie and cheat and misrepresent, just so you can make excuses for why the King may not close down Franky & Benny’s lol

                  It’s pathetic really. If you wanna be libertarians just BE libertarians.

                  Don’t pretend you want to restore order when what you really want is the American Revolution.

                  If you were reactionaries you’d side with George III not George Washington, and the valid *reactionary* critique of George III is that he gave away too much power and should’ve been more like Henry V.

                  Most of that devolution of power took the form of letting the bourgeoisie run amok.

                  Anyway bye

                • jim says:

                  > The globohomo agenda has made the 1% much, much richer

                  “The one percent” is a left wing meme, a prog shibboleth, and a Cultural Marxist shibboleth, and just as it turned out that every single peasant was a kulak, not only the peasant that had one more cow than you did, it turns out that every white male who has a real job is a one percenter, that every white male who has accumulated a few assets is a one percenter, that every white male who owns his own home outright and has paid off his mortgage is a one percenter, that everyone in flyover country who is not on welfare is a one percenter, that everyone who wears a Maga hat is a one percenter.

                  The people you are addressing are unlikely to outgroup “the one percent.” We are elitists.

                  Further it is absolutely obvious that globohomo is not making the Capitalists richer, and not aimed at making the capitalists richer. It is aimed at making the priesthood more powerful. To deny this is to lie, and it is a lie we always hear from members of the priestly class.

                  The capitalist class is not a real thing – they don’t have any particular pattern of voting, of dress, or patterns of speech. They don’t have any common interests. What Moldbug calls Brahmins, and I call priests, is a real thing. They have particular styles of talking, of dressing, which I parody as “Drinking Coke Zero in a Prius”. They vote in particular ways. They do have common interests.

                  When people talk of “the one percent” they don’t actually mean one percent by assets, or one percent by income – they mean non priests who have some form of status, because priests think the only high status people should be priests.

                • jim says:

                  > > “when confronted with examples where it costs them money”

                  > You’ve provided none.

                  Importing millions of black male military age Muslims from Africa to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat costs them money

                  The continuing self destruction of Venezuela, the destruction of South Africa, the destruction of Rhodesia, and the destruction of the Congo cost them money.

                  War on Syria and Libya cost them money.

                  The confiscation of the oil wells that the Americans discovered and developed in the Middle East cost them a stupendous amount of money.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  “when confronted with examples where it costs them money”

                  You’ve provided none.

                  We’ve been over this already.

                  Payment processors cutting off rightists
                  Domain registrars seizing the domains of rightists
                  Disney pozzing up Star Wars
                  Jim’s example of the Bank of Beverly Hills
                  HP giving control to the totally incompetent Carly Fiorina
                  Amazon bans books that sell like Roosh’s

                  many more like this.

                  These are a bit murky:
                  Google degrading their search engine to please the left
                  Twitter banning the right (but they don’t really make money anyway)

                  It’s pathetic really. If you wanna be libertarians just BE libertarians.

                  Yes, everyone is aware this option exists because lots of us were libertarians.

                  On the other hand, have you ever tried NOT being a communist?

                • Roberto says:

                  Reminder that CR has not satisfactorily addressed the “crux of the matter,” which is: what logical and rational cost-benefit analysis may lead the King to ban restaurants, private swimming pools, and the rest of it? What’s in it for His Excellency? Why would the King alienate the most productive members of society — which coincidentally just happen to be white male capitalists — in order to pursue CR’s bleedin’ heart nanny agenda?

                  He said:

                  >They’re foreign entities who are impoverishing domestic citizens and harming the long-term prosperity of the nation.

                  >It’s quite possible a bad ruler would side with cosmopolitan moneyed interests. I’ve never once claimed every absolute monarch is a saint.

                  >A good ruler would observe what’s happening and side with his own, not the internationalists.

                  This is an evasion; the issue is not, and has never been, limited to opposition to globalism. No one here is a proponent of globalism, cosmopolitanism, or internationalism.

                  Rather, the matter is broader: the King simply has no reason (economic, political, etc.), short-term, medium-term, or long-term, to piss off and upset those who create value, pay their taxes, and are overall productive and law-abiding members of society, all supposedly in the name of helping out the downtrodden proletariat.

                  CR has not actually explained why on Earth a King would behave the way he wants him to behave (“you never say why the king will act in the way you think is necessary,” as Steve Johnson put it), preferring instead to content himself with issuing vague statements such as those quoted above. No specific incentive has been proposed that could plausibly justify banning the proverbial 983 items on CR’s list of “things to ban.”

                  That’s the thing with leftists: they never seem to be bothered by the unfeasibility — to say nothing of undesirability — of their proposals. It’s wish-fulfillment all the way down. Commies gonna commie.

                • Koanic says:

                  Communist Revolutionary is failing his Turing test.

                  I think he’d be equally productive digging holes in Guatemala.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I don’t know why I do it, but I’m back to check to see what lies were told after I went to bed lol

                  Jim writes:

                  ““The one percent” is a left wing meme…..[long rant about shibboleths again]”

                  You’re too easy to trigger.

                  Are you going to deny that the top 1% of the US population in terms of permanent capital held, as of today, have in fact greatly benefited financially from the events of the past twenty years?

                  Too gay for words.

                  At least a proper libertarian like Tom Woods will say something like “the wrong people are at the top thanks to government cronyism, and the path to richest has been perverted from producing value towards gaining the ear of government” or something along those lines.

                  Still delusional when you look at all the venture capitalists I named above, funding of their own volition the worst possible left-wing activism.
                  But better than “you used wrong word ha ha ha ha!”

                  “The people you are addressing are unlikely to outgroup “the one percent.” We are elitists.”

                  You’re not though, that’s the thing. You want natural rights for your own social class at the expense of society. Your natural rights will harm those below you in ability and rugged individualism, and your natural rights will harm those above you in wisdom and foresight. So long as Jeff Bezos doesn’t have his activities curtailed, it’s thumbs up all the way.

                  “Further it is absolutely obvious that globohomo is not making the Capitalists richer, and not aimed at making the capitalists richer. It is aimed at making the priesthood more powerful. To deny this is to lie, and it is a lie we always hear from members of the priestly class.”

                  It’s not an either/or. The system right now benefits, by order of power in society (most first, least last):

                  1. Bureaucrats who ought to be picking cotton
                  2. People involved in the charitable sector (really a subset of 1 but not as richly rewarded as 1)
                  3. Super-rich capitalists who write their own regulations and shape society through economic planning of the economy
                  4. Political and social analysts doing jobs that should not be done
                  5. Low ranking capitalists like the farmer in Mollie Tibbetts’ home town, benefiting from the cheap labour
                  6. The criminal underclass – Moldbug’s dalits

                  The people most harmed by globohomo/The Cathedral are, in order of unjust harm done (least first, most last):

                  1. Families who want to live a healthy life
                  2. Holders of savings, as well as legitimate high earners
                  3. Small business owners rich and poor who have to pay the same regulatory costs as corporations
                  4. Domestic workers seeing their wages fall and their living costs rise

                  Note that the racial dimension is orthogonal here. This is an analysis on your terms: cui bono ad shekelam.

                  “The capitalist class is not a real thing – they don’t have any particular pattern of voting, of dress, or patterns of speech.”

                  Nobody said they were an ingroup. They’re highly divided, but the one guiding principle in common is the furtherance of their personal agenda, be it financial or ideological. They see themselves as the inheritors of the nation, the true monarchs.
                  In truth they’re a pretend aristocracy and should be put back in their place.

                  “They don’t have any common interests. What Moldbug calls Brahmins, and I call priests, is a real thing. They have particular styles of talking, of dressing, which I parody as “Drinking Coke Zero in a Prius”. They vote in particular ways. They do have common interests.”

                  And those interests mysteriously align with those of **totally not their masters** on Wall Street.
                  The policy programme of Antifa is indistinguishable from the HR policy at Google.

                  You agree with Antifa that Antifa is ‘using’ Google, Goldman-Sachs and Starbucks, but I don’t see Antifa gaining actual power, market share or personal wealth whereas those at the top of the corporations Antifa ‘tricks’ into funding it are doing very nicely.

                  Follow the money, and follow who gets a say in how society’s planned. The people with real power are above elections, simply doling out the wages to the political servants from afar.

                  “When people talk of “the one percent” they don’t actually mean one percent by assets, or one percent by income – they mean non priests who have some form of status, because priests think the only high status people should be priests.”

                  I love how you’ve jumped on that term. I knew it’d trigger you and it has, massively.

                  You don’t ultimately care what happens in the real world. Like every fringe Brahmin, you care about the words, the words, the words!

                • jim says:

                  > It’s not an either/or. The system right now benefits, by order of power in society (most first, least last):

                  Marxist exposed.

                  Standard Marxist class theory: Supposedly “the capitalist class” benefits (usually in some way that is far from clear to non Marxists) even though the individual capitalist supposedly making the decision unambiguously and obviously loses.

                  Therefore the wealth of individual merchants supposedly has to be given to priests, and, more importantly, the power and status of the merchants given to the priests.

                  Reactionary theory is based on reactionary class identity, appealing to real and observable classes, on visible signs of class identity such as blue hair and tattoos, and, more importantly, far more importantly, appeals to the individual interests of the individual member of the class.

                  Thus, for example a holiness spiral is is against the interests of the priesthood, and is apt to wind up with most of the priesthood being imprisoned, murdered, or sent to Siberia, but it is in the interests of each individual priest to be holier than each of the others. New doctrine is against the interests of the priesthood, but it is in the interests of each individual priest to be among the first to espouse a successful new doctrine.

                  Similarly it is in the interests of each businessman (we don’t have a “capitalist class in our theory) to cut prices and raise wages, which does not cause a spiral, but brings prices and wages close to the equilibrium point where the supply and demand curves intersect.

                  Our theory does not have capitalists nor a capitalist class. It has a merchant class, it has entrepreneurs, businessmen, shareholders, investors, and savers. Entrepreneurs are part of the merchant class. Investors and savers are not necessarily part of the merchant class unless they take an active role in operating their investments, shareholders not necessarily part of the merchant class unless active board members. Businessmen are commonly part of the merchant class, and in a legitimate and well functioning business, necessarily entrepreneurial and thus necessarily part of the merchant class in that case.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim claims:

                  “Importing millions of black male military age Muslims from Africa to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat costs [corporate capitalists] money”

                  This is precisely the red pill I’ve been trying to get you to swallow: it MAKES them money!

                  Who pays for welfare and the consequences of crime? Taxpayers and increases to the government debt.

                  How does that hurt Jeff Bezos?

                  Every penny of welfare money received gets spent on crap. You think the average dolescum piece of garbage meticulously checks every purchase and buys locally, supporting small family businesses? ROFL
                  Get out of here: they’re up Domino’s or sat listening to Spotify while they play their X-box.

                  They all about the branding man. Sheeeeeit.

                  I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: white people are horrible consumers. We not only save, but we look after our property and have this horrible habit of having one eye on the grandchildren’s future wellbeing. We’d rather buy something once and leave it to them so they can leave it to their grandchildren.

                  People who administer those who live on crime and welfare are all about ripping out the floorboards and replacing them just becuz, while the people themselves, who actually live on crime and welfare are playing X-box and eating Domino’s.

                  The people who directly benefit the most from the consumer culture are the people who benefit from the growth of the state that comes from leveraging GDP: private sector out-sourcing providers like Serco and Carillion.

                  The people who make the most MONEY under globohomo are the very top end capitalists: the venture capitalists who pick winners, the portfolio capitalists who pump up their stocks with inflation (Dow 27000 anyone? yummy, so much value!) and the laughing cosmopolitan global capitalists who take the biggest, longest view of all: the true cost of labour in One World: Clown World.

                • jim says:

                  > Who pays for welfare and the consequences of crime? Taxpayers and increases to the government debt.

                  > How does that hurt Jeff Bezos?

                  He is a taxpayer. Capital pays far more taxes than labor, wealth more taxes than consumption. Income tax on top of corporate tax on of top capital gains tax on inflation.

                  More importantly, this is standard Marxist class theory 101. If you want to convince reactionaries, you have to use reactionary class theory and explain to us why it is in his individual interest, not the interests of a mythical class that clearly does not exist in the real world.

                  You guys drink Coke Zero in a Prius. Capitalists are not fat people wearing big top hats. Therefore the priestly class exists, and the capitalist class does not exist. If you can see a class, as for example blue hairs, it is probably real. If you cannot see a class, unlikely to be real.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Steve’s examples of globohomo being a net cost to capitalists like the ones cited and named above:

                  “Payment processors cutting off rightists
                  Domain registrars seizing the domains of rightists”

                  You think George Soros is affected by that stuff?
                  You think those guys I named above are affected in any way by that stuff? THEY’RE THE ONES DOING IT!!!!!!!!!!

                  “Disney pozzing up Star Wars
                  Jim’s example of the Bank of Beverly Hills”

                  This is the long game, the destruction of white civilisation. Why? Because whites save too much, argue too much and spend too little.
                  We’re too bright to live.

                  I imagine most of us here were the bright kid in the government school. You ever experienced teacher saying “anyone ELSE know the answer?”

                  Our society is THAT writ large. Whites have to go because, as Ayn Rand would put it, we hate the good for being good.

                  “HP giving control to the totally incompetent Carly Fiorina”

                  I don’t honestly know what that was all about, but I’ve already given my view on the computer revolution. Pure scam, step backwards. It’s easier now to print 3000 word essays on 100000 bits of glossy paper to send to every customer, so that’s what they do.
                  The amount of paperwork generated since the introduction of cheap easy printing equipment is vastly higher than it was when people had to type.

                  “Amazon bans books that sell like Roosh’s”

                  ROFL

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  With Roberto it always comes back to muh burguhz

                  “what logical and rational cost-benefit analysis may lead the King to ban restaurants, private swimming pools, and the rest of it? What’s in it for His Excellency? Why would the King alienate the most productive members of society — which coincidentally just happen to be white male capitalists — in order to pursue CR’s bleedin’ heart nanny agenda?”

                  The King observes that half his workers are wasting all their money on shit food then coming to him for a pension and free healthcare.
                  The King observes how bloody fat people are getting and how dumb it is for a 59 year old to sing the birthday song and ask for ice cream.
                  The King observes what Franky & Benny DOES with the money it makes.
                  The King notices that domestic family owned and run restaurants are extinct thanks to pozzed foreign multinational corporations.

                  He says to himself “shall I give them advice on how better to be loyal to the nation? I’m sure they’ll listen and we can talk like adults”…..

                  ROFL yeah right: the King’s face turns purple, he bangs on the royal desk and calls for the Death Warrant scribe to have a new printer installed.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “the King simply has no reason (economic, political, etc.), short-term, medium-term, or long-term, to piss off and upset those who create value, pay their taxes, and are overall productive and law-abiding members of society, all supposedly in the name of helping out the downtrodden proletariat.”

                  The reddest pill of all: these corporations do NOT make money.[*progressive lies deleted. We have heard them all before too many times*]

                • jim says:

                  Please don’t post that stuff here. We read it everywhere else far too often, and no one on this blog is likely to be convinced by hearing it yet another time.

                  It is the same reasoning as the black who burns down the supermarket, and figures it will be replaced by a supermarket which has black management, black staff who do no work, and no one who stops shoplifting, and is indignant at the horrid racism that gives shops to Koreans instead of blacks. It is ignorance, hatred, and astounding stupidity, designed to appeal to blacks, but thinly dressed in the pseudo intellectual language of academia.

                  It is what Stalin correctly called “Left wing communism” – Marx and Lenin degenerated down to consumption by morons. Albeit these days, it is Cultural Marxism, Stalin’s more intellectually coherent Marxism being extinct.

                • peppermint says:

                  CR, incapable of seeing who we blame, thinks we’re saying the people have no enemies, because talking about anyone but capitalists as the enemies of the people is illegal in Europe. CR should leave before we infect him with illegal thoughts and he gets purged.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  You’re done here Communist Revolutionary – the mask is completely off.

                  You’re a Marxist and you confirm it constantly.

                  > Steve’s examples of globohomo being a net cost to capitalists like the ones cited and named above

                  No I didn’t give examples of it being a net cost to “capitalists” (as a class) – I gave examples of where pushing the poz cost the companies pushing it money.

                  Your rebuttal is that “it benefits the capitalist class” – straight out of Marxist analysis.

                  > This is the long game, the destruction of white civilisation. Why? Because whites save too much, argue too much and spend too little.
                  We’re too bright to live.

                  This is just unsupported – not the part where white extinction is being pushed – that’s correct but the part where it’s being done because it’s profitable. Are the “capitalists” in Somalia richer than those in Singapore or Switzerland? Are the “capitalists” in Zimbabwe richer than those in Rhodesia were? Pushing white extinction isn’t for profit – period.

                  The other problem you’ve got is that if you assertion is true and that liberal progressivism and the poz are the most profitable way to run a country then your damned king is going to run it that way too!

                  Reactionaries want a king because his incentives are aligned – a requirement for being a reactionary is being able to separate market incentives (which are almost all good for society) from market distortions which destroy wealth but in the process allow the petty bloodsuckers that attach themselves to the process to make a living. Communist Revolutionary here doesn’t see it that way – he thinks that the poz generates wealth for the top rather than destroying it which raises the question – why would a king stop it? CR just assumes that the king will be an envy driven loser like he is. What he misses is that even an envy driven loser as king won’t ban the things that make CR envious – he’ll ban things that make the king envious. Better to not have an envy driven loser as king.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  You’re done here Communist Revolutionary – the mask is completely off.

                  You’re a Marxist and you confirm it constantly.

                  Steve’s examples of globohomo being a net cost to capitalists like the ones cited and named above

                  No I didn’t give examples of it being a net cost to “capitalists” (as a class) – I gave examples of where pushing the poz cost the companies pushing it money.

                  Your rebuttal is that “it benefits the capitalist class” – straight out of Marxist analysis.

                  This is the long game, the destruction of white civilisation. Why? Because whites save too much, argue too much and spend too little.
                  We’re too bright to live.

                  This is just unsupported – not the part where white extinction is being pushed – that’s correct but the part where it’s being done because it’s profitable. Are the “capitalists” in Somalia richer than those in Singapore or Switzerland? Are the “capitalists” in Zimbabwe richer than those in Rhodesia were? Pushing white extinction isn’t for profit – period.

                  The other problem you’ve got is that if you assertion is true and that liberal progressivism and the poz are the most profitable way to run a country then your damned king is going to run it that way too!

                  Reactionaries want a king because his incentives are aligned – a requirement for being a reactionary is being able to separate market incentives (which are almost all good for society) from market distortions which destroy wealth but in the process allow the petty bloodsuckers that attach themselves to the process to make a living. Communist Revolutionary here doesn’t see it that way – he thinks that the poz generates wealth for the top rather than destroying it which raises the question – why would a king stop it? CR just assumes that the king will be an envy driven loser like he is. What he misses is that even an envy driven loser as king won’t ban the things that make CR envious – he’ll ban things that make the king envious. Better to not have an envy driven loser as king.

                  *****

                  Please ignore or delete the previous version – mistakenly failed to close a tag.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  > Who pays for welfare and the consequences of crime? Taxpayers and increases to the government debt.

                  > How does that hurt Jeff Bezos?

                  Jim writes that Jeff Bezos is a net tax contributor as per John C Calhoun’s class theory.

                  FALSE baby, FALSE.

                  If the government borrows based on the goosed GDP of Amazon, and the recipients of said borrowing spend it with Amazon, Amazon gains 0.0001% revenue, on a conservative assessment.

                  That’s that, as a percentage of Amazon’s turn-over, compared to what Amazon pays in tax?

                  ROFL

                  Come ON………. come ON……………..

                  Jeff Bezos is a welfare scrounger.

                  Welfare BENEFITS people like that.

                  This system’s about spending, consumption, this year’s revenue. It’s not about the health of the nation. In fact it’s not even compatible with Tom Woods’ laissez-faire Ancapistan.

                  The fact that you apologise for the RICHEST MAN ON EARTH says everything people need to know about you: you’re not serious about change and you’re content with the status quo.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  Your economic theories are similar to, and as coherent as, those of blacks who burn down their neighborhood supermarket, and then wonder why black areas have no shops. Must be racism.

                  This is not the superficially sane Marxism of Lenin and Stalin, it is the transparent economic lunacy of cultural Marxism that Lenin and Stalin rightly condemned as “Left wing communism”.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Final point for the record. Jim wrote:

                  “> welfare is GREAT for GDP!

                  Commie.

                  Or rather, Keynsian, though from the reactionary point of view, no significant difference.

                  No, Welfare is disastrous for GDP, and reactionaries do not believe that GDP is a reliable indicator or measure of wealth anyway – see my frequent references to first world poverty.”

                  You’re trying to create the impression, for the less informed reader, that you’re BTFOing a leftist. The reason you do this is that you don’t really have an answer because you’ve not really thought about it: you’ve just bought every libertarian lie when it comes to the economy.

                  So, to the less informed reader, who ‘gets’ the whole Ron Paul Mises Institute thing and never felt a pressing need to do a deep dive into Austrian economics because those long speeches by the Mises guys about pricing etc. are piss-boring.
                  I get it. Economics shouldn’t be something the man in the street needs to worry about.

                  To THAT guy:

                  I’m not saying that GDP equals the economy.
                  I’m not saying that GDP, or any other macro-economic statistic, is a reliable predictor of anything useful.
                  I’m not saying that spending is good for the economy.
                  On the contrary I’m saying spending is NOT good for the economy. The nation needs saving, very very urgently. The nation needs to return to the way of thinking that benefited your grandmother: ‘the family silver’ and so on.
                  We need a return to a mindset that favours looking after existing possessions, rather than constantly replacing things through boredom.
                  We need a return to the mindset that favours putting things aside for a rainy day, not jetting off to the sun because it’s cold outside.

                  I’m not saying that welfare is good for the economy.
                  Jim’s trying to create that impression because he has no argument for what he knows I’m REALLY saying.

                  What I’m really saying is that our leaders – The Cathedral, Zog, Globohomo, The Gubmint – DO think spending and GDP is what matters.

                  Welfare is a wealth transfer from the marginal income of producers to the core income of non-producers.

                  That’s a simplification and there are large and widespread exceptions on both side of that transaction, but as a general principle, it’s right: the wealth that producers might otherwise have saved or invested is instead liquidated before it can turn into permanent capital and handed to people who can be reliably expected to spend it on rent, clothing, food, utilities and all the rest.

                  THAT increases GDP, while putting $100 in your savings account to spend in 40 years’ time does not.

                  This is a non-controversial statement of fact.

                  Government/Zog/whatever prefers the money to be spent and added to this year’s GDP so that they can leverage the numbers to borrow more money for the things they want to do.

                  The controversial claim I’m making, which people here at least find controversial and generally speaking will tend to just dismiss and deny, is that the people selling the stuff that gets bought with that money that would otherwise not have been spent, are GLAD that it was spent!

                  Walmart would much rather you spend $10 with them than save it. They don’t care about your future or those parts of your life that aren’t connected to Walmart, but they DO CARE about the part of your life that IS connected to Walmart.

                  If you spend $10 at Walmart instead of putting it in your Barclays Bank account, Walmart approves of your decision.

                  Therefore, when wealth is transferred from the early stages of being turned into savings, and handed to people who can be reasonably expected not to save it, Walmart, and all the other companies likely to receive that money, are very glad of this.

                  There is more to this story but I already know in advance that anything beyond ONE SIMPLE CORE STATEMENT that I say will be jumped on and become the main essence of the comment.

                  These people are not arguing in good faith: they’re trying to derail and obfuscate, distort and misrepresent, because they’re deeply afraid that I’m right and they might have to drop a comfortable belief that served them well when they were libertarians stickin’ it to liberals over welfare and suchlike.

                  They need to grow up. This isn’t about economics any more.

                • O says:

                  > > “> welfare is GREAT for GDP!

                  > > Commie.
                  > > Or rather, Keynsian, though from the reactionary point of view, no significant difference.

                  > > No, Welfare is disastrous for GDP, and reactionaries do not believe that GDP is a reliable indicator or measure of wealth anyway – see my frequent references to first world poverty.”

                  > You’re trying to create the impression, for the less informed reader, that you’re BTFOing a leftist

                  The proposition that welfare, or any form of government consumption spending, is great for GDP is Keynesian, which is left wing.

                  The proposition that welfare in particular is great for GDP is left wing.

                  > it’s right: the wealth that producers might otherwise have saved or invested is instead liquidated before it can turn into permanent capital and handed to people who can be reliably expected to spend it on rent, clothing, food, utilities and all the rest.

                  > THAT increases GDP, while putting $100 in your savings account to spend in 40 years’ time does not.

                  > This is a non-controversial statement of fact.

                  That not merely controversial, but flat out crazy. That is cultural Marxism, taking the Keynesian error to shear madness.

                  No, cutting taxes on the rich and cutting welfare by a corresponding amount increases GDP. Laffer curve. Every reactionary, like every libertarian, disagrees with your claim, and even the Keynesians qualify it considerably.

                  If you think that proposition uncontroversial, you are unfamiliar with any economics except cultural marxist economics, which is incoherent, unintelligible, and self contradictory.

                  What reactionaries, and indeed mainstream economists, believe, is pretty close to “Economics in One Lesson”.

                • Roberto says:

                  >The controversial claim I’m making

                  is that everything needs to be banned in order to compel a bunch of retards to “save.” Literally your argument is that some (usually very impulsive and very dumb) people spend lots of money they don’t have, or other resources, on X, Y, and Z, so therefore you propose that X, Y, and Z simply need to be made strictly forbidden: restaurants, vacations, alcohol, whores, swimming pools, cars, printers, computers, technology in general – you want to do away with all of it!

                  This is socialism, and socialism is destructive to science, destructive to technology, destructive to eugenic breeding, and destructive to fun. You hate rich white males because you are a cat lady in male form, and in due course you will adopt a bunch of cats and get a vasectomy while your spouse bangs Tyrone. Fuck off, TRSodomite.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Mopping up a few bits:

                  O tells the following story:

                  “The proposition that welfare, or any form of government consumption spending, is great for GDP is Keynesian, which is left wing.
                  The proposition that welfare in particular is great for GDP is left wing.”

                  Have you ever been diagnosed with autism?

                  I was very clear: I don’t believe in GDP and I don’t favour a high-spending economy.
                  Globohomo DOES believe in GDP and DOES favour a high-spending economy.
                  A transfer from potential savers to guaranteed spenders IS going to increase GDP.

                  Left wing or not, it happens to be a fact. GDP measures consumer spending on finished goods.

                  Individual corporations benefit from welfare because individual consumers spend more money with them than they would otherwise have done. This is a completely Austrian narrative.

                  What I’m saying, dumbass, is that corporations gain from welfare. Not society, not even ‘the economy’: individual corporations make individual sales to individual consumers that they would not otherwise have made, *and they like it*.

                  Roberto thinks he’s exposing my concealed plan:

                  “everything needs to be banned in order to compel a bunch of retards to “save.””

                  YES! Precisely, and I’ve spelt it out enough times that you don’t have to run a ‘breaking news’ exposé.
                  Society needs vastly more saving than we currently see, and a strong leader needs to massively INTERVENE IN THE ECONOMY to force this to come about.

                  Yes, yes and yes.

                  Roberto again, observant as ever:

                  “This is socialism”

                  Well I did take that tack in the so-titled article but came to realise this was a mistake because people like you were incapable of telling the difference between “gibs me dat, transfer from him to me cos not fair he got a yacht mummy” and what I’m proposing.

                  It now appears you were just pretending not to understand.

                  Colour me a slow clapper.

                • jim says:

                  > I was very clear: I don’t believe in GDP and I don’t favour a high-spending economy.

                  You are preaching nutty cultural Marxist economics, what Stalin called left wing communism.

                  That you think welfare increases GDP identifies you as what Stalin called “left wing communist” independently of whether you think GPD is a good thing or a bad thing.

                  That you think GDP is a bad thing identifies you as a radical left wing socialist independently of whether you think welfare increases GDP.

                  Left wing communism is not inherently the same thing as cultural Marxism, but cultural Marxists absorbed left wing communism because it is the economic theory of blacks burning down Ferguson and Detroit. “You did not build that”. Supposedly the reason the supermarket in the black neighborhood is run by Koreans is that the welfare state, being racist, gave it to Koreans.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Are you out of your mind?

                  So if you had a shop and a kid came in with his pocket money, you’d say to that kid “no go home little Jonny and put your dollar in the piggy-bank. It’ll come in handy some day: you don’t want those sweeties!”

                  Fine, but your competitors sure as hell would not!

                  Every penny that you would have saved if not taxed, that gets transferred to Tyrone….. gets spent, and the shop that sells him his new sneakers is very glad of the extra sale that they wouldn’t have otherwise had.

                  If you want to prove how this is wrong in terms of classical micro, go ahead.

                  Yes I dislike GDP and so should you. Rothbard famously favoured Private Product Remaining, and while I don’t agree with Rothbard that growth is the goal of ‘the economy’ as a stand-in for society, I do agree with him that this is a relatively non-insane way of doing macro for the sake of general updates.

                  Macro is always dirty, and Austrian macro is usually a fudge job that mostly models macro as if it were micro. I’m with Herbener on this (and I expect many other things privately, but I have no grounds to claim this!)

                • jim says:

                  > So if you had a shop and a kid came in with his pocket money, you’d say to that kid “no go home little Jonny and put your dollar in the piggy-bank. It’ll come in handy some day: you don’t want those sweeties!”

                  It is in the interest of the shopkeeper selling sweets that he buys those sweets.

                  It is in the interest of the shopkeeper selling power tools that he puts a dollar in his piggy bank.

                  When you want to explain why “the capitalists” are supposedly doing X, you find one capitalist whose interests are X, and then proclaim “therefore capitalism and capitalists want X”.

                  No they do not. Particularly when little Jonny is spending child support money that they were taxed to provide and is the son of one the thugs that make large parts of America unsafe for them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim updated his position but kept it the same:

                  “When you want to explain why “the capitalists” are supposedly doing X, you find one capitalist whose interests are X, and then proclaim “therefore capitalism and capitalists want X”.

                  No they do not. Particularly when little Jonny is spending child support money that they were taxed to provide and is the son of one the thugs that make large parts of America unsafe for them.”

                  So the shopkeeper might not personally tell Jonny to go home and put his money in the piggybank but capitalists as a class would…….. and *I’m* the Keynesian? lol

                  [*Marxist class theory deleted. We have heard it all before. *]

                • jim says:

                  This debate is repetitious.

                  Marxist history is false: Bourgeoisie did not overthrow aristocracy, nor Kings

                  Marxist class theory is false in that Marxist economic classes are not psychological real. Capitalists do not have capitalist consciousness, proletarians do not have proletarian consciousness, and thus classes are incapable of acting in their class interest, even if their class interest was what Marxist economic theory says it is, which is not.

                  Marxist class theory is false in that methodological individualism is true: People follow their individual economic interest, not their class economic interest. And in any case neither welfarism, globohomo, nor immiserating the proletariat is in their class interest.

                  Marxist economics is false, in that value is set by the intersection of supply and demand.

                  Cultural Marxist economics is false. Capitalists built civilization, the welfare state is not in the interests of capitalists individually or collectively.

                  Yes, I will debate these obvious truths, but you are not debating. Like a troofer, you are just endlessly repeating Marxist lies as though we failed to hear them the first time.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In anticipation of the straw man, obviously the specific shopkeeper is not COGNITIVELY in favour of welfare LOL
                  He may be a radical Republican donor or activist.

                  The thing I’m pointing to is that he sells Jonny the sweeties not under duress or with a feeling of resentment – at least not until Jonny leaves – but with the standard neutral attitude of a businessman: you give me money, I give you sweets and we’re both better off.

                  The thing I’m pointing to is that in the world of welfare, he makes that sale, whereas in the world of no welfare, he doesn’t – at least in the toy model, assuming Roberto’s ‘eugenic’ piles of starving white people in the street.

                  What you’re saying is that whilst he’s mildly better off for the sale, the cost of the taxes **he pays** to fund the welfare is higher.

                  I’m saying it isn’t.

                  I’m saying the welfare gets paid by *ALL TAXPAYERS* including the shopkeeper but also including the local workers.

                  Note that in the toy model it’s a Mom&Pop shopkeeper. My argument is strengthened greatly when it’s a corporation instead, with expensive tax accountants. Again, Amazon pays very little tax.

                  But even in the case of the legitimate shopkeeper, the amount he personally pays to fund welfare is FAR LESS than the amount of profit he makes from the additional sales.

                  FAR less.

                  He’s FAR better off, whether he personally realises it or not……… and there’s another red pill here:

                  Many of them do, and when it comes to billionaires, most of them do. Why do you think Warren Buffet agitates so hard for social democracy whilst optimising his tax arrangements? Is he just a liar? No, not JUST a liar: he’s a highly intelligent and perceptive liar who understands something quite mathematically obvious and praxeological, something methodologically individualist, that you do not.

                • jim says:

                  > The thing I’m pointing to is that in the world of welfare, he makes that sale, whereas in the world of no welfare, he doesn’t – e in the street.

                  No he does not make that sale. Amazon’s customers are not on welfare, but Amazon and its customers are taxed to provide welfare.

                  And even if your business is selling cigarettes to welfare bums, you are still going to oppose policies that give you hard earned profits back to welfare bums.

                  > But even in the case of the legitimate shopkeeper, the amount he personally pays to fund welfare is FAR LESS than the amount of profit he makes from the additional sales.

                  Nuts.

                  You are telling us “You did not build that”, and “If you like your plan you will be able to keep your plan”

                  Simple arithmetic tells me that even if someone’s customers are primarily welfare bums, he loses money on paying taxes to support welfare bums. Your economics is a pile of a absurd and incoherent nonsense concocted to justify slaughtering the kulak’s cattle and burning the kulak’s crops.

                  It is just the incoherent stupid ignorant hatred of the priestly class for the merchant class. They hate that creating value has status. You hate that creating value has status. Holiness, they think, you think, should be the only status, therefore those that create value, those that save and invest “did not build that” and need to be crushed.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Anticipating straw man number two:

                  No I’m not saying that society is BETTER OFF because capitalists are better off thanks to welfare transferring resources from workers and small businesspeople to them.

                  I’m saying only that *THEY* are better off, not society.

                  Society’s worse off! Amazon is better off.

                • jim says:

                  > Amazon is better off.

                  Obviously Amazon is worse off. They pay taxes to support welfare bums. Their customers pay taxes to support welfare bums.

                  In fact even the capitalist selling cigarettes to welfare bums is worse off, but with Amazon it is rather obvious.

                  And even if the capitalist selling cigarettes to welfare bums was better off, methodical individualism tells us that opposing welfare is still in his individual interest, even if it was in the interests as a whole of capitalists selling cigarettes to welfare bums.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Cuckolds.

                  Google Executive David Hogue – Linked In profile:

                  “David M. Hogue, PhD, is an applied psychologist and interaction/UX designer.

                  He has been studying user behavior and designing interfaces since 1997, and combines his skills as a designer and psychologist to bring deeper insight into users’ behaviors and motivations when interacting with digital devices and interfaces. Dave teaches information design, interaction design, social media, and mobile design courses at San Francisco State University, and is Vice President of Experience Design at Fluid, the award-winning digital services agency. He has published articles and tutorials on design methods and tools and regularly speaks at seminars and conferences. Clients include The North Face, Reebok, Warner Bros., Charles Schwab, Wells Fargo, and Sur La Table. Dave lives in San Francisco and enjoys writing, cooking, motorcycles, and travel. ”

                  Today’s tweet, source ZeroHedge&Twitter:

                  “You are finished, @GOP. You polished the final nail for your own coffins. FUCK. YOU. ALL. TO. HELL,” tweeted design lead David Hogue, adding “I hope the last images burned into your slimy, evil, treasonous retinas are millions of women laughing and clapping and celebrating as your souls descend into the flames.”

                  https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-10-08/fuk-you-all-hell-google-exec-threatens-gop-over-kavanaugh-confirmation

                  Obviously acting under duress.

                • jim says:

                  Chances are that the people who made him an executive were acting under duress.

                  I don’t know what happened with him, but I do know what happened with Disney Star Wars:

                  Disney was forced to appoint social justice warriors to produce star wars movies, or Disney executives would get the Kavanaugh treatment.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  You are totally retarded and don’t have a coherent model because you are a Marxist.

                  This guy is either a) a true believer or b) acts that way because he lacks any other way to signal loyalty to the bioleninists so does it in self defense.

                  If it’s (a) then he goes for a one way helicopter ride. If it’s (b) then change the regime and he’ll change his opinion.

                  You fail to present evidence to support your position that the poz is driven by “the capitalist class” to maximize profits because you fail to understand the problem at such a fundamental level that you can’t even figure out what would be evidence that supports your position.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*lies (or ignorance) about my position and the neoreactionary position deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  If anyone wants to know what I believe, not hard to find out.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*lies wasting bandwidth*]

                • jim says:

                  Stop telling us what we think. We know what we think, and are not shy to tell people.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Blank-out.

                  Even (((Ayn Rand))) is laughing at you now.

                • peppermint says:

                  Ayn Rand is a jew and libertarianism is jewish is a joke. Enoch and Striker know the history that you don’t of why Ayn Rand was the figurehead and libertarianism was what we called ourselves.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Pretty sure someone’s leaked the Strike&Mike episode exploring the similarities between Ayn Rand and Emma Goldman.

                  I agree with your thesis entirely. Libertarianism is all about Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises and Ayn Rand.
                  To echo Jim’s ‘insufficiency’ theory (“Holocaustianity” being the poster boy article), libertarianism is also all about the American Revolution and constitutionists like Ron Paul and Andrew Napolitano.

                  Nevertheless it’s definitely one side of the kosher sandwich, with Marxism being the other.

                  What this community fails to grasp is that the 1917 Revolution was very typical of the wider Marxist pattern, and that’s as far as I’m going to comment on this most forbidden of questions.

                  Tomorrow’s news from Europe should be particularly interesting. French leftists marched in nine French cities today protesting ‘reforms’ to pensions, welfare and trade unions. Their complaint was that Macron’s government was undermining solidarity in pursuit of ‘individualisation’ (their term).
                  The protests were largely non-violent, since most of the participants were legacy Frenchmen of the ‘non-J left’.

                  The only British paper to cover it was the Daily Express, which went on to bury it on the back pages. Not a peep as yet from the BBC or the Guardian.
                  The narrative’s tough to spin, and the affirmative diversity hires can’t be trusted to cut the Dijon.

                  We shall see what somersaults they turn, but what’s very very clear indeed is that the old economic leftism of yesteryear has long since stopped being something ‘The Cathedral’ has the slightest sympathy for.

                  We were the ones who were fooled.

                • jim says:

                  > what’s very very clear indeed is that the old economic leftism of yesteryear has long since stopped being something ‘The Cathedral’ has the slightest sympathy for.

                  > We were the ones who were fooled.

                  I have known the truth since the Chilean crisis in the early seventies, known the truth since Allende took power.

                  Just as land redistribution to the peasants was always intended to be followed almost immediately by land confiscation from the peasants, leftist support for the white working class was always intended as a prelude to the extermination of the white working class.

                  The leftism of yesteryear was always a lie. They intended the destruction of the working class from the beginning, and this became obvious soon after Allende took power.

                  The lie that the capitalist class exercises power is intended as a cover for the lie that the proletarian class can exercise power.

                  We are always ruled by priests or warriors. Warriors want to protect taxpayers, and therefore grant status to the creation of value, but priests have no similar concerns, thus an imbalance towards priests ends with priests devouring everyone and destroying everything, since the only status they will permit is holiness status. What Allende wanted remains unclear, but it became transparently obvious that his party wanted to destroy everything and everyone.

                  Allende rode the left singularity to power, but, once in power, was unable to control it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Not my channel, I’m a loyal subscriber.

                  You should all be too but for those who aren’t yet won over, there’s a link here:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ug97KtH3ubU

                  If you find this analysis compelling enough to rank as *as* intellectually interesting as your favourite NRx outlets, consider dipping a toe further into this reddest of red seas.

                  “The Sacred And The Profane: Ayn Rand And Emma Goldman” – Eric Striker and Mike Enoch in conversation in 2018.

                  To all our friendly ‘glow in the darks’ (see?! ^^) like Peppermint, I entirely endorse Jim’s position on the reality of the Holocaust: I don’t PERSONALLY know how many but it’s pretty clear they were not expected to survive, which is reason enough not to go full David Irving.
                  (I very much doubt that would be sufficient if pressed, but since we’re all getting ovened sooner or later, to hell with it.)

                • jim says:

                  Let me make it absolutely clear that the Holocaust is a legend based on real events, the real event being that Hitler really did intend to kill all the Jews and make a good start on doing so, but that Hitler really did have a good go at killing the Jews does not make the myth of the Holocaust true, does not make Holocaustianity true.

                  The myth of the Holocaust was invented to make those entirely real murders different from communist murders.

                • peppermint says:

                  Whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa
                  Fash man picks up commies
                  picks them up for free
                  helli rides for all good commies
                  out of your tax money
                  Whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa
                  Fash man has a helli
                  Built by a corporation
                  He doesn’t wait for a jury
                  To defend capital from expropriation
                  Whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa
                  Maybe he’s secretly a nazi
                  Maybe he’s just pinochet
                  He finds all the wannabe stasi
                  And throws ghoulish loudmouth tax consumers in the bay
                  Whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa whuppa
                  The fash man comes in the niiiight

                  How many times do I need to chant “Pinochet, Pinochet, olê, olê, olé” before CR gets a helli ride?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim correctly states:

                  “The leftism of yesteryear was always a lie. They intended the destruction of the working class from the beginning, and this became obvious soon after Allende took power.

                  The lie that the capitalist class exercises power is intended as a cover for the lie that the proletarian class can exercise power.

                  We are always ruled by priests or warriors. Warriors want to protect taxpayers, and therefore grant status to the creation of value, but priests have no similar concerns, thus an imbalance towards priests ends with priests devouring everyone and destroying everything, since the only status they will permit is holiness status.”

                  All absolutely spot on.

                  The problem with your worldview is that you draw walls around parts of society and place warriors and priests on opposite sides of those walls.
                  The difference between warriors and priests is 100% real.
                  The walls are not.

                  Many of the priests today work entirely in the private sector. The private sector is not at all immune to the religion.
                  Sure, almost all of the public sector is peopled by priests. There are a few exceptions but overall, the public sector’s mostly ‘holy’.

                  The private sector used to be mostly ‘secular’ but is now 50/50 at best, and the direction it’s headed is towards being much more like the public sector in this regard.

                  You’ve consistently resisted this conclusion and it’s a massive mistake that leads you to make calls that push in the exact wrong direction, like siding, in effect, with that Google executive today, or the venture capitalists who pay ProPublica millions of dollars to get white nationalists jailed. (I think the estimated figure for the doxxing campaign is in the region of $10m per victim.)

                • jim says:

                  > Many of the priests today work entirely in the private sector.

                  Human Resources is a tentacle of the state inserted into each corporation that employs fifty or more people, and since Sarbanes-Oxley, accounting has become a tentacle of the state inserted into each publicly traded corporation.

                  Come the restoration, we will restore old type accounting, and will do to Human Resources and the Mainstream Media what Charles the Second did to the Church of England.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  That’s absolute garbage.

                  That guy today did not work in HR, and he held those beliefs his entire working life. He held those beliefs when he was writing code, he held those beliefs when he was strategising interface design to match human psychology to maximise sales, he held those beliefs when he was going through the numbers and he held those beliefs when he performance-managed staff under him in such a way that the results got him re-promoted.

                  He’s a capitalist who is an ideological Cathedral supporter.

                  The same thing’s true of the ProPublica funders, and I was wrong to grant your premise that capitalists lack power. They do NOT lack power.
                  If you have $1b to spare, you can throw $50m at something without busting a sweat. That makes a LOT of difference in the world.
                  If you give $1m to every senator, you get a lot done.

                  To deny that is just completely retarded and represents every bit as much of a denial of reality as the worst excesses of the trans-gender movement.

                • peppermint says:

                  > phd
                  > psychology
                  > ux design

                  > writing code

                  lol

                  unfortunately, at this late hour, it is true that people like you have wormed their way into positions that used to be reserved for people capable of working, and people who are capable of working have to pretend to be morons to get into positions

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re the biggest retard here Peppermint. You’ve decided in your retarded mind that I’m some SJW academic and that’s all there is to it.

                  I used to work in Delphi software development focused on stochastics in a commercial setting.
                  I have some understanding of psychology but it’s not my area of expertise.

                  The concept of applied psychology in a UI design context is certainly not incoherent and it’s certainly not priestly. Quite the contrary: this is bringing every tiny specific insight from experimental psychology to bear in ways that increase sales – nothing more and nothing less.

                  That guy was, and is, a true capitalist.

                  The idea that Google is not a ‘greedy’ organisation is GOOGLE’S OWN PROPAGANDA!!!!!!!!!!
                  They’re the biggest corporation in the history of the world!

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I just checked The Guardian (funded by venture capitalists) to see if they’d mentioned the nation-wide protests in France that took place with between 11,000 (police estimate) and 50,000 (union estimate) people being tear-gassed on the streets.

                  Nope, still not newsworthy lol

                  What I DID see was this: the high priest of global warming is none other than the head of Shell Oil LMAO

                  How can you IDIOTS not see how deep these hypocrites are embedded?

                  The far left today is the militant wing of global capitalism!

                  https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/oct/09/shell-ben-van-beurden-mass-reforestation-un-climate-change-target

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It cuts both ways of course. It’s not just that capitalists fund the worst forms of leftism and hold the worst kinds of leftist beliefs.

                  Leftists are dyed-in-the-wool capitalists these days.

                  Here’s Jared Diamond talking to Strategy-Business:

                  “S+B: Can you apply learnings from these historical “experiments” directly to contemporary business organizations?

                  DIAMOND: Think of the Huguenots being driven out of France. What do they do? They go to England, they go to South Africa, they enrich England and South Africa.

                  Now look at Silicon Valley, and contrast it with the technology industry around Route 128 near Boston, where I grew up, which is less competitive. In Silicon Valley, it’s like Hollywood studios. People leave one company and they go to a competitor. There’s no loyalty. It’s the opposite of Japanese companies, where at age 22 you enter a company, and God help you if you leave that company before you’re 67. With the moving of people back and forth, ideas are moving back and forth. It’s fierce competition between the companies. And the fierce competition means that what rises to the top has had to beat out 1,000 other companies.”

                • Simon says:

                  It would be good if you could start your own blog and just post there so we don’t have to scroll through your posts thanks m8.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m not your mate.

                • Simon says:

                  You’re good with sarcasm too. Your blog will be a cracker.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m not a blogger and I never intended to get into this discussion in the first place.

                  People here hold bizarre views and reacted with intellectual dishonesty when those bizarre views were challenged.

                  I’ve tried many times to extricate myself but people keep on referencing me and I find it very hard to resist responding to the latest blatantly false lie.

                  You are actually the best stimulus to just leave and never look back, because you display that cold viciousness of the leftist.

                  I’d joined the dots between libertarianism and liberalism intellectually easily enough: both are part of the Whig movement’s development and both are Utopian egalitarian visions based on rule by abstract laws (ie. rule by judges).

                  But I hadn’t joined the dots viscerally until recently. The intellectual dishonesty was genuinely a shock: I seriously wasn’t expecting it.

                  But now to encounter that cold, callous sadism of the leftist face to face? That’s the final straw.

                  People like you don’t just infuriate me, you frighten me.

                  You have a lot of bloodshed in you and you won’t be troubled by any of it.

                  I want nothing more than to be as far away from the likes of scum like you as possible.

                • peppermint says:

                  > some understanding of psychology but it’s not my area of expertise.

                  sjw academic confirmed

                  > The idea that Google is not a ‘greedy’ organisation is GOOGLE’S OWN PROPAGANDA!!!!!!!!!!

                  so much for understanding psychology

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Biggest corporation in the history of the world, harvesting and selling people’s private data in technologically innovative ways while pushing massively high time preference lifestyles and agitating to undermine dissent…….. and you morons claim it has no power and is in fact cowering under duress from government tentacles in its HR department.

                  You can go fuck yourself Peppermint. I don’t even think you believe half the crap you say. You’re just a troll and you think the edgiest position is to be some neo-royalist shit-head who wants women chained to the kitchen sink.

                  Encounter anything actually challenging and you fall back on ad hominems and deliberate misrepresentation while trying to entrap people into breaking the law.

                  You’d fit in perfectly at ProPublica. You’re not as loathsome as Simon here, because you lack his cold killer instinct. You’ll misquote people, take them out of context and claim they’re saying things that are the opposite of what you know they’re actually saying, but you won’t call them “friend” or “m8” as a means to tell them you’d like to firebomb their house and kill their children.

                  You’re a pest. He’s a pestilence, and right now I’m just more deeply committed than I already was: to stay out of the way of the left.

                  That now includes not only libertarians but reactionaries as well.

                  You’re the same type of animal as Antifa and you need to be treated the same way: as dangerous fanatics intent on the destruction of the world in a deranged quest for personal sadistic power.

                  This has been a valuable learning experience. There simply ARE no intellectual movements worth caring about: there are people who will take the side of whites and people who will oppose them.

                  Everything else is just window dressing.

                  With that, that’s it, and this time I don’t give a shit what lies you tell. There’s nothing at all to be gained from discussing anything with leftists.

                • jim says:

                  Google’s most infamous act of spying on its users was and is that they ratted out General Petraeus.

                  That was not because fans of social justice, that was because fans of power.

                  Which in turn implies that they do not have power, that culture is downstream of power.

                  Reaction 101:

                  1. Culture is downstream of power
                  2. We are always ruled by priests or warriors
                  3. Capitalists do as they are told, and will continue to do as they are told after the restoration. After the restoration, Human Resources will take down their old posters, and put up their new posters, without seriously reading either set of posters

                  Google is evil, but the evil of their acts does not imply that we are ruled by capitalists, or “the capitalist class”

                  The capitalist class has no real existence. It is a Marxist myth.

                  The patriarchy is a cultural Marxist myth, but unlike “the capitalist class”, it really did exist a long time ago, expiring in the late eighteenth century or early nineteenth century, and come the restoration, will exist again.

                • Simon says:

                  I think it’s clear no one here is interested in what you think. If you think your thoughts are so important start your own blog and post them there.

                • peppermint says:

                  Gonna go ahead and assume you only heard of TRS within the past year. Oldfags know Enoch didn’t use to angrypost as much and only arrived at actually hating jews after following the logic of hating commies and what happened to libertarianism over the last decade.

                  Listen to their early eps, like the one about Pinochet, you might learn something.

                • Roberto says:

                  >there are people who will take the side of whites and people who will oppose them.

                  This blog is one of the most pro-white blogs there are, perhaps the most pro-white blog there is, and drastically more pro-white than TRS or other alt-right communities; we — all the commenters here — are more pro-white than you are. You simply don’t get why that is, because you don’t get what Social Darwinism is, and because you hate modern civilization and technological innovation.

                  Here’s your redpill, motherfucker: extreme selection for adaptation to modern techno-capitalist civilization *is* pro-white.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint:

                  “Listen to their early eps, like the one about Pinochet, you might learn something.”

                  I was there from day one of “Some Garbage Podcast” and viscerally remember the launch of Jeff Tucker’s “Against Libertarian Brutalism”.
                  I was a member of the Libertarian Brutalists Facebook group.

                  I didn’t much care for TRS in the early days because I saw them (TRS of 2014/15) as too conservative. Now I’d see them as too libertarian.

                  TRS of 2018 is the perfect sweet spot, and while I might share your view that duh joos isn’t a sufficient explanation, I’m sure Enoch would agree. The main proximal enemy is white gentile shitlibs.
                  This is the same argument Morgoth makes about the anti-Muslim types in the UK: they didn’t randomly appear and they didn’t randomly become immune to prosecution. White gentile shitlibs are the problem right now.

                  I love how you assume I just don’t understand the literature though. Have you actually READ “Democracy, the God that Failed” or “Power and Markets”?

                  I adjusted my worldview when it became apparent that:

                  1. Most large corporations haven’t cared about profit for some considerable time
                  2. ALL large corporations hate us – the idea they secretly agree but are doing what they’re told is entirely wrong and just wishful thinking
                  3. ALL of the most poisonous left-wing organisations are bankrolled voluntarily by the richest of the rich
                  4. Capitalism (as in the profits made by those who hold capital, since Jim now thinks the capitalist class doesn’t exist) benefits when sales go up
                  5. In the world of insane levels of debt, investment is only very obscurely linked to saving – in fact it pretty much isn’t related at all
                  6. Look at the culture: some of it’s come out of academia and legislators, for sure, but some of it clearly has not. I don’t recall reading any Gramscian papers on the merits of hamburgers and very fancy bullshit coffee
                  7. The left-wing press now hates the left. I showed you the response to yesterday’s Union protests all across France. The BBC and the Guardian STILL haven’t even mentioned it. The only coverage has been by the Daily Mail, the Express, Fox News and RT, and that’s been largely hostile. Today the Guardian ran with an article by a Labour Member of Parliament outlining why nationalising water in England&Wales would lead to dirty water.

                  The narrative of “the left controls the culture via The Cathedral” was closer to reality than the libertarian narrative of “the government just wants to keep growing, while the private sector wants to serve the most urgent of the as yet unmet needs of the largest number of people”.

                  It’s still wrong though.

                  Truth is when you have anarchy you end up with oligarchy.

                  The red pill for you people is that that’s not only true when you give idiots the vote. It’s also true when you let idiots do what they want with their money.
                  It ends up concentrated in the hands of an ever-smaller élite, and that élite takes it upon itself to plan society in ways that suit them.

                  That means Franky&Benny, BetFred, Costa Coffee, endless foreign holidays, mass immigration, 7 year car loans, negative real returns on savings, sexual degeneracy and the steady normalisation of crime…..

                  ….for the masses ROFL

                  I daresay the top twenty richest people on Earth probably have sophisticated and subtle tastes when it comes to art and culture, and I very much doubt they live on overpriced fried gristle and corn syrup.
                  I bet if you followed Eric Sprott or Richard Branson around in their day-to-day lives, you’d see healthy eating, good habits and frugal ways.

                  As Jeff Tucker once noted, “The Wolf Of Wall Street” purports to show us how the rich live. Actually it’s how the poor live.

                  Anyway I’m out of here. After Simonpath came some fairly reasonable-sounding comments so I thought I’d answer them, but as there’s no outright slander this time, I’ll just disappear gracefully.

                  You carry on believing whatever you want. If you seriously think Bill Gates only started his African shenanigans because George Bush told him to, then you’re just thick.

                • jim says:

                  > ALL large corporations hate us – the idea they secretly agree but are doing what they’re told is entirely wrong and just wishful thinking

                  I have gotten drunk with these people. They hate and fear the social justice warriors. They don’t even notice us, but boy do they hate and fear our enemies.

                  They are terrified and terrorized, and the government routinely applies extraordinary measures to keep them in line.

                  When you tell us that corporations love progressives, it is like the state department telling us that everyone except Americans love them and Americans should conform, and then State Department genocides the Tutsis and attempts to genocide the Alawites.

                  The routine use of terrible and terrifying threats tells me that not all corporations love progressives.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  (Before you ‘go there’ about Eric Sprott, bear in mind I chose him deliberately, like I did Harry’s Razors. He’s the poster-boy for a “good billionaire”, as opposed to a George Soros or a Mark Zuckerberg. I knew he had a ‘foundation’ but I didn’t know what its goals and priorities were.
                  If you don’t want to encounter the words “hunger among aboriginal peoples”, I suggest you don’t try to make me look ‘foolish’.)

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  (And I’d genuinely love to see your heads spinning as you try to explain how Theresa May worded her death threat letter to Richard Branson to force him to do this:

                  “Virgin Unite is the non-profit “entrepreneurial foundation” of the Virgin Group. Its overheads are paid by Mr. Branson and all donations funnelled directly to projects. The charity works with partners around the world on social and environmental issues. Its most heavily publicized project of late is Heaven’s Angels, which sends health-care workers on motorbikes into remote sub-Saharan areas to deliver essential services.”

                  )

                  Deep down you know I’m right.

                • jim says:

                  > try to explain how Theresa May worded her death threat letter to Richard Branson to force him to do this

                  Probably worded her death threat letter very similarly to the Department of Education’s infamous “Dear Colleague” death threat letter to the universities, commanding them to convict a sufficient number of heterosexual white males for rape, under threat of hostile environment lawsuits and the Kavanaugh treatment.

                  Probably worded her death threat letter very similarly to the death threat letter that commanded the Bank of Beverly Hills to piss its money away on cat-eating no-hablo-english illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets.

                  The latter death threat actually got carried out, since though the Bank of Beverly Hills made the required loans, it failed to show the required faith and zeal.

                  The banking industry was, in the end, full of true believers, or people who did an adequate job of faking true belief, because all who doubted were put out of business and their banks handed to Angelo Mozilo.

                  In at least some cases, we can read actual threats being made, and punishments carried out.

                  Disney gave social justice warriors star wars, because threatened with the Kavanaugh treatment.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  lol did you move and merge the thread? Desperate times.

                  There’s nothing anyone can really say at this point.

                  “When you tell us that corporations love progressives, it is like the state department telling us that everyone except Americans love them and Americans should conform, and then State Department genocides the Tutsis and attempts to genocide the Alawites.

                  The routine use of terrible threats tells me that corporations do not love progressives.”

                  I’ve given you the smoking gun and asked for a better poster boy.

                  I chose Harry’s Razors because they advertise with Tom Woods. Turns out they continued to fund Bronx Freedom Project *after* it got some poor bitch raped in her own home.

                  I chose Eric Sprott because he’s a libertarian. Turns out he takes the money you libertarians give him and gives it to ‘the homeless’ (so they can maintain their wholly artificial lifestyle of choice) and hopes to improve the lot of ‘hungry aboriginal peoples’. (I know nothing about ‘native’ Canadians but am guessing they’re much of a muchness with Big Chief Jaegerbomb.)

                  If you have better poster-boys, fine, but your tautology doesn’t need one (rather like another ideology we all know and love): if a capitalist billionaire is in fact a capitalist billionaire and not a priest, he still funds people who are priests, often of the worst kind.

                  Your circular reasoning says that in those cases, he feels threatened. Presumably Trudeau said “feed the abos or I feed you to the pink-hairs” and Sprott said “my security staff is deeply afraid”.
                  I’m not picking on him, I like him, particularly the way he dresses and presents himself. He’s my guy, in theory, except there he is being THEIR guy.

                  You seem to think money doesn’t matter: the only ‘real’ power is political power.

                  Money IS political power you fool!

                  Anyway you’ve shown your true colours enough times now. I’m bored. I can argue with brainwashed apologists for the state any time, so having brainwashed apologists for the private state isn’t much of an alternative.

                  Actually though, I perceive my own black-red pill (no, not anarcho-communism! Jason Unruhe might not be anti-white but he’s still a ‘third worlder’) and it’s this:

                  If Eric Sprott and Harry’s Razors behave this way; it Richard Branson and Bill Gates behave this way…. then why wouldn’t a leader with Absolute Authority?

                  I guess we’re probably doomed.

                • jim says:

                  > > “When you tell us that corporations love progressives, it is like the state department telling us that everyone except Americans love them and Americans should conform, and then State Department genocides the Tutsis and attempts to genocide the Alawites.

                  > > The routine use of terrible threats tells me that corporations do not love progressives.”

                  > I’ve given you the smoking gun and asked for a better poster boy.

                  I gave you plenty of poster boys. Further requests for poster boys will be deleted without comment.

                  Bank of Beverly Hills is a pretty good poster boy.

                  Bank after bank was given into the hands of Angelo Mozilo by the regulators. That should be sufficient poster boys.

                  Google, while doubtless plenty evil without urging, was threatened with a hostile environment suit if it failed to purge Damore. If all at Google are true believers, this is rather like the fact that all at Countrywide were true believers – because anyone not a true believer was purged, and if his company failed to purge him, his company was destroyed and given into the hands of Angelo Mozilo.

                  Star Wars was given into the hands of true believers, because Disney was threatened with the Kavanaugh treatment.

                  Similarly the Dear Colleague letter implies that there is some substantial secret dissent in some universities. If everyone loves Mao, why is it necessary to threaten people with what might befall those that fail to love him?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [repetitious lies deleted without repetitious rebuttal]

    • Roberto says:

      >>Another important virtue, not covered in the old testament, is truth telling
      >“Thou shalt not take Jehovah thy God’s Name in vain” is a prohibition on speaking falsely in sworn oaths, the oral contracts of the day.

      Yeah, but that’s not the same thing as simply telling lies, or being misleading about the facts. The Bible unfortunately does not explicitly prohibit lying to thy neighbor. It prohibits a number of forms of lying to thy neighbor, but “hey did you hear about the imminent apocalypse due to global warming” is not the kind of statement that the Bible explicitly prohibits one from making. Truth for its own sake, truth telling as a virtue, is a meme originating in Restoration England, among the Royal Society.

      • Koanic says:

        > Truth for its own sake, truth telling as a virtue, is a meme originating in Restoration England, among the Royal Society.

        Nonsense. Not only is your assertion prima facia absurd, I linked a list of Bible verses against lying. The difference is that taking Jehovah’s Name in vain carries the death penalty. There is no comparable penalty in the West, and we are far less honest as a result.

        If the West was still a Biblical society, a scientist publishing a paper could reasonably be expected to testify by oath that the information therein was accurate to his best knowledge, particularly in the face of controversy. Problem solved.

        Of course, if that scientist had read the New Testament, he might protest that Jesus forbade oaths, setting the higher standard of “Let your yes be yes, and your no no.” In which case, /every single word would be as honest as an oath/.

        Matthew 5:37

        QED.

        • peppermint says:

          does that mean after all this is over when i go to court and report you for being a homosexual i’ll be able to claim that as a christian i can’t swear to it

        • jim says:

          > > Truth for its own sake, truth telling as a virtue, is a meme originating in Restoration England, among the Royal Society.

          > Nonsense. Not only is your assertion prima facia absurd, I linked a list of Bible verses against lying

          None of these verses address the kind of untruths that Boyle, Feynman, and Galileo addressed.

          None of them address Nature magazine publishing the Hockey Stick, and none of them address the troofer telling us that World Trade Center building seven fell straight down on its own footprint.

          Robert Boyle in “The Sceptical Chymist” is not complaining about people who see one experimental result and claim that they saw another, but rather people who speak as if they had seen some experimental result, but had not – much like the people who speak as if they had seen what area World Trade Center building seven fell down on, and the people who speak as if they knew how the Hockey Stick was calculated and what it depicts.

          • Koanic says:

            Even if I concede that none of the other verses touch on scientific honesty, Matthew 5:37 certainly does. One can hardly avoid the words “yes” and “no” in one’s scientific career.

            Measurement is a sacred thing in the Bible, something that both angels and men do in divine visions or transportations. A real Christian would be terrified of falsifying it. If you were one, you would know this.

            • jim says:

              > Matthew 5:37 certainly does.

              Recollect our discussion with the troofers. Is the troofer lying by the standards of Mathew 5:37 when he tells us that World Trade Center building seven was undamaged, not on fire, and fell down on its own footprint, and concludes that therefore there was something mighty odd about its fall? If so, explain.

              It is not that his Yea is nay. The trouble is he speaks confidently of matters that he does not himself has knowledge of, relying on those unreliable, on the collective wisdom of those unwise. His lie is a meta level higher than that addressed in scripture, claiming direct access to the data, when he has not bothered to actually verify the evidence himself.

              He is surely lying by my standards, but not obvious he is lying by biblical standards, which in our era need to be substantially tightened up. If you look at the video taken from the North and the North East, the building does indeed look to be undamaged, not on fire, and falling straight down. Of course if you look at the building from the South or South West, looks like the south face of the building is all smashed up and on fire, and looks like the building falls southwards into the square between it and building six, that the outer shell of the building begins its fall by falling sideways like a tree notched by axeman.

              Similarly, the Hockey Stick graph – confidently relied upon by those who have no idea what in fact is being graphed.

              > Measurement is a sacred thing in the Bible, something that both angels and men do in divine visions or transportations

              That commands the merchant and the businessman to use honest weights and measures. The Hockey Stick graph is surely not an honest measure, but the bible does not seem to cover the case unless Mann was charging us by the height of the graph. Which in a sense he was and is, since the greater the climate alarmism, the more the power and the bigger the grants, but this is not the case addressed in the bible.

              You will notice that Robert Boyle was arguing for these higher standards, but he was not arguing as a man who has the backing of sovereign, society, and church. He was arguing for new and higher standards, not reminding us of existing standards.

              The Skeptical Chymist was published in the year after Charles the Second came to power. And two years late, three years after the restoration, Boyle’s standard of truth did receive the backing of the sovereign. And then the Royal Society could, and did, treat deviations from these standards as shameful defection.

              • 7817 says:

                The gospel of John describes Satan as the father of lies, and describes the Pharisees as sons of Satan because of their affiliation with lying. It’s pretty clear cut that truth seeking and truth telling is Biblical and lying and perverting truth is against God.

                • jim says:

                  > The gospel of John describes Satan as the father of lies

                  Well of course, but then we have to agree on what constitutes lying.

                  And the trouble is that what 9/11 Troofers and Global Warmists do is a meta level higher than the lies that the Bible references, and was not really defined as lying until 1603, when Robert Boyle’s 1601 argument in “The Sceptical Chemist” that it should be viewed as lying got Royal backing.

                  And, since Harvard got the upper hand over the Royal Society, it is being quietly being redefined as not exactly lying.

                  Indeed that is exactly climategate: Climategate files released; Climategate files reveal that the Warmists are lying by the old Royal Society standard of what constitutes a lie. Whereupon the entire scientific community, every single one everywhere in the entire western world, totally agrees that that is not lying, because any scientist who is so old fashioned and out of date that he still thinks it is lying loses his job and is deemed no longer a scientist.

              • 7817 says:

                “The trouble is he speaks confidently of matters that he does not himself has knowledge of, relying on those unreliable, on the collective wisdom of those unwise. His lie is a meta level higher than that addressed in scripture, claiming direct access to the data, when he has not bothered to actually verify the evidence himself.”

                This sounds exactly like what Vox Day describes as lying. Went over my head for a long while, buy as usual you have put it into plain easy to understand English.

              • Koanic says:

                This answer was intended for your previous post, but fits here just as well.

                Recall that Solomon was a naturalist. To find a scientific attitude in the Bible, start with Proverbs.

                > Robert Boyle in “The Sceptical Chymist” is not complaining about people who see one experimental result and claim that they saw another, but rather people who speak as if they had seen some experimental result, but had not – much like the people who speak as if they had seen what area World Trade Center building seven fell down on, and the people who speak as if they knew how the Hockey Stick was calculated and what it depicts.

                Proverbs 18:13
                He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him.

                Other relevant lines from chapter 18:
                A fool hath no delight in understanding, but that his heart may discover itself.
                A fool’s lips enter into contention, and his mouth calleth for strokes.
                A fool’s mouth is his destruction, and his lips are the snare of his soul.
                Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility.
                The heart of the prudent getteth knowledge; and the ear of the wise seeketh knowledge.
                He that is first in his own cause seemeth just; but his neighbour cometh and searcheth him.

                • jim says:

                  These are somewhat relevant, but the specific problem we see in Global Warming and Trooferism is not exactly any of them. The problem with Global Warming, Trooferism, and the like is that the speaker is untruthful in that he is truthfully reporting the social consensus of his social group, as if it was the evidence of his own eyes and hands.

                  Which is reasonable behavior if the speaker regards his social group as reliable and the person he is addressing regards his social group as reliable, but is not truthful if the person addressed regards the social group as unreliable, and is deeply wicked the person addressed suspects them of being hostile enemies who intend him and his group harm. (Warmists are hostile to whites, males, and capitalists, and hostile to the technological civilization created by white male capitalists, troofers want alliance with Arabs and Islam, which alliance those that they address hate and fear.)

                  It is dishonest behavior if the person addressed suspects the social group of being unreliable, and hostile dishonest behavior if he reasonably suspects the social group is hostile.

                  In the latter case, it is akin to the merchant using false measures to cheat you – a lie made to advantage the group making it, and harm the group being deceived – but it is misconduct at the collective, rather than the individual, level, while the Bible addresses misconduct at the individual level.

                • Koanic says:

                  With this shift in focus, I fail to see why the recurring example of false prophets prophesying in consensus is not relevant. Global warmists are false prophets, of doom rather than they usual cheap victory. Otherwise, the same. They even come in round-numbered lots. I already linked to one such example; there are many:

                  https://biblehub.com/kjv/1_kings/22.htm

                • jim says:

                  The false consensus of the false prophets is relevant, and one can reasonably draw from this the conclusion that lying by consensus is lying, but that is not in fact the conclusion that people have drawn. I am just not seeing any Christians saying what Robert Boyle said. The practical origin of this doctrine, that lying by consensus is lying, is Robert Boyle backed by King Charles the Second.

                  Doubtless Christians should invoke the false consensus of the false prophets as the Bible warning us about what was revealed in the climategate files, but such a step is not altogether trivial, and it has not in fact been done. Maybe if we win, will make sure that it is done.

                • Koanic says:

                  So you’re saying that Christians did a bad job of understanding and implementing the Bible, of growing up from milk to meat, and thereby lost the West?

                  *nods*

                • jim says:

                  Sounds right. Christianity did a pretty good job, but things have been going bad since the great schism, and really bad since the protestant reformation.

                  The reformers were correct to point out the flaws of the Roman Catholic Church, but unleashed a holiness spiral, or rather numerous holiness spirals, and we are in one right now.

                  Yes, Catholic Church still needed fixing and still needs fixing, but Solar Scriptura failed horribly. Should have gone communion of saints, which is to say, should have sought to preserve accumulated social technology, instead of denouncing it all as “pagan additions”.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yep.

                  It’s easier to point out that a cathedral has no roof than to build your own on the Rock. There’s a reason “Sola Scriptura” isn’t found in Scripture.

                  The Catholic Church was obviously lying, as were the Pharisees with their “traditions of men”. But a working tradition should be respected – “By their fruit ye shall know them.”

                  The purpose of a Biblical worldview is to prevent memetic infection by booting each son from a non-writeable OS image. No virus written against it shall prosper. Once it’s booted, you can hook it up to the Internet, download the last 2,000 years of virus signatures, and do business like Solomon.

              • calov says:

                A false prophet is a false prophet even if he thinks he’s a real prophet, and he is still condemned to death by the bible.

      • calov says:

        This is a mistake, Roberto, in my opinion.

        The 8th commandment, about false witness, includes lying generally, just as the 6th commandment, regarding adultery, also forbids other forms of unchastity (including, according to Jesus, looking at a woman lustfully), and the 5th commandment includes not only murder but the prelude to murder: anger, grudges, insults (per Mt. 5).

        But in addition to the correct, properly expansive understanding of the 8th commandment, you also have a number of explicit prohibitions of lying in the New Testament:

        “Therefore, having put away falsehood/lies, let each of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members of one another.” Eph. 5:25

        “But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

        Although that last is not in the form of a prohibition, it’s obvious from the punishment assigned to liars that God forbids it. And there are endless similar texts against lying as such. A few others:

        “You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and has nothing to do with the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44)–so Satan is characterized by lying, and lying is directly linked with murder. Which is obvious if you consider the story of the fall in Genesis 3.

        “For you are not a God who delights in wickedness; evil may not dwell with you. The boastful shall not stand before your eyes; you hate all evildoers. You destroy those who speak lies; the Lord abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.” (Psalm 5:4-6)

        In contrast, truth is associated with God and with life. John 19:37 “Then Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, ‘You say that I am a king. For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world–to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice.'” Or, more famously, “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)

        • jim says:

          > The 8th commandment, about false witness, includes lying generally, just as the 6th commandment, regarding adultery, also forbids other forms of unchastity (including, according to Jesus, looking at a woman lustfully), and the 5th commandment includes not only murder but the prelude to murder: anger, grudges, insults (per Mt. 5).

          Bullshit.

          People did not regard the kind of misconduct we are talking about as lying until 1603, and after the climategate files were revealed, the entire scientific community ceased to regard it as lying. The problem is that we want to have it once more classified as lying.

          That there were four hundred or so false prophets arguably implies that they were engaged in truth by consensus, and that truth by consensus leads to delusion and is wicked, but it fails to say these things outright. Need a theological authority to draw that implication out and say “Therefore peer review is forbidden, because those who engage in peer review are Ahab’s false prophets.”

    • Wad Cutter says:

      Unless you can split the Red Sea, the example of Moses is not relevant.

      Just following Jim’s example (2018-10-04 at 20:20) of finding a small difference, then going for the flippant dismissal. Tada!

  3. Alrenous says:

    Cooperation is positively correlated with IQ. High IQ plus solid philosophy does lead to a cooperative society. Although the IQ necessary to do so reliably may be unfeasibly high.

    • jim says:

      IQ is necessary but not sufficient. Prisoner’s dilemma catches smart prisoners.

      The dumb person is apt to erroneously think he sees opportunities to defect. The smart person is apt to all too accurately see opportunities to defect.

      One of the big problems is failure to acknowledge defection. The Victorians held that women were angels, except men made them do bad things, so there was no need to restrain them from doing bad things. Result we get the woman who aborts her husbands children in the hope that she can trade up to one of those handsome charismatic wealthy men who never texted her the morning after, winds up a cat lady.

      Conversely, science rose because the skeptical skeptical chemist was skeptical – he tells us there are a lot of untruths circulating, and that those who peddle untruths should suffer disgrace.

      To break out of prisoner’s dilemma needs collective social enforcement, and collective social enforcement can easily go horribly wrong, enforcing evil and prohibiting cooperation – for example “domestic violence” laws which violently smash families, destroy homes, burn a lifetime’s assets in a single day’s court hearings, and render children homeless and fatherless.

      Boyle in “The skeptical chemist” calls for collective social enforcement of truth telling. Right now we are seeing collective social enforcement against female misconduct suppressed, and peer review is necessarily in practice collective social enforcement of lying.

      I am pretty sure that no one, least of all Mann himself, knew or cared how the hockey stick graph was calculated when it first came out, any more than a troofer knows how it is that he knows that World Trade Center building seven fell down on its own footprint. He probably told some postgrad “add the proxies together, and make sure their sum winds up looking like this”, and subsequently forgot who the postgrad was, because he simply did not care and was not interested.

      • Alrenous says:

        If you defect in the prisoner’s dilemma against an equal partner, you are being irrational, not smart.

        • jim says:

          The definition of prisoner’s dilemma is precisely that defection is rational and smart.

          It cannot be solved within the context of the two individuals directly involved, but requires an appeal to morality, to God, to society, to the Sovereign, or to the King.

          • Alrenous says:

            It is provable that defection is wrong and stupid in every possible configuration of the prisoner’s dilemma.

            This is already widely accepted in the infinitely iterated or indefinitely iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Tit-for-tat bots etc.

            For the known-finite prisoner’s dilemma, I provided the proof myself.

            • peppermint says:

              On an individual level, the individual choices entailed by racial conflicts aren’t frequent enough, but if an individual gets defected on too much and learns, he’s called ignorant, by some jesuit like CR, who’s sworn to repeat stupid lies.

              CR, I don’t think you’ve read all of the latter day pamphlets, but this isn’t the kind of place where you get any points simply for reading, few activities are less pointless and earnestly engaged in, gamers have real nontrivial skills and know they’re just playing.

              Denying that the earth revolves around the sun is the most flabbergastingly stupid thing I’ve seen today and really points in the direction of where these progressives are coming from.

              How did we go from building practical things and asserting only what we know back to worshiping books? Because the CR’s of the dawn of the 20c played a round of prisoner’s dilemma by collaborating with jews to take over, the jews allowed them to enjoy their lifetime of servitude, with Revilo Oliver, the last honest professor, dying in the 90s and Bob Whitaker, the last honest professor into government man, dying in the 2010s.

              And the infuriating thing is we can’t go back in time and torture them to death. At least we have CR.

              • peppermint says:

                AI can legitimately save us here, because AI can prove that commies are liars who cite each other for no reason, quickly, without getting bogged down in documents no human actually reads.

              • Roberto says:

                Unless CR manages to produce a plausible cost-benefit analysis according to which the King ought to ban capitalism and the rest of it, he’s not someone to worry about. He appeals to emotion, but cannot explain why a rational ruler would behave as he wants him to. If he can’t convince the commenters here, he won’t convince a King.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  He might, if the king is gullible, sentimental or both. King Louis XVI honored Rousseau and company, failed to be monarchist enough, and the monarchy fell. Which is why people like us, dear friends, must ever be at hand to remind the King of his true duties, and correct him when he goes wrong. Indeed, since I am the most darkly enlightened of anyone here, indeed twice as darkly enlightened as any of you, I should advise the King. (Now why are my hands rubbing together of their own accord?)

                  \unshitpost The DE, Jimism, actual social science, whatever you want to call it, cannot be in charge of the state, because it will then gradually cease to be the truth and begin to suffer the problems of all state religions. We will just have to put our trust in the King and hope that our memes, backed by the scientific method, are enough to ward him away from leftism.

                • jim says:

                  The problem with CR is that he is an entryist. He is trying to fog up our memes and trying to get us to accept cultural Marxist memes.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  “Entryist” is so funny.

                  “So likewise you, when you shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.” Matthew 24:33

                  Jesus was the original “entryist.” And Christianity the original SJW mass movement. The West is completely converged with Jew First worship now.

                  “The Jew First!” Romans 1:16

                • jim says:

                  Reinventing Jesus as a social justice warrior is an entryist lie – You tell us “Hail Fellow White Male”, and you tell the Christians “Hail fellow Christian”

                  2 Thessalonians 3:10
                  For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
                  1 Timothy 5:16
                  If any man or woman that believeth have widows, let them relieve them, and let not the church be charged; that it may relieve them that are widows indeed.
                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Didn’t “reinvent,” merely quoted Jewsus, so you’re lying, Liar Jim.

                  SJW is just another term for a fanatical member of a “True Believer” mass movement as documented by Eric Hoffer, and Christianity is described throughout his text, as is how Christians executed their entryism into European society. Now it’s fully converged with Jew-worshiping race-traitors like you.

                • peppermint says:

                  Gaywad, you either take the New Testament seriously and argue from within, or you’re just insulting it from outside.

                  What does the Internet teach us to do with insults from outside?

                  Until you’re willing to calm down and recognize why your ancestors accepted Christ in the first place, you’ll just annoy everyone.

                  You sound like a Boomer calling for more strikes on Syria because there’s no difference between Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, SA, they blow up our stuff, we have bombs too, lets stop being PC and impose some shock and awe.

                  Your ignorance about the very complex and sensitive issue of not only Christianity but 20c WN is appalling. You owe it to your race to read what Andrew Anglin and Andrew Auernheimer have said about it. I’m not going to write you a whole pamphlet here, maybe somewhere else.

                • peppermint says:

                  Why was Rockwell assassinated before Phase 2, James Mason allowed to run around doing whatever, Yockey assassinated, Revilo Oliver ignored, Welch supported, Pierce allowed to do whatever, Covington made largely homeless probably in the hope that he would start injudiciously angryposting?

                  If you accept that this is war and war is deception, your behavior is inexcusable. If you don’t, you’re completely unserious despite having stumbled upon the most serious thing our race has ever done, which is also inexcusable.

              • Roberto says:

                While you’re at it, CR, explain coherently whether free enterprise is the cause of leftism or the result of leftism. No “capitalists benefit from the poz.” Explain which causes what.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re just bringing up all the points we’ve done to death.

                  I’ve made the cases you’re claiming I haven’t made, and those cases have been met with stupid retarded straw man distortions time and again.
                  When that isn’t sufficient, you pretend not to understand, or you take some harmless point out of context and turn it into the main focus – the classic example being someone (not me) saying “single parents” and being met with feigned astonishment: what could this alien term MEAN? What a bizarre and meaningless construct lol

                  It doesn’t convince me, sorry.

                  Meanwhile, Social Matter, who have been drifting in depressingly conservative directions of late, have largely redeemed themselves here:

                  https://www.socialmatter.net/2018/10/01/the-rise-of-cultural-anarchism/

                  They seem to understand two things that people like you (and this whole community) find conveniently hard to perceive:

                  1. The modern leftist paradigm is pure Bakuninian anarchism, just like Carlyle told us
                  2. Corporate power is a core component of what NRxers call The Cathedral and alt righters call Globohomo Gayplex.

                  The idea that 1 is false and in fact leftists are statists and statists are leftists is ridiculous on its face.
                  The idea that 2 is false is so jaw-droppingly retarded “I just can’t even” lol

                  Don’t bother trying to pick this apart and ‘argue’ because as this writer points out, this is no longer about reasoned arguments – this community’s proven his point for him – this is tribal.

                  The guys who want to side with globohomo over there, and the guys who want it dead over here.

                  Regrettably, whilst I may find myself on the losing side and have to accept Social Matter’s effeminate ‘passivism’ for pragmatic reasons, people like you will continue to see yourself as a huge rebel for standing up for the rights of corporations like Starbucks (who DESPISE YOU) to do all manner of vile degenerate things because….. well you’ve never really given any reason, it’s just because.

                • peppermint says:

                  CR, for the last time, anarchists are statists.

                  Petit-anarchists need the state to make everyone pretend to like them and give them things they know they wouldn’t be able to earn.

                  Grand-anarchists need the state to implement their vision of no one being officially considered superior to them, and, in fact, they get the supremacy as visionaries.

                  You are both.

            • Andre says:

              “This is already widely accepted in the infinitely iterated or indefinitely iterated prisoner’s dilemma. Tit-for-tat bots etc.”

              Great, now we just need humans to be immortal.

  4. Mycroft Jones says:

    Truth telling is a very Biblical value. The British “gentlemen” didn’t get it from the Catholic Church. They got it from the Christianity of Alfred the Great.

    John 1:47 Jesus saw Nathanael coming to him, and saith of him, Behold an Israelite indeed, in whom is no guile!

    Psalms 32:2 Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile.

    Psalms 34:13 Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.

    The concept of accesory after the fact and individual responsibility to keep society on the right track:

    Leviticus 5:1 And if a soul sin, and hear the voice of swearing, and is a witness, whether he hath seen or known of it; if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity.

  5. pyrrhus says:

    Epic piece, Jim…So an effective way to destroy another country or civilization is to convince them to “liberate” their women and greatly weaken or destroy property rights…

    • pyrrhus says:

      And an effective way to do that is to install your people in positions of control over propaganda outlets and schools…

  6. ilkarnal says:

    Do you need ‘property rights’ over women? It seems there is a self-destructive tendency in far right circles to phrase things in maximally offensive ways. You need faithful well behaved women – and women need faithful well behaved men. Marriage 1.0 can be phrased as ‘property rights’ of a wife to her husband as much as the inverse. It’s more appropriate to call the process ‘honoring of vows’ rather than ‘property rights.’

    As for control over who women marry, fathers used to have a lot more influence over who their daughters married because fathers were much more powerful. There was more of a need for family ties and support. That need has been abrogated by the welfare state. Remove the welfare state, and women who are disowned by fathers face powerful disincentives.

    If you push for and get the honoring of vows, the removal of the welfare state, and high fertility, you have achieved victory. It’s possible that the lasting removal of the welfare state alone would suffice. That’s also a banner people might rally to, while they will never rally to ‘women should be property.’ Even in Muslim countries, even under ISIS, married women have substantial autonomy and rights, and unmarried women who are in good standing have more autonomy and rights than is generally understood. The completely crushing patriarchy seems to be feminist fiction.

    • The Cominator says:

      I think Jim goes too far in that property implies life and death power something not even the Roman’s could maintain legally once their society became more secure.

      Corporal punishment powers within limits is something that should exist, but husbands and fathers should not generally be allowed to kill their charges or send them to the emergency room. Adultery should not be a death penalty matter (and only the puritans generally tried to make it so) but the husband should have the option of inflicting a painful 40 lash public horsewhipping for it.

      • Alrenous says:

        The correct rules for unemancipated dependents is something to leave to the market. Provide the opportunity to sign up for a variety of rules and see which ones prosper, and which ones become destitute. Moreover, the correct answer won’t be uniform. It will vary from place to place and occasionally individually.

    • jim says:

      > Do you need ‘property rights’ over women? It seems there is a self-destructive tendency in far right circles to phrase things in maximally offensive ways. You need faithful well behaved women – and women need faithful well behaved men. Marriage 1.0 can be phrased as ‘property rights’ of a wife to her husband as much as the inverse. It’s more appropriate to call the process ‘honoring of vows’ rather than ‘property rights.’

      If everyone is well behaved, then no problem. The problem is, what when something goes really wrong?

      To avoid defect/defect equilibrium, then society has to apply coercion and back individual coercion when things go really wrong, when things go very wrong indeed.

      Biblical rule is that a woman cannot leave her husband, and must obey her husband. Which means that if she leaves she can be, and should be hauled back, if she disobeys, can be compelled, therefore can be punished like a child. Husband must cherish, woman must submit.

      That is a property right in women.

      If disobedience allowed, then two households, not one household. Hard to reproduce with two households. We have been trying it, works horribly badly. One ship needs one captain.

      If leaving allowed, children are too big a risk.

      If disobedience can be coerced, if leaving can be coerced, then a male property right in women. If cannot be coerced, no real marriage, if no real marriage, difficult to reproduce.

      • The Cominator says:

        Should their be some limits on the paterfamilias freehold rights in regards to women and children?

        The state should not be able to build windows into men’s homes… but if the husband/father sends his wife or children to the emergency room or the morgue should he be prosecuted then?

        • eternal anglo says:

          Does the King own all the land in his kingdom, and the barons control their fiefs only while he wills it? Or do the barons own their fiefs, and the King rule over them only while they will it?

          Jim has said somewhere that ambiguity is actually useful here. To resolve conflicts within a fiefdom, it is best that the baron owns his fief, so that the King’s inbox is not overwhelmed. However, when there is conflict between barons, it had better turn out that the King owns all the land. Lawyers should find that excessive enthusiasm in straightening out this apparent contradiction is harmful to their careers.

          Similarly with pater familias: We do not want wives or daughters being sent to the emergency room or the morgue, and we would like to think that in the vast majority of cases, such measures will not be necessary for husbands or fathers to enforce patriarchy. So why not ban them?

          If it is clear to all that such measures are utterly forbidden by law, then shit tests that could have been passed by a credible threat of such measures, can no longer be passed. This may not affect the vast majority of wives and daughters, but with that minority who escalate their shit tests to that extreme, the ban will have the effect of current domestic violence laws – men emasculated, women will go feral.

          Breaking bones or killing your wife or daughter should not be as legal as going for a walk in the park, but it should not be as illegal as burglary. State, church and society may discourage it in various ways, but its actual legal status should be murky, so that patriarchy is still enforced up to the very hilt.

          • The Cominator says:

            EA well put I think re ambiguity in that it should not be ipso facto illegal but should not really be tolerated in practice.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            The Roman model of property is a bad one. The Hebrew Biblical model is the correct one. It solves the emergency room problem. If a wife or daughter is in physical danger, they have a right to leave. As does male property. And no backsies. Once they’ve fled, noone can hand them back over.

            • jim says:

              Not seeing this in the Old or New Testament. Where does it say that the wife and daughter can leave if in danger from husband or father?

              Further, if you allow that, women will always tell a man who seems more alpha than their existing husband, typically a cop, that she is in danger from her existing husband. Getting men to fight over them is hard wired into women. They cannot help it any more than a man can help checking out a woman’s boobs.

              I absolutely guarantee that 99% of women claiming protection from an attractive male under this rule are lying.

              • Koanic says:

                There is no such rule in the Bible. There is a rule about not returning escaped slaves who manage to run to a different city or faraway place. Women are not likely to leg it that effectively.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  They can flee. Doesn’t say they are now sexual free agents. For that. a bill of divorce (consent decree) signed by the man is required.

                  A woman fleeing to the protection of some more alpha male without a divorce certificate is playing with fire.

                  And yes, the rule is in the Bible.

                  Exodus 21
                  26 And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it
                  perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake.
                  27 And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he
                  shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.

                  Now another one comes into play:

                  Exodus 21
                  10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of
                  marriage, shall he not diminish.
                  11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without
                  money.

                  If a man even reduces his contractual amounts of food, clothing and sexual congress, she can walk free. You think she can walk free for such things, and not for physical damage? Is a free women less than a slave?

                • jim says:

                  So he can beat her as he pleases, provided she does not lose her eye or her tooth, or some comparable injury.

                  He can beat her in ways that cause risk of causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, provided that she does not actually lose the eye or the tooth.

                  And this is creative interpretation of what the Bible says, not what the bible directly says, for female divorce is the Old Testament only for withdrawal of support, and in the New Testament only for abandonment, which is much the same thing as withdrawal of support.

                  The straight reading of the bible, Old Testament and New, is that she can leave only for mistreatment in the form of failure to look after her, not for punishments that threaten life and limb.

                • Koanic says:

                  > You think she can walk free for such things, and not for physical damage?

                  You said danger, not damage. You should correct such slipperiness in yourself, lest others do it for you, and remember it.

                  > Is a free women less than a slave?

                  The ability to leave does not make her more, but less. A wife has a higher protection – her husband is compelled to keep and honor her. He may not slander her reputation, much less beat her to serious injury. The men of the place would do something unpleasant to him, and it would cease.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  The slander that a husband couldn’t put about his wife was actually an accusation that would require the death penalty if true. So the man wants the woman dead… and his punishment is that he can’t divorce her. Hm.

                  However the law also says of a woman displeases her husband, she can be redeemed. The redemption laws allow a kinsman to pay pro rata the price of a slave to get them back into the family.

                  Pity the poor shrew who has no family willing to redeem her from a violent husband. 🙂

                  Exodus 21:8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no
                  power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.

                  Purchasing a woman was considered the same as a promise to marry. What is the bride price but a purchase?

                  Jim as pointed out that some ambiguity in the law is a feature not a bug. I’m inclined to agree. Ambiguity will resolve itself with each specific case. Apparent ambiguity begets discussion and meditation, puts your focus on what the law really does (and doesn’t say).

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  You said danger, not damage. You should correct such slipperiness in yourself, lest others do it for you, and remember it.

                  A word to the wise is worth a hundred beatings to a fool.

                  Let us speak of danger rather than damage. If the with-holding of food and clothes is sufficient cause for a woman to walk, then putting her in phyiscal danger would be likewise. That is why there are laws about putting railings on your stairways, and not keeping an animal around that has a habit of attacking people. Failure to provide food and clothing is a type of negligence; why couldn’t the woman leave for other forms of negligence?

                  I am reminded of the last story in the book of Judges, where a concubine fled from her husband to daddy’s house in another city. Being female didn’t prevent her from fleeing quite a distance, successfully. Yeah, she was guilty as hell, worried husband was going to kill her. He probably was. She met a fitting end, and like Helen of Troy, sparked a war that took many lives.

                • jim says:

                  > Let us speak of danger rather than damage. If the with-holding of food and clothes is sufficient cause for a woman to walk, then putting her in phyiscal danger would be likewise

                  Does not follow. Your argument is part of the blue pill account of female nature. The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference. Denial of food and shelter is indifference. Beatings are not. Women rather like rape, and they rather like beatings, or rather they rather like a man who might well beat them, and perhaps does so from time to time, a man who sometimes gets very angry with them, and the angrier the better.

                  My impression from reading the bible is that the authors of the bible, both Old and New Testaments, shared my understanding of female nature, which was the common and widespread understanding when I was a young man. Denial of food and shelter is failure to love and cherish. Abandonment, which is much the same thing, is failure to love and cherish. Beatings are seldom failure to love and cherish.

                  Old Testament allows female divorce for one objective sign of failure to love and cherish. New Testament allows female divorce for another very similar and substantially equivalent objective sign of failure to love and cherish. Neither mention physical violence, and if either one had mentioned it, it would have led to a whole lot of very bad outcomes.

                • Koanic says:

                  Mycroft, one of your sophistries is confusing the status of a female slave promoted to wife with that of a freeborn wife. It is expected that freeborn wives have male family members enforcing their rights, so specific limits are set on exploiting ex-slave wives.

                  It was not imagined that a patriarch or judges-era Israelite would beat his freeborn wife, as it was not imagined that sodomite rape could occur. Beating of slaves was not considered noteworthy, within limits. The society was aristocratic, and the sort of part-Indian low IQ redneck who beats his wife in Appalachia would not be a free man in judges Israel. Domestic violence was not an issue, except against slaves.

          • jim says:

            Exactly so.

            Wrongful and damaging violence against wife and child should be neither legal nor illegal, and the laws against it unclear, and enforced ineffectually and inconsistently.

            For making it flatly legal would be very bad, and would be abused, and making it flatly illegal is extremely bad, and is being massively abused.

            • Not having socialism in women implies bride price (quality property isn’t normally given away for free), which pretty much automatically solves a whole lot of problems. Perhaps add a buy-back warranty for adultery, maybe at double price, and you get nearly zero wife-murdering. But it would be also useful for a lot of other problems.

              Also, for pissing off CR as a nice bonus – le invisible hand. People who understand economic incentives rather immediately grasp why it is a good idea.

              • peppermint says:

                > women are property
                > the sexual marketplace is real
                > money is the fundamental unit of value

                i assent to these assertions

                > brideprice

                The father of a girl will offer a dowry to a young man who would take care of her but isn’t ready yet, and will never sell her to a 60 year old no matter what brideprice is offered or what trust is going to be set up for the grandkids.

                Since with a dowry is the only way you get a hot girl, a respectable girl will refuse to be bridepriced because it’s humiliating, and a skank would brag about her brideprice to her peers.

                Everything is about money. Money is about value. Everything is about sex. Sex is about family.

                How do we use our knowledge to gain power over the CR’s and their fake knowledge, browbeating, flattery and extortion?

                By acting like men of actual knowledge, not confidently asserting that Jesus sinned when he gave the cup of his blood to the jews he deigned to pal around with.

                • Koanic says:

                  > By acting like men of actual knowledge, not confidently asserting that Jesus sinned when he gave the cup of his blood to the jews he deigned to pal around with.

                  Hey, wow, you found a contradiction in the Bible. You must be smarter than the communion of the saints! There’s no way that the next paragraphs will puncture your hubris, right?

                  Adam’s line was permitted to eat meat after his fall in the Garden of Eden. However, Jehovah forbade man to drink blood, for the blood is the life. It was to be poured out on the earth instead. A symbol that man had not become totally predatory, but recognized the shared life of the animal, its dignity.

                  Yet Jesus commanded Christians to drink his blood – “For I am the Way, the Truth, and the LIFE; no one comes to the Father except by Me.”

                  Thereby we acknowledge that he bled for our sins; thereby we join his family, and leave Adam’s.

          • Roberto says:

            Agreed.

            Commit uxoricide and/or filicide once, should be legal, but people will look at you funny. Commit uxoricide and/or filicide more than once, you should probably be excommunicated.

            • Koanic says:

              You can’t kill your kid out of hand. There’s a defined process whereby the parents testify against the bad son, and then everyone stones him.

              It’s just assumed that women can be handled privately.

              • Mycroft Jones says:

                What do you mean, women handled privately? In life and death matters? Really? In the case of Judah and Tamar, the matter was known, the evidence was visible to everyone, he was acting in the capacity of judge for the clan, and the entire clan/community was participating in burning her alive until she revealed the ace up her sleeve. You can call that private, but it sounds no different from the community stoning a sinner to death. Except for the stoning vs burning part.

                • Koanic says:

                  No. Matters of disobedient girls sub-whoring, sub-witchcraft, etc were handled privately.

                  Whereas a son can be killed for being a glutton and a drunkard.

          • Mycroft Jones says:

            Breaking bones or killing your wife or daughter should not be as legal as going for a walk in the park, but it should not be as illegal as burglary.

            Intentionally killing your slave brought down punishment on yourself. If a slave has such protection, then wives and daughters do also.

            Exodus 21
            20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.
            21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

            • jim says:

              > If a slave has such protection, then wives and daughters do also.

              Do they? The bible does not say so. We say that it should be deliberately unclear, since clarity either way will have bad consequences. We read the bible, and lo and behold, it is unclear.

        • Andre says:

          “The state should not be able to build windows into men’s homes… but if the husband/father sends his wife or children to the emergency room or the morgue should he be prosecuted then?”

          A man that seems well behaved among his peers but likes to torment little animals, either is, or is on the path to becoming, a psychopath. He is dangerous, in a bad way. Sending a wife or child to the emergency room or morgue should not be immediate reason to remove him from your society, however, it is a big red flag warranting a closer look. If he cannot justify his behavior, he must be dealt with. The problem is that it is easy to slip into a sort of civil war, with women pitting men against each other. There are women who break their own bones in order to accuse a husband or boyfriend of domestic violence. I do not believe a legalistic prescription can be given, this requires the men in question to have good judgement.

          • jim says:

            Quite so. The bible is deliberately unclear on this topic, and if your law is clear on a matter that is never going to be clear in actual practice, that law will be abused, and is being abused.

            Someone presents a very clear hypothetical – the violent husband who capriciously does serious damage to his partner. But in practice, actual situations are never so clear. Women want men to fight over them, and any actual incident of domestic violence is never as it seems.

            The bible provides for female divorce on grounds of neglect and abandonment, but not domestic violence. And there is a reason for that: the opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.

      • ilkarnal says:

        “Biblical rule is that a woman cannot leave her husband, and must obey her husband. Which means that if she leaves she can be, and should be hauled back”

        OK – and what about when a husband tries to leave his wife? The ties bind symmetrically, in the end. De facto, omen are accorded less decision making capability, but more positive rights.

        “If leaving allowed, children are too big a risk.”

        Right, and same if men leaving is allowed.

        “So he can beat her as he pleases, provided she does not lose her eye or her tooth, or some comparable injury.

        He can beat her in ways that cause risk of causing the loss of an eye or a tooth, provided that she does not actually lose the eye or the tooth.”

        Women have always had family. Protective family. One man usually can’t stand against a woman’s family. Try to beat a woman and stop her from running home to mommy or contacting mommy, and you put yourself in an untenable situation.

        In the end, to be practical beatings have to be semi-consensual – if it seems capricious to the woman, it’s untenable. This is inconsistent with a blanket ‘right’ to beat your wife. You describe how you can’t have this blanket license in this thread. Well, if you don’t have this blanket license, and her inability to leave and have a completely equal say in decisions is symmetric with your inability to leave and obligation to provide, it’s not properly described as ‘ownership of women.’

        You are embracing a perspective that is fatally alienating.

        • jim says:

          > > “Biblical rule is that a woman cannot leave her husband, and must obey her husband. Which means that if she leaves she can be, and should be hauled back”

          > OK – and what about when a husband tries to leave his wife

          Obviously abandonment and neglect is forbidden. Failure to sexually gratify your wife is forbidden, or at least deemed anti social and disgraceful. Those have always been the rules. Entirely uncontroversial.

          That is why the rules applicable to protecting slaves do not necessarily apply to protecting wives and daughters.

          No one ever disputes that a husband should be forbidden from abandoning a wife. Notice that “deadbeat dads”, which is to say dads who have been thrown out of the homes they built and had their children kidnapped from them and given into the hands a series of absusive adulterers wandering through his wife’s bedroom, are punished in ways that we would not punish a murderer or a rapist. The problem is, what happens when a wife leaves or disobeys her husband. What happens when a husband fails to cherish his wife is completely uncontroversial and has never changed significantly.

          > Women have always had family. Protective family

          That is what destroyed the Roman Empire in the West. Authority over the wife has to pass completely from the father and completely to the husband, or you get, as Rome got, elite failure to reproduce.

          If the wife continues to be under the protection of the father, then in elite households you wind up with two households and the husband has visitation rights to his wife’s household, as in Rome, and your elite becomes mysteriously childless, and you wind up ruled by hostile alien strangers.

          If the wife continues under the protection of her family, what few children your elite have are effectively bastards, are raised like bastards. Indeed, they probably are literal bastards, not just raised as bastards, because if the wife continues under the protection of her family, she likely fucks around.

    • pyrrhus says:

      The more saleable version would be that a society needs very strong enforcement of sexual morality, and cannot be polygynous.

  7. Dave says:

    I suppose we all know that Donald Trump is not Moses leading America to the patriarchal promised land; he is a liberal Stalin attempting to save liberalism by slowing, stopping, and perhaps slightly reversing its spiral into infinite holiness. Liberals of both parties ought to be bowing down in gratitude to their savior, but if they were that clear-sighted, they wouldn’t be liberals.

    Should we be angry at Trump for delaying the inevitable patriarchy, or should we thank him for delaying the cannibal holocaust likely to precede it?

    • The Cominator says:

      The return of patriarchy without a Trumpian restoration is likely to be very brown and probably very Muslim.

      That is not the kind of restoration of it that we want.

      • Dave says:

        When the welfare offices, grocery stores, and police stations are burned-out ruins, and you must keep your four wives not only pregnant but also fed and safe from cannibals, you may find that being brown and Muslim is not as much of a survival advantage as it used to be.

        • jim says:

          Being an adherent of a religion and attending a mosque that encourages its adherents to take violent action and engage in violence to ensure that members of the faith enjoy the protection of the laws of the faith will, on the contrary, become an even bigger survival advantage than it used to be.

          • pyrrhus says:

            A very temporary survival advantage, as white Europeans have conclusively proved that they are the best killing machines on the planet, and also the best at raising food.

            • Dave says:

              As an amateur farmer, I can attest that growing veg or meat in a D climate is *way* harder than it looks. My rabbits convulsed and died, foxes ate my hens, squirrels and raccoons pillaged my corn, and my potato plants each yielded one or two potatoes. My garden is on the septic mound because nothing will grow on the forest floor (I cut down trees but didn’t pull the stumps).

              Besides Aldi, my biggest source of protein is the squirrels I collect off the road.

              So killing the greedy kulaks who hog all the good land is a really bad move. The way things are going, Zimbabwe will produce less food in 2100 than in 2000.

        • Dave says:

          Until they finish pillaging what the infidels left behind and start waging jihad on each other. Muslims aren’t capable of much wealth creation beyond goat-herding, and those imported into Western countries probably don’t even remember how to do that.

          When the surviving whites regroup into tribal societies without forgetting how to make stuff, every other race in North America and Europe is doomed. Not much racial diversity in the Balkans, just a lot of well-armed white tribes that don’t trust each other and have no use for feminists, faggots, or Jews.

          Do you think Arab Muslims would do much better for themselves in Zimbabwe and South Africa than blacks have?

    • Andre says:

      Depends. Are you ready for the cannibal holocaust? Are you using this time to prepare?

  8. Dax says:

    Jim and friends I need your unique wisdom

    I knocked a girl up

    I do like her but she already has one kid

    I don’t know if I can handle doing the r-selected black thing but maybe

    Is there a right answer here?

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      You should have thought of that before sticking your meat in her freezer. If you can hold your frame, well, no marriage is all peaches and cream. Abortion makes women crazy; growing up without a father turns boys into fags and criminals. Sure, maybe you could have held out for a better woman. But you couldn’t wait, so my advice is suck it up and embrace fatherhood. Don’t put up with any shit from the mother. You can still enjoy life. You’re probably the best she can get. Don’t rub her nose in it unless you have to, but don’t forget it either.

    • Mycroft Jones says:

      Since she is a single mother, it will be ridiculously easy for you to take the moral high ground in any argument in front of the kids in years to come.

      • Dave says:

        No, she will claim the moral high ground because she has more “experience” raising children. She is a Heroic Single Mother, after all.

    • jim says:

      I avoid women who already have someone else’s children for this reason.

      My feeling is you were wrong to spend time with a woman who has someone else’s child. You should stick with your own child, but if you decide to stick with your own child, figure on her existing child regrettably suffering an unfortunate accident, that will make you very sad.

      Bastards do not belong in the congregation of the lord, which means that they are excluded from the congregations enforcement of the ten commandments – the congregation pays somewhat less mind to whether the commandments are being enforced and applied to the protection of outsiders.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Have her do what traditional single moms have done; send the first child to live with grandma or auntie or with married uncle. This avoids the accidents that are quite likely to happen. A good woman will do this without being asked. It is ok to hint.

        As for Jim’s hints about the treatment of a bastard, the original commenter never said the child was of mixed race, nor that the woman had the child by cucking a husband. If he slept with her, that means he accepted she wasn’t a virgin. Biblically, the sprog doesn’t count as a bastard. It is the property of the woman’s father.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        As for the having of accidents on purpose, a reminder is in order. 43 times the Bible speaks about the “fatherless”. They are considered together with the widows and foreigners as a disadvantaged class that deserves special charity and consideration, on pain of God’s wrath. It wasn’t the kids fault the mother was a ho and that his grandfather was a cuck.

        • Koanic says:

          No, fatherless is not a synonym for bastard in the Bible. Fatherless means the father died. Whores get killed while still pregnant with a fatherless child.

          • Wad Cutter says:

            Jephthah, the bastard son of a whore, gets mentioned in a positive light in Hebrews 11:32, Judges 11:1, and 1 Samuel 12:11. Sometimes the LORD can’t get shit down without ’em.

            “So the LORD sent Jerubbaal, Barak, Jephthah, and Samuel, and delivered you from the hands of your enemies on every side, and you lived securely.”

            • Roberto says:

              Since you refuse to expound on the source of your anti-Christian monomania, TJG, that leaves your interlocutors no choice but to “guess” what’s with this bee in your bonnet. You can dispel the ambiguity by explaining just why you are so personally invested in denigrating the Bible.

              • Wad Cutter says:

                My quoting the Bible is denigrating it? Who knew? Maybe it’s just self-denigrating. At any rate, the Lord depending on the whore’s bastard Jephthah to save society just raised your cognitive dissonance to levels previously thought unachievable. kek

                • Roberto says:

                  You did this a few months ago, inexplicably, and you’re doing it now again, inexplicably. Come on, enough with the endless teasing! Show us on the doll where exactly the evil Christians touched you.

                • Koanic says:

                  You are a low IQ liar with a gamma’s tedious sense of humor. Jephthah was not a bastard.

                • Roberto says:

                  In all fairness Koanic, his IQ is higher than yours.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Jephthah.

                  Just type it out below, so you can say you actually addressed an issue, rather than trying to deflect from it.

                  “And what more shall I say? I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson and Jephthah, about David and Samuel and the prophets, Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses.” (Hebrews 11:13-12:1)

                  Whore’s bastard is included in that great cloud of witnesses.

                  Am I denigrating the Bible again by merely quoting it? kek

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Jephthah is called a bastard in all the Christian literature and commentaries I’ve read. So it must be Christians with that “gamma’s tedious sense of humor.” You have said it yourself.

                  Maybe you ought to try addressing issues with a bit of intellect, instead of flying off the handle with name-calling, and having it boomerang on you.

                  Or not. Some people feel the compunction to make complete fools of themselves. Suit yourself.

                • Roberto says:

                  Hey, are you going to re-do the whole bit about “we are still Odinists because Wednesday is called Wednesday”? It was hysterical the first time and I’m afraid your current performance just won’t be up to par.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Roberto is too chickenshit to even look up the name Jephthah in the Bible.

                  But at least he hasn’t forgotten his previous lesson. Every day of the week he says God/Gott/Gotin/Godin/Wotan/Woden’s name, like today, he remembers. I appreciate the feedback.

                • Koanic says:

                  > Jephthah is called a bastard in all the Christian literature and commentaries I’ve read.

                  That’s nice.

                  Jdg 11:1 And Jephthah the Gileadite hath been a mighty man of valour, and he is son of a woman, a harlot; and Gilead begetteth Jephthah,

                  Jdg 11:2 and the wife of Gilead beareth to him sons, and the wife’s sons grow up and cast out Jephthah, and say to him, `Thou dost not inherit in the house of our father; for son of another woman art thou.’

                  Jdg 11:7 And Jephthah saith to the elders of Gilead, `Have not ye hated me? and ye cast me out from the house of my father, and wherefore have ye come unto me now when ye are in distress?’

                  Jephthah knew his father, grew up in this house of his father. His brothers threw him out afterwards, as Leah’s children cast out Joseph, son of Rachel.

                  Jephthah is not a bastard in the English language sense, that his mother was not married to his father, or that he did not know who his father was, or that he did not grow up in his father’s house. That is what we mean today by a bastard – that his father walked away from him and his mother, or perhaps that they were not legally married, although this sense is fading.

                  In the context of this thread, a bastard is a child born out of wedlock whose father has abandoned him and his mother, like the OP’s situation. Jephthah does not fit that definition. Thus Wadcutter’s rhetorical attack on the Bible fails.

                  The most likely scenario is that Jephthah’s mother was not an Israelite, and therefore Jephthah should not inherit with his brethren. She may also have been some kind of slut, slave girl, tavern girl, or prostitute. The Hebrew term is quite broad, and may refer merely to forbidden miscegenation in general, such as in Numbers 25:1.

                  Jephthah’s mother became an exception to the prohibition against Moabite women. Ruth was another such exception. Here is an illuminating discussion:

                  https://www.addeigloriam.org//commentary/ot-history/ruth-intermarriage.htm

                • Roberto says:

                  For those seeking to understand what Wad Cutter’s thing is, I present to you:

                  “Have you noticed that mainstream Christianity is in the control of anti-white Cultural Marxists? Are you sick and tired of priests and pastors telling you to let third world immigrants invade your lands and that you should adopt non-white babies?

                  Well, there is an alternative. A very ancient one.

                  The West has only been Christian for the past 2,000 years. For the previous 38,000 years, it was pagan.

                  Asatru…The Way of Our Ancestors…

                  Calling Us Home

                  Asatru is an expression of the native, pre-Christian spirituality of Europe. More specifically, it is the Way by which the Germanic peoples have traditionally related to the Divine and to the world around them.

                  From Iceland to Russia, from the frozen north of Scandinavia to the Mediterranean, the Germanic peoples wandered and settled over a span of thousands of years. Today, their descendants are spread around the world. We may refer to ourselves as Americans or English, Germans or Canadians, but behind these labels lurks an older, more essential identity. Our forefathers were Angles and Saxons, Lombards and Heruli, Goths and Vikings – and, as sons and daughters of these peoples, we are united by ties of blood and culture undimmed by the centuries.

                  Asatru is our native Way. Just as there is Native American religion and native African religion, so there is native European religion. Asatru is one of its expressions. It gave our ancestors comfort in millennia past, and it can give us strength and inspiration today.

                  The word “Asatru” comes to us from Old Norse, the tongue of ancient Scandinavia, where it means “those loyal to the Gods.” Since the ancient Scandinavian version of our Way is the best documented, it has given us much of Asatru’s terminology and imagery. The soul of Asatru, however, is not confined to the Scandinavian model, but encapsulates the belief of all the Germanic peoples. Indeed, Asatru reflects the deeper religiosity common to virtually all the nations of Europe.

                  As a part of the great European Folkway, Asatru has a number of characteristic beliefs. Some of these are:

                  The world is good. Prosperity is good. Life is good, and we should live it with joy and enthusiasm.We are free to shape our lives to the extent allowed by our skill, courage, and might. There is no predestination, no fatalism, no limitations imposed by the will of any external deity.

                  We do not need salvation. All we need is the freedom to face our destiny with courage and honor.

                  We are connected to all our ancestors. They are a part of us. We in turn will be a part of our descendants.
                  We are also linked to all our living kin – to our families and to every man and woman rooted in the tribes of Europe. They are our “greater family.”

                  We are connected to Nature and subject to its laws. The Holy Powers often express themselves in Nature’s beauty and might.

                  We believe that morality does not depend on commandments, but rather arises from the dignity and honor of the noble-minded man and woman.

                  We do not fear the Holy Powers, or consider ourselves their slaves. On the contrary, we share community and fellowship with the Divine. The Holy Powers encourage us to grow and advance to higher levels.

                  We honor the Holy Powers under the names given them by our Germanic/Norse ancestors.

                  We practice Asatru by honoring the turning of the seasons…the ancestors…the Divine…and ourselves – in everyday life.

                  Asatru is about roots…

                  It’s about connections…

                  It’s about coming Home.”

                • jim says:

                  OK, but the communion of the saints has been accumulating a lot of social technology, while the worship of Asutra has lost what little social technology it once possessed.

                  And if you decide to import Christian social technology wholesale into Asutra, might as well make the Odin’s tree into the cross.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  I’ve read so little about Asatru, Roberto’s wall of text is the most I’ve read about Asatru at one time. So Roberto is caught in yet another lie. Seems to be habitual.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Koanic white-knighting for the whore’s bastard. Muh exceptions! NABALT! kek

                • Koanic says:

                  It doesn’t matter, except to demonstrate your ineptitude. Reformed whores are part of the Bible – Rahab and Mary Magdelene. If that offends your misogyny, so be it.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  “Reformed whores.” LOL Look at you, still white-knighting for whores and bastards and I suppose that Cuckspawn you worship too. That’s what believing the Jewish Media does to people. And the Jew Testaments are the original Jewish Media.

                • jim says:

                  Female behavior is highly contingent on male authority.

                  Typically a whore is looking for alpha in all the wrong places, while simultaneously making it brutally difficult for a man to act alpha. Which means that in our society, your prospects for reforming a whore are not good, but this is basically a problem of sleeping with a woman who has a high notch count. She has slept with lots of men more alpha than you, so its going to be hard to impress her. But it is not like women are born whores. It is environmental.

                  Observe the huge success of the late seventeenth century Australian authorities in turning whores into wives. Faced with the prospect of a public whipping, assigned a husband who could insist on them honoring and obeying, the women not only superficially complied with respectable middle class values, but enthusiastically internalized those values.

                  Females are emotionally structured to be abducted into the victor’s tribe. Faced with a strong hand, the women internalized the values of the dominant tribe – in the case of late seventeenth century Australia, middle class female virtue.

                  When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse. Trouble is that in our society, if you are trying to reform a whore, you are the weak horse. If you were the strong horse, which you would have been in 1790s Australia, you would have no problem.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Muh Misogyny? Koanic has gone full CODE PINK. How’s that pussy hat fit? LOL

                • peppermint says:

                  Why I say I’m a Christian (Beethoven’s 6th symphony)
                  * the primary meaning is 1 man 1 woman no divorce faggotry be damned
                  * honor
                  * forgive your friends when they confess their sins and perform their penance, love them all along, don’t make excuses for the results of their bad behavior
                  * sunday is for rest and contemplation
                  * fish once a week
                  * say grace when everyone has their food so everyone knows when to start eating. It’s a short prayer putting your thoughts on God instead of the men who bought and the women who cooked
                  * vegetarians are weird and probably doing a sanctimonious performance of heretical supererogation
                  * sign of the cross when you pass a graveyard (this clearly delineates respect and reverence from superstition)
                  * maybe go to church and hang out with normal men who also have families and go to church

                  Why I Tell Boomer “Christians” who have Lost the Ability to Eat with a Fork and a Knife that I’m a Norse Pagan (Sabaton)
                  * mead and valhalla
                  * actually, 1 man 1 woman no divorce fags -> bogs has always been the Aryan way, you can see it in our eyes (male sexual choice, females without husbands don’t reproduce)
                  * we don’t need no education, we don’t need no thought control.
                  * my love for you is like a truck berserker, would you like to making fuck berserker (a berserker is probably a guy who wears a bear shirt, presumably after killing a bear 1v1)
                  * go viking and pillage the decadent roman Boomers, contemptfully ignore the skraelingar they bring in as pets
                  * don’t let anyone tell you you carry the original mirage of some longnosed handrubber from a distant desert and so have to give all your stuff to the somalians
                  * we are Man, built by God, with a duty to bring forth Super-Man

                  Affected paganism is reactionary where Christianity is conservative. But it’s only an affectation because it would take a further revolution beyond Jim’s restoration to make it more than that, and trve reactionaries want a minimum viable revolution.

                  Thor and Odin don’t care what we say, they care that we live as Aryans and raise biologically Aryan children. I have a drilling hammer instead of a claw hammer (1) to honor Thor (2) it’s better to use pliers on a leatherman to pull nails (3) to piss off boomers like my dad with their 8 to 4 ounce girl hammers (4) ever noticed how annoying the sound those things make is? The claw is a darn tuning fork.

                  Gooks, chinks and nips don’t have a problem with multiple religions. Buddhist gooks don’t tell confucianists they sin grievously by not reading and following Hindu texts, but at some point in the last 500 years Leviticus was supposed to apply to us. If only Gutenberg had only printed the New Testament.

                  I wonder what Lalit thinks about the buddhist and/or communist and/or whatever else gooks his country is occasionally at war with. Maybe if the gooks recognized India as their Israel instead of wars they would have refugee resettlement.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  @peppermint
                  Neat thing is, Thor isn’t a goddam Jew.

                  • John 4:22 “We worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.”
                  • Acts 3:25 “He said to Abraham, ‘Through your offspring all peoples on earth will be blessed.’”
                  • Romans 1:16 “The Jew first.”
                  • Romans 9:4 “The people of Israel, chosen.”
                  • Romans 15:27 “For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.”
                  • Philippians 3:3 For it is we who are the Circumcision [Hebrew Cocksuckers].

                  And that is exactly what Christianity is: Jew-worship.

                  Submission to a foreign desert tribe of story tellers about a Jewsus tale is race-treason.

                • peppermint says:

                  That’s great, gaywad. Now tell me how Asatru weddings and funerals are done, how Asatru people cross themselves at graveyards, how they say grace, what their cross pendant or rosary necklace looks like, what kind of crucifix they put on their mantle, what oath a gottfather takes…

                • Koanic says:

                  > Why I Tell Boomer “Christians” who have Lost the Ability to Eat with a Fork and a Knife that I’m a Norse Pagan (Sabaton)

                  And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

                  I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked

                • peppermint says:

                  CR will be very interested in telling you that respecting your ancestors means communism and obedience to him. Unless you have the details nailed down, or smart and bribery, flattery, extortion proof leaders like us here, the official religion Asatru will be just as bad as the official religion Christianity is now.

                  A thousand years of your ancestors were New Testament + local religion.

                  The 500 years since the publication of the Old Testament has been marked by judaization and consequent jewish ascendance.

                  Going back to New Testament + local religion is easier and honors the ancestors more, or, at least, more of the ancestors.

                  We are not commanded by Odin in words to become monkeys aping our ancestors. We are encouraged by Odin by example to become better than our ancestors or die trying.

                • peppermint says:

                  > am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked

                  This is essential to the nature of Man. He tells his wife and kids he’s rich, or the women he’s hitting on, he needs nothing least of all God if he doesn’t have anyone depending on him.

                  But we are all alone and can quickly become poor, naked, and blind, except for our families, which we must support, and our churches, if we can possibly have them (spoiler: no, we can’t, they’re all run by CRs or are underground).

                  So yeah, I need nothing, but I’m alone here shivering in the dark.

                  Perhaps you’re one of the lucky ones I hear about from time to time who had a real church growing up and happily married parents with a mother who could cook and a father who worked hard and wasn’t a commie.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Just say God, peppe. Sure, God/Gott/Gotin/Odin/Godin are synonyms, but most people are most familiar with the pagan European deity God. The Jew-worshipers conflated God with their Jewhovah.

                  The True Restoration™ is correcting that Jewish thievery.

                • calov says:

                  The thing is, peppermint, et. al (not wad cutter), Christianity is not primarily theoretical. Actual Christianity is found not in books or universities, but in very unimpressive churches, with unimpressive priests and clergy preaching and leading the liturgy with varying degrees of oafishness, and with equally unimpressive Christians who are typically quite ignorant of the church’s theology and its ritual. Thus it has ever been. Thus was the west sustained spiritually for over a thousand years, because it was God’s will to become man, be born in a manger, and preach to the unlettered.

                  That’s where actual Christianity is found and where it lives. The books are necessary too, but a guy reading books about Christianity isn’t yet a Christian, even if he knows more theology than the pastor in the parish down the street. Some of you have accepted that Christianity is the only viable religious option, yet you are still too holy for Christianity. The homeliness of the church has always been a stumbling block for people; why do you think Augustine wasn’t baptized until he was thirty something?

                • jim says:

                  I don’t think so.

                  No Cathedrals, pretty soon no religion. Reformation realized the need to be intellectually coherent and impressive. Counter reformation realized the need for architectural and aesthetic grandeur.

                  Civilization needs altars, and altars need to look the part.

                  What you are calling Christianity is a best dirt containing a mustard seed, at worst as dead as Monty Python’s parrot.

                  Come the restoration, we will scan Harvard’s libraries, upload them and public domain them, then bulldoze Harvard, then build the coolest and biggest Cathedrals ever, literal cathedrals with stained glass windows, a slightly off center altar, and a rattling big crucifix.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m not sure the works of gender studies types and other cultural marxist scum should be public domain… best to make them forbidden books but NOT loudly publish that they are forbidden (thus arousing curiousity and a fascination with them) just sort of make sure they aren’t accessible except in inquisitorial libraries.

                  For the most part they should be accessible only to members of the inquisition who need to have a thorough understanding of progressives and a few historians of the interregnum in good standing.

                • calov says:

                  Jim,

                  I’m not arguing against grandeur in architecture, liturgy, church music, stained glass, or homiletics. I’m in favor of it. But that was never the bread and butter of Christianity. If you are waiting to find a Christianity worthy of you it won’t be Christianity that you find. It’s not a matter of creating the perfect religion but participating in the Christianity that exists. If it is lacking, find your Ambrose, get baptized and consecrated bishop.

                  I knew a guy in Seattle who got his doctorate in history writing his dissertation on Innocent the II or some medieval pope. He would argue learnedly with me about how Rome was the true church. But he was never received into holy church because he considered it beneath him to go through RCIA with a parish priest.

                • jim says:

                  Well I would say it was the bread and butter of Christianity: That to point to God requires earthly greatness and beauty. Hence the Cathedrals. Hence the counter reformation.

                  The iconoclasts were always hostile nasty bitter people.

                  Need a temple that will induce fallible and fallen mortals to listen to what Christians call the voice of the holy ghost, the still small voice that Elijah heard on the mountain in the wilderness.

                  Can’t take everyone to the mountain, so need to build our mountain where people will be able to hear the voice of the holy ghost,

      • Wad Cutter says:

        Those contemplating the murder of children should consider…

        “The newspapers are gonna be tough on you. And prison is very, very hard on people who hurt kids. If you get the opportunity, you should kill yourself.”
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz3PhWFhA3I

        • Roberto says:

          >implying there will be prisons after the restoration

          I heh’d.

          • Wad Cutter says:

            Implying Jim’s glib advice is invalid in the absence of your religious fantasies being fulfilled sometime in the ever-receding future. Thanks for the assist, Roberto.

            • Roberto says:

              Yeah, I should’ve looked which comment you were replying to.

              Jim, there are some things better left unsaid. Being raped by a 10-year-old while lying drunk on the couch in the living room is one thing, but you should not advertise familiarity with “unfortunate accidents.”

              • Simon says:

                Hahaha, comment of the year.

                Every man is aware of the depravities he is capable of, but almost all men prefer to keep that darkness locked away in the recesses of their mind. To bring it to light and to speak of it show personal and inter-personal gracelessness, even on a weblog.

      • The Cominator says:

        Jim really this should not be written down… its terrible, it makes NRx look terrible and anyone putting it into practice will probably get caught.

        Try to get the kid sent away to boarding school or other relatives or something but not that…

        • jim says:

          Murdering your husband’s child at four months after conception in order to keep your options open to trade up to a better husband is terrible, and we see legislation providing for abortion for “social reasons” (meaning husband is too beta) at seven months.

          Getting rid of inconvenient bastards is not terrible, and come the restoration, will be unsurprising and subject to rather theoretical social disapproval and a lot of society averting its eyes.

          Within living memory, within the memory of today’s old men, inconvenient bastards had a suspiciously high death rate, and people were disinclined to ask too many questions. Likely they still do, it is just that whenever people defend child support, they start complaining about the high rate of suspicious death forty years previously, piously proclaiming that our enlightened society has solved this problem. I rather doubt that it has solved this problem, but, supposing that it has, back in the day people were as untroubled by the high death rate of bastards as they are today untroubled by the high death rate of legitimate children that are very much wanted by husbands and fathers.

          In a society with our abortion laws, nothing can be condemned as terrible. If people can accept what they accept today, they can accept anything that does not personally inconvenience them.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Getting rid of inconvenient bastards is not terrible”

            Sure by sending them away to boarding school or other relatives it is not terrible, but murdering children is terrible and murdering children who you likely made some kind of promise (even if the mother is a selfish c*** and doesn’t take too many pains to see that you observe it) to look after them is extra terrible. And while the death rate of bastards was high it was not SO much higher then the regular child mortality rate. Bastards had occasional suspicious deaths and more then normal but it certainly wasn’t the majority of the time.

            Male lions may murder cubs not their own around 95+% of the time but chimpanzees only regularly do it when they wipeout another troupe.

            • jim says:

              Allegedly, seventy years ago, the death rate among bastards was astoundingly high, and somehow no one was very curious, indeed suspiciously lacking in curiosity. And, then many decades later, it is discovered that very bad things happened and everyone is righteously indignant, and confident we are so morally superior now that we are replacing families by child support.

              Today, no one seems to be interested in what the death rate is among children separated from their fathers by fertile age women hoping to trade up.

              > And while the death rate of bastards was high it was not SO much higher then the regular child mortality rate. Bastards had occasional suspicious deaths and more then normal but it certainly wasn’t the majority of the time.

              I have heard people piously complaining about the horrors of the past mistreatment of single mothers and enthusiastically endorsing the replacement of marriage by child support, claim that it was the considerable majority of the time in some institutions for caring for bastards.

              Knowing human nature, I find this entirely believable. What I find unbelievable is that a system of child support in place of the family solves the problem.

              A woman divorces her husband, expecting, as Kate Gosselin expected, to replace him with someone rich, six foot tall, physically fit, and childless. She finds her children a distinct inconvenience in her search, and when someone that she delusionally imagines to be a prospect shows up, he finds her children to be an inconvenience also.

              > who you likely made some kind of promise

              Not likely. When a woman gloms onto a new man, good treatment of her existing children is seldom a requirement. She announces, loudly and frequently, its going to be item 57 on her 983 point list of requirements for a new husband, but its apt to be the first of the 983 points to be discarded.

              You also read me advise him to treat the bastard sadistically in front of its mother and watch how she reacts, which sadistic treatment is the opposite of making the bastard and his mother a promise of good treatment.

            • jim says:

              If the bastard was third trimester instead of post third trimester, she would kill it, and everyone would say that is fine and she a hero.

              If a woman is thirty seven weeks, which is to say early third trimester, and she is worried that giving her husband the child she wants might leave her stuck with a husband who is not the man she would have wished to marry, and she murdered her husbands very much wanted child, the reason he married her, because the bad boy who screwed her at seventeen sent her a vague ambiguous text twelve years later, everyone would say that is fine and she a hero.

              So don’t tell me that getting rid of bastards is bad optics. All decent right thinking people know that women who murder their husband’s children in order that they have a better prospect of remarriage after destroying their husband’s lives are heroes, and anyone who doubts this obviously hates women.

              • Wad Cutter says:

                I am telling you, Jim, that cucked Joseph getting rid of bastard Jewsus is bad optics. But just to fanatical Jew-worshipers. LOL

                But White Patriarch Herod didn’t think it was bad optics to cull a cuckspawned Jew.

          • Wad Cutter says:

            “Come the restortation” fantasies remain criminal presently, and horrible advice for a fellow asking for it. “Come the restoration” is your way of backtracking out of that criminally bad advice without admitting it was horrible advice for the present reality. Weasels gonna weasel.

            • jim says:

              My advice was not “come the restoration” My advice was for here and now.

              My advice, and my present day practice, is to live a restoration lifestyle right now. As I said, every successful marriage is quietly and furtively eighteenth century.

              The #metoo movement is not targeting men who beat women, men who rape women. It is women who have hit the wall stealing the fame of famous men. With appropriate care, you can get away with this stuff right now.

              If a woman has children by two men, it is reasonable, appropriate, and likely for one of the men to get rid of his child’s half brothers. This is something that is natural and hard to stop, just as it is hard to stop abortion.

              If abortion is a woman’s right to choose, infanticide of other men’s children is a husband’s right to choose. The battle of the sexes, like all struggles, is apt to get out of hand and hurt people, but that is just the way things are. If your society and culture is trying to suppress one side in the battle, and trying to suppress your side in the struggle, it is not a good idea to let yourself be suppressed.

              Against forces so powerful and primal, social repression is apt to fail. Don’t accept a peace written according to hostile rules. In some matters, you have to accept the sovereign’s peace. Sex and family are not among those matters.

              Just as women are apt to hang with men who beat them and rape them, they are apt to hang with men who mistreat and kill their previous husband’s children, particularly if they are still young, hot, and fertile, and particularly if they perceive their previous husband as a beta loser.

              • Wad Cutter says:

                If Mary has children by two men, it is reasonable, appropriate, and likely for one of the men in Joseph’s to get rid of his child’s half brothers.

                Come on, Jim, apply what you say to bastard Jesus. Or you’re just a boomer blowhard making excuses for a cuckolded, beta-orbiting, friend-zoned Joseph because you’re afraid of losing your retirement benefits in Jewheaven like a damned coward.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  Are you being an idiot on purpose, Wad? Mary did not have children by two men.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  WC is rebelling in ways that society condones.

                  Shitting on Christianity is virtuous in The Current Year.

                  The ‘hot take’ on Christ is that in a universe ruled by concrete laws, it’s not unreasonable to suppose that, at a certain particular moment, the laws might line up to produce a being that, by ‘pure chance’ to mortal observers, happened to have access to all the wisdom conceivable by mortals within that system.

                  Indeed, such a system could be RIGGEd IN ADVANCE to produce that outcome.

                  This is not a controversial claim if you assume that a deterministic, physical, material universe is not only possible but actual.

                  Jesus Christ is a miracle in the sense that existence itself is a miracle: no more and no less.

                • Koanic says:

                  Don’t discourage him. Hey Wad Cutter, did you know the Bible says the Church is the Bride of Christ?

      • Alrenous says:

        Once a sin is committed, it often necessitates another sin. In this case, he must sin either against his own child or someone else’s.

        • jim says:

          Obviously, better to sin against someone else’s.

          • Anonymous says:

            Jesus: “sin no more.”
            Jim: “better to sin.”

            LOL

            It’s hilarious which parts of the Bible you cherrypick for your agenda, and which parts you studiously ignore. What a fraud.

            • Koanic says:

              Hush, cuck. It is no sin to kill every male that pisseth against the wall when wiping out a rude man and his brood. I suppose the rest would make slaves or wives.

              • Wad Cutter says:

                Hilarious on so many levels. Joseph is a literal cuckold, and you keep ignoring that, Jesus is cuckspawn, and you keep ignoring that too. You’re like a Down Syndrome retard with your insults.

                How do you know the child in question from the fellow seeking advice is either male or rude? Again, your mental retardation is showing.

                What you’re doing is projecting. You’re the rude midwit who needs snuffed to clean up the gene pool. Thanks for providing so much evidence.

                • Roberto says:

                  He did say that the child is rude, but that the father is rude. Obviously Koanic is a cuck for assuming that, but at least attack him with accuracy.

                • Roberto says:

                  *did not

                • Koanic says:

                  No, you two ignorant scoffers simply failed to catch the Nabal allusion.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  And Joseph is still a cuckold for Mary’s cuckspawn too. I’m attacking Jew-worship with accuracy. You can tell, because nobody here will admit the simple fact that Joseph was a cuck. Reality is totally embarrassing, so you bury your heads in the sand like ostriches.

                  I’m going to rub your nose in it again.

                  “His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant.” Matthew 1:18

                  Herod was on the right track, if Jim’s right about killing cuckspawn. 🙂 Admit it, Jim. Herod is your main hero.

                  Funny how the Jew Testament always paints Whites (Herod, a Roman White Patriarch) as bad. Nothing much has changed in 2000 years.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Koanic, you are one damn clever gamma. Nabal, who could have missed that allusion? Of course, allusion comes from the Latin word ludere, meaning “to play.” Got any more games to play, child?

                • peppermint says:

                  I want to kill every man who pisseth against the wall, because a lot of places in my city reek of piss.

                  Sure, it would be nicer to whip them and parade them through the streets in chains to get tomatoes thrown at them, but slaughter is probably more realistic.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  [*lies deleted as waste of bandwidth*]

                • jim says:

                  Don’t tell us that other people said things that they did not say.

                  If you think someone said something unreasonable, quote him in your reply. Quote him before giving us your interpretation of what he said.

                • Roberto says:

                  You’re in no position to accuse others of hypocrisy, Mr. “everyone is an ankle-biter except me.”

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  [*lies deleted as waste of bandwidth*]

    • peppermint says:

      Here are your options:

      (1) abort his bastard past the third trimester

      (2) retry at finding a decent woman

      (3) ignore the humiliation of being a cuckold and hope that your fatherly attention is spread over n/(n+1) for sufficient n to be worth it. Raise a bastard, thus teaching your sons to sire bastards and your daughters to carry them.

      (4) fail, get your stuff stolen as child support to be spent on her firstborn whose father she likes more than you

      • Wad Cutter says:

        RE: (3)

        Joseph did it with Mary. What’s not to love about that?

        • Koanic says:

          Shut up, cuck.

          • Wad Cutter says:

            You’re correct, Koanic, that narrative does make Joseph a cuckold. Perhaps the later Gospel writers should have stuck with Mark’s original adoption theology, which holds that Jesus was adopted as the Son of God at his baptism, instead of reorienting the tale to include divine cuckoldry.

      • jim says:

        When a woman has genuinely moved on in her heart from her past lover to a new lover, she is not too troubled by what happens to the past lover’s children, much as the lioness is not too troubled when the new lion bumps off her kittens.

        A change of lovers, change of children.

        Conversely, if she has not moved on, she is never going to love you. Try mistreating her child in mildly sadistic ways. Observe her reaction. You will learn if she has forgotten the beta father of her post third trimester fetal tissue blog, or is an alpha widow and mother of her first child.

        Her reaction to you mistreating her child will reveal whether she has moved on in her heart.

        • Wad Cutter says:

          First premeditated murder, and now sadistic child abuse. Do you have any advice for the poor fellow that isn’t criminal?

        • Kgaard says:

          Jim are you sure that is consistent with the notion that women really only love their children — and never REALLY love their husband but rather only what he can do for her at the moment?

          If we view male/female relations as fundamentally trading sex and caretaking for provisioning and protection, then there may not be any inconsistency in a woman loving her first child even as she is boinking her second husband.

          I agree that the second husband has a problem re the spawn of the first husband. But I would tend to just throw that on the scale with everything else. Perhaps there are other mitigating factors. Maybe she is really hot. Maybe she is 20 years younger than he is. Maybe he’s rich and it doesn’t set him back to care for the spawn of the other dude. Maybe the kid is amusing.

          • jim says:

            That women only really love their children becomes more true as the end of their fertile period approaches, becomes true when they are still fertile, but have hit the wall.

            The longer their remaining fertile period, the more they are apt to view their existing children as replaceable.

            The more that serial monogamy is a viable strategy, the more is apt to be carried out in ways that harm and endanger children.

            • Wad Cutter says:

              That’s it, maybe Mary the mother of Jewsus was an old hag on her last egg, like French President Emmanuel Macron’s grandmotherly “wife,” which is why she couldn’t replace the bastard Jewsus. Good catch.

        • Wad Cutter says:

          Jim, should Joseph have sadistically mistreated and/or bumped off Mary’s cuckspawn baby Jewsus?

          Or at least not run to Egypt to get away from the Roman White Patriarch Herod who was trying to do the job?

          A change of lovers, change of children, you know.

          • Roberto says:

            >Jim, should Joseph have sadistically mistreated and/or bumped off Mary’s cuckspawn baby Jewsus?

            Glen Benton just called, he wants his leitmotif back.

            • Wad Cutter says:

              Hello ankle-biter. My neighbor’s miniature poodle is more fearsome than you.

              If you can’t address an issue, taunts just make you look childish.

              Go on, try to face the issue that Jim’s advice, if applied by Joseph, would have been to kill Mary’s bastard Jesus.

              Sit up straight, put on your thinking cap, breath deeply, try to get some oxygen to those starved neurons up there.

              • Roberto says:

                “Once Upon The Cross” was their best album, IMO.

              • Roberto says:

                You know, last time I listened to “Serpents of the Light” I couldn’t help but recall our convo. You should incorporate Deicide lyrics into your posts so as to make them more interesting. People appreciate rhymes and it makes for a superior aesthetic than mere abstract “high brow” argumentation. There you go:

                Free of their god, intelligence won
                Go with your instinct to live as you want
                No longer begging for mercy from thieves
                They can’t come near you, through them you can see
                Keep to the outside the teachings of Christ
                Denounce the father, undo his disguise
                Die, serpents of the light

                You are at one, the serpent now gone
                Harness the power to refuse the son
                Under the bible inherit deceit
                Above it enlighten to what you can be
                Savor the pleasure once known in your life
                Heaven’s compassion you know is a lie
                Serpents of the light

                Serpents of the light, return to where you hide
                Give us peace of mind
                Serpents of the light, revolting parasite
                Thorns in paradise
                Serpents of the light, expelled from human life
                Free of Jesus Christ

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Free of God? You’re lying again, Roberto. I’m no atheist or satanist or any other bullshit you concoct. Lying is all you ever do here. Do you have another more clever shtick, Jew-worshiper?

                  And your Jewish deity, Jehovah, hated God. Bible says so.

                  “But you who forsake Yahweh, who forget my holy mountain, who prepare a table for God/Gawd/Gad/Gott/Godin/Odin/Woden/Wotan…” Isaiah 65:11

                  Chose one: God or Jehovah.

                  (Dishonest translators have conflated them, but the Bible demonstrates just how dishonest those translators were.)

              • peppermint says:

                (1) Jesus is not God. Joseph wanted his own children by Mary. Yes. Jesus ran away from his adopted father and his adoptive father’s honorable career, like a bastard, and got himself killed as an itenerant community organizer.
                (2) Hail Mary, full of grace, the LORD is with thee. Joseph never touched Mary because she was God’s woman, their “marriage” was of convenience, and God took care of them. Joseph probably brought along stepsibs for Jesus from an actual wife or whatever.

                Can you understand that (2) is consistent with all the facts and thus suggesting (1) is nothing more than an empty taunt?

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  In flowery terms, you said Joseph was an abused cuck, and Mary an alpha widow. Unless those terms are “empty taunts.”

                  Flowery terms aren’t going to cover up the facts, peppe. But at least you’re a reprobate comparing Jewsus to that nigger Obama, both of whom hate white patriarchal society. (Matthew 20:25, Mark 10:42, Luke 22:25)

                • peppermint says:

                  Look, if Mary was a virgin, that means the “marriage” was never consummated, therefore it wasn’t a marriage, therefore Joseph and Mary had a special purpose and relationship, which makes sense if Jesus is God.

                  Now, you can call Mary barren of human children and blame God for that loss to her mother. That is consistent with (2) and insulting to God.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  “Divine cuckold” is so special for Beta Orbiter Joseph. But so harsh for your tender citified sensibilities.

                  Shall we call it the Divine Friend Zone?

                  LOL

                  Never thought I’d see peppe defending cuckoldry and Friend-Zoning and Divine Beta Orbiting, but here we are.

                • peppermint says:

                  Amazing, I give you a real complaint about God’s treatment of Joseph and Mary, and you reach dishonestly for friendzone anyway, implying that Joseph was waiting for God to turn His back so he could fuck His wife.

                  Your rage blinds you.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Then peppe remembered that iit is written, “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

                  I would remind you that extremism in the defense of my White nation is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.

                  To paraphrase it in both ancient and modern jewspeak, if that helps anybody around here understand “muh rage.”

                • peppermint says:

                  Your rage makes you less effective at damaging your targets.

                  There’s a reason every serious WN disagrees with you and it isn’t that you’ve found out something everyone else hasn’t.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Ah, the 97% consensus gambit. You’re a worse liar than Al Gore and Obama, trying to posit 100%. LOL

                  All you’re doing is proving you don’t read much literature by White Nationalists. Example:

                  “A multiracial religion destroys the senses of uniqueness, exclusivity and
                  value necessary to the survival of a race.” -David Lane, 88 Precents

                  And Christianity is certainly multi-racial, explicitly so. “There is neither Jew nor Greek.” “Make disciples of all nations.” etc. Including niggers in two different passages of Acts.

                  Now pull a Feinstein and attack White Nationalist David Lane for being criminal, instead of addressing what he said.

    • LOL at everybody saying different things. My take is: disappearing is immoral, marrying her is a bad idea, you already know she is a slut, “unfortunate accidents” are shockingly immoral, the two acceptable options are 1) convince her to let you have sole custody of your kid, marry a decent woman, make some more kids, ensure first one does not get mistreated by your wife 2) if she refuses, then the usual divorced father kind of thing, pay child support, shared custody, play the fathers role as often as you can without actually having to move in with them or caring about the other kid, or at least the minimal contact the court guarantees, I think every second weekend or so.

      But, most importantly, lawyer up before you say anything. Maybe your lawyer can come up with something that makes her easily give you sole custody and that is the best option.

      • Doug Smythe says:

        I bet that causing your own kid to be aborted or abandoning him to be raised by another man* or the street is the kind of thing that might really bother a guy later in life. Ordinarily the correct answer re: a woman who already has a kid is “run away screaming”, but in this case a whole new variable has been thrown into the mix.

        *this is the definition of being a cuck, not adopting someone else’s kid.

        • peppermint says:

          Don’t redefine words.

        • Wad Cutter says:

          Adoption is Biblical.

          “The adoption of children.” (Ephesians 1:5)

          “The spirit of adoption.” (Romans 8:15)

          The fictional character Moses, the Egyptian name for “I drew him out of the water,” (Exodus 2:10) was adopted. (Notably, Jim embraces Pharaoh’s strategy, “Bastards should be killed or enslaved.” We all know how that worked out.)

          Esther too was adopted, (Esther 2:7) and became Queen.

      • jim says:

        You don’t know she is a slut. Women are like dogs. Bad master, bad dog. They don’t have a fixed character.

        What, however, you do know is that she has a child, and you are at risk of paying child support that will be applied to the benefit of that child, not your own, and that she may well be an alpha widow. Can you compete with the shadow of her past lover? Mistreating the child will reveal whether she is an alpha widow.

        If she reacts as if you are mistreating a post third trimester blob of fetal tissue, she has moved on. If she gets genuinely upset, you are the guy she was reluctantly forced to settle for, and will regard that as your fault.

        • Wad Cutter says:

          His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be pregnant.

          And verily, Joseph mistreated the divine bastard as a post third trimester blob of fetal tissue, to discern if Mary was an alpha widow.

          Joseph should have followed your advice, right? Or are you just a boomer blowhard?

          • peppermint says:

            Why would Joseph marry her if she was an old hen on her last egg?

            Why would God?

            To make Christians angry, call Joseph a cuck.

            To make Christians butthurt, say God harmed Mary by preventing her from having real children.

            To make Christians WN, say Jesus came for the Romans, not for the jews.

            • peppermint says:

              What if, instead of being the son of Jehovah, Jesus was the son of Loki?

              • Wad Cutter says:

                Loki? Heh! Sure, whatever. You don’t need to seek my approval.

                More important, does the setting of the narrative change? Blood and soil go together, you know. No use having holy cities for Whites that are located in middle-eastern Asia. Bethlehem is foreign. Jerusalem is foreign. Nazareth is foreign.

                Christianity identifying holy cities in the Levant is as bad as Islam doing the same. Both Abrahamic offshoots are parasite cults, meant to keep allegiance and money flowing to the originators, just like the Jew Testament states in Romans 15:27. The spice must flow, to Jews!

    • Koanic says:

      You should attempt to achieve a Biblical marriage with her, and adopt the bastard as your own. And if you cannot, you should flee to a jurisdiction that does not enforce child support.

      Be sure it is not a fake pregnancy, and gradually increase your commitment to her as she brings it to term.

      Or, have her abort in first trimester, and pay a fine to a church.

      • Wad Cutter says:

        Or a fine to the Synagogue, if you’re in Joseph’s spot with a pregnant fiance you haven’t fucked. Can’t leave out the Kikes, since you feel compelled to worship one.

        The Jews will gladly take more too, since Gullible Goyim like you feel you owe the self-appointed Chosenites something.

        “For if the Gentiles have shared in the Jews’ spiritual blessings, they owe it to the Jews to share with them their material blessings.” (Romans 15:27)

        Thor wept.

        I only mention him today, since you’re honoring his name by saying his day of the week, Thor’s Day. Otherwise, I’d have let it slide.

        • Roberto says:

          Seriously tho, do you have any belief system to propose or is it just “days of the week are named after Germanic deities” with no substance beyond that? Let’s say that Jesus is bad and Odin is good; what next? If there’s nothing else to it than mere symbolisms, I’m afraid your schtick is a bit superficial.

          • Wad Cutter says:

            Yearning for something better, are you? When you’re pleading for a non-Jewish deity to worship, you should at least ask nicely.

            • Roberto says:

              I’m yearning to understand what precisely your worldview is, but you keep disappointing me with zero-substance replies, which suggests you lack a worldview and are only doing it to let off steam.

              • Wad Cutter says:

                Then a Princess Bride re-run we shall watch.

                Inigo Montoya: Who are you?
                Man in Black: No one of consequence.
                Inigo Montoya: I must know…
                Man in Black: Get used to disappointment.

                Unless you beg Jim to give me the platform, and he grants your wish. I’m not here to talk about myself, I’m here to comment on Jim’s opinions.

        • jim says:

          Unless you think the father of your girlfriend’s bastard is God, the example of Joseph is not relevant.

          One of the justifications for abortion is that it is very hard to stop women from doing it.

          Well, guess what: it is very hard to stop men from getting rid of their girlfriend’s encumbering bastards.

          • Koanic says:

            You have indeed discovered the moral symmetry. Unfortunately the legal risk bears heavily on the man.

            It is wise for a man with an unreliable wife to establish a habit of vacationing in a jurisdiction which does not enforce child support. Such a location might also facilitate bastard disposal. That’s two potential reasons to establish the habit before even meeting the girl.

            • Doug Smythe says:

              Anywhere the State hasn’t disintegrated and civilization descended into rank savagery, the Sovereign is likely to take vigorous exception to the idea that a private individual can legitimately murder a bastard- who, after all, is one of his subjects, under his jurisdiction and therefore protection- and is likely to answer the but-cats-do-it-that-way defense with the common hangman. As well he should. Even Liberalism hasn’t sunk far enough to condone post-partum child murder yet. Even the animals behind bars will help supply the rightful deserts a child killer has coming to him.

              • Roberto says:

                Sentimentalism about children is a modern phenomenon, indeed, the quintessential modern phenomenon. Sure, Jim should not advise his commenters to “unfortunately accident” bastards, but the responses to that are wildly disproportional.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Sentimentalism about children is modern?

                  The king was shaken. He went up to the room over the gateway and wept. As he went, he said: “O my son Absalom! My son, my son Absalom! If only I had died instead of you—O Absalom, my son, my son!” 2Sam.18:33

                  Do you not believe the Jewbook? Or maybe you just don’t read it?

                • Roberto says:

                  Okay, I’ll clarify: sentimentalism about someone else’s children, or “children in general.”

                  There is no evolutionary reason for you to care if someone defenstrates the bastard/cuckspawn of his girlfriend, unless a) *you* are a bastard/cuckspawn yourself and depend on your slut-mom’s spouse in some way; b) you begeat a bastard/cuckspawn and your slut-ex-wife took him with her and you’re worried about *him*.

                  People naturally value the life of themselves and of their own progeny, but the elevation of the status of children as a class is modern. The ancients did not value the life of children all that much. Recall Elisha and the 42 kids.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  Unless you can communicate instructions to bears, the example of Elisha is not relevant.

                • Roberto says:

                  It is relevant because it teaches you what value the Biblical narrator — and the culture he represented — assigned to children (very little value).

              • Koanic says:

                Every body is property of the State. Underclass bastards especially have their uses, for herding terrorized tax serfs from hood to burb and back again, and generating demand for the police prison industrial complex.

                You are right; the idea is sacrilege. Next the tax serfs might think they can keep their property, or deny the reverence due the priests of Liberalism.

                A friend of bastards such as you, is an honorary one himself!

              • jim says:

                Hat tip Roberto

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  By your lights, cuckolded Joseph should smothered bastard Jesus in the manger. You should agree with other relevant applications of your own advice. Except you’re too much of a coward to take a homeopathic dose your own medicine you’re doling out to a poor fellow with a real life problem. Just a blowhard boomer, big talk, no walk.

                • jim says:

                  The angels advised Joseph to make an exception.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  There’s always an excuse-maker concocting an exception. You’re just like any typical slut. Muh angels. Muh feelz. Muh whatever.

              • The Cominator says:

                They would absolutely hang you in 18th century England if you got caught and as technology advances you definitely will get caught…

                It might have happened in the past somewhat often but still no more then 20% of the time. In the past they were less sentimental about children because child mortality rate was very high, but what is described here was never permitted in Christendom…

                It was also the Victorians and not the people of the 18th century who really adopted the approach of pitiless severity to bastards in order to discourage it. Literature of the time (Moll Flanders) depicts bastards as having a hard time once it came time to seek their fortune but not being particulary mistreated during childhood more then other lower class children, the way the Victorian Oliver Twist WAS mistreated during childhood.

                • jim says:

                  Again, I have read, but cannot link to, reports of institutions for taking care of girls who got pregnant – the girls would disappear from their families for a bit, then return without the child. Death rate among the “orphans” approached 100%, and there was an astounding lack of curiosity about this death rate. And we are not talking eighteenth century, but 1950s, early twentieth century.

                  If we can do second trimester abortions, post third trimester abortions are unlikely to trouble anyone provided a decent veil is maintained. And, in fact, did not trouble anyone.

                  I would not recommend making this legal, just not be too energetic about making it illegal. It is absolutely clear that in the past they were not too energetic about making it illegal, and I very doubt that today they are all that energetic about making it illegal.

                  In the extremely common case that a child is torn from his legitimate father, and then murdered by one of the succession of visitors wandering through his mothers bedroom, detecting such an event would be as embarrassing as catching a Rotherham rapist, or prosecuting a false rape accusation. Recall that after approximately two thousand new year rapes in Germany, approximately two were prosecuted. I would guess mysterious deaths of children torn from their fathers are investigated with similar energy.

                  After the restoration we will investigate the deaths of legitimate children torn from their fathers, and I am sure we will find some interesting data.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes these places existed but ALL of them were run by the Catholic church…

                  Which is why I’ll never take their prolife stance seriously when they were running child death camps as recently as the 1950s.

                • jim says:

                  They were exposed as part of a politically motivated attack on the Roman Catholic Church to purge it of rightists and subject it to homos. If the Catholic Church got away with it and no one wanted to know, every man and his dog got away with it and no one wanted to know, and right now today, people want to know even less, because knowing about deaths of children in the custody of single mothers would be as politically inconvenient as knowing about rapes by rapeugees.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim re the data on children with parents other then their father’s or natural mother’s being murdered I would bet you a large amount that women actually kill stepchildren and bastards not their own far far more often then men.

                  Men are more likely to forcefully persuade it to stay away short of killing it.

                  My father was not a bastard but was an orphan (his mother died 1st when he was two his father died later of polio). The one serious attempt on him he described was by his stepMOTHER when his birth father was still alive.

                • jim says:

                  And absolutely nothing happened to your stepmother.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m not going to say for sure that the Catholic Church was the only one doing it (at least on an institutional basis) but as far as we know it was (and I know from your response that at least as far as documented cases you agree with me and are merely speculating that others were too).

                  The Catholic Church ALSO ran these places entirely in places like Quebec and Massachussetts with Catholic political machines precisely because if the local authorities were not sympathetic and tied in with the Catholic Church there would have been a real investigation of the suspiciously high death rates. This would have been true in 1750. By the time of Oliver Twist the Catholic Church unfortunately WAS in the business in England because Catholic emancipation happened.

                  18th century England orphan and foster care had a much higher survival rate then Catholic bastard and foster care and the Catholic Church wasn’t in the business of doing that in 18th century England because the Catholic Church rightly wasn’t tolerated in 18th century England.

                • jim says:

                  > merely speculating that others were too

                  If the Catholic Church could get away with those crimes and no one was unduly curious, everyone could get away with crimes and no one was unduly curious.

                  Neither were they unduly curious about your father’s stepmother.

                  The Catholic church only suffered exposure as part of an effort to converge them to globohomo. I see no reason to believe that people are any more curious today, if anything, less.

                • jim says:

                  > 18th century England orphan and foster care had a much higher survival rate then Catholic bastard and foster care

                  Do you know this? How do you know it?

                  For that matter, do you know what the survival rate is amongst twenty first century children whose fathers have been forbidden to go near them? My guess would be a hell of a lot higher than in those Catholic orphanages, but nonetheless significantly lower than the survival rate of amongst twenty first century children whose fathers have and exercise access. But I predict that actual data will be strangely unobtainable. Recall that the Rotherham children were for the most part children that were fatherless or whose fathers had been driven away.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I don’t know of any cases of non-catholic orphanages with similar death rates and neither do you, you’re speculating on this. Also all those places were located in places with Catholic political machines not just any place with a Catholic minority. Indicating they would not be tolerated elsewhere and only in places where they could prevent any kind of real investigation.

                  Re the stepmother thing, short on details. If you really want them I can probably get them when I move down near him in December.

                • jim says:

                  What I do know is that the investigation of the Catholic orphanages was politically motivated with the intent of imposing globohomo on them. Thus the failure to detect similar events elsewhere is not indicative of innocence, but suspicious.

                  If group X can get away with it, why not group Y?

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Catholic Church has always been kind of uniquely awful… or at least since the time of the “Counter Reformation” and probably since the Gregorian heresy (which created the Catholic Church as distinct from the Orthodox).

                • jim says:

                  Again, how do you know this?

                  Human nature and human wickedness is universal.

                  My expectation is that the death rate among children whose fathers are subject to stay away orders and whose mothers are under thirty is astonishingly high, and that no one wants to know what it is. The latter prediction is likely to be far more easily testable than the former.

          • Wad Cutter says:

            So you do admit Jesus was a bastard, even though you have to engage in dismissive excuse-making.

            The Bible is extremely relevant to Jew-worshiping fanatics, right up to the point they say it isn’t relevant any more. LOL

            Reminds me of Abrose Bierce’s insightful definition of “Christian.”

            CHRISTIAN, n. One who believes that the New Testament is a divinely inspired book admirably suited to the spiritual needs of his neighbor. One who follows the teachings of Christ in so far as they are not inconsistent with a life of sin.

            Thanks for the laughs, Jim. “If I don’t like it, it isn’t relevant!” lol Pretty much the way Christians treat the whole bible. A smörgåsbord, as they derisively describe all the other christians using the same dismissals.

            • Wad Cutter says:

              Jim vs Jim:

              Jim: The social order of the patriarch Israel…
              Jim: Unless you’re a Jew, the example of Israel is not relevant.

              Jim: …re-created by Moses in a deliberate act of political will, political violence, and divine revelation.
              Jim: Unless you’re talking directly to God, the example of Moses is not relevant.

              When, by finding a small difference, you dismiss examples in the Bible as not relevant, one can dismiss other examples in the Bible as not relevant.

              Thanks for the lesson in flippant dismissal of the not relevant, Jim.

              • jim says:

                Directly talking to God (or successfully claiming to) is no small difference.

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  [*lies deleted as waste of bandwidth*]

                • Wad Cutter says:

                  If they were lies, you could have easily show the world how I was wrong.

                  However, I told the truth, and you don’t like that much, especially since you had no retort.

                  Plus you’re mad at your dishonest methods being found out and explained so well. Oh well, it’s not surprising to see a Jew-worshiper shoah-ing things.

                • jim says:

                  > If they were lies, you could have easily show the world how I was wrong.

                  You are wasting bandwidth.

                  I am not going to refute unsupported and unexplained assertions.

                  Try putting material in your post, such as direct quotes of other people’s words, that show the world that you are right. I am not going to waste reader bandwidth attempting to refute unsupported assertions, which will then be supported by additional unsupported assertions.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Wad Cutter:

              “Jesus was a bastard”

              It’s a sign of our weak and troubled times that you’re able to freely write that on a public forum without fear of the state, but that I’m having to think very carefully about whether it’s legally safe to describe what the state ought to be doing instead.
              I’m pretty sure deep down you know the civilisation of Karl Martell was the good times and a world ruled by Ambrose Bierce is a left-wing hellscape of snark and wagging fingers.

              • Schlomo at ADL says:

                Thank you from the ADL. Liberty in an unfree world is horrible. Freedom of opinion is like another shoah. We need to make more of the world unfree.

                • חיים (הבן דוד שלך) says:

                  Shalom, cousin. It’s Chaim at SPLC. I am writing to inform you that our hate-speech monitoring algorithms indicate that the goyim (oy vey) no longer consider our carefully-constructed “Nazi Villain” archetype to be credible. So you are hereby advised to refrain from playing the role of anti-Semite who plays the role of Jew in an over-the-top, on-the-nose manner. When you pretend to be Jewish, go easy on the canards.

                  Best regards,

    • The Cominator says:

      Russia already does this in practice.

      • jim says:

        I wish

        • The Cominator says:

          Russia doesn’t tolerate vocal feminists in practice. They get prosecuted under the “extremist” law all the time.

          Russia also decriminalized moderate domestic violence (though not legal to send your wife or girlfriend to the emergency room still).

    • Roberto says:

      In more news, Christiano Ronaldo just got metoo’d.

      My take on this whole thing is that every meme concocted by the priestly class eventually takes off among the general populace; “rape culture” is no exception. If you want to accurately predict the future, observe what contemporary Brahmins are saying. And let it be noted that leftism is indiscriminate: it targets its supporters and adversaries alike, and neutral parties too. No man is safe – we now all have skin in the sex war.

      • Roberto says:

        >If you want to accurately predict the future

        Replying to myself: the Brahmin plan is plain-and-simple the extermination of white males, as the recent (((Christine Fair))) affair shows. The oven-dodging kikess has a wiki entry, actually:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._Christine_Fair

        These entities are unhinged and need to be stopped.

      • The Cominator says:

        I really think the Kavanaugh thing and the likely coming midterm republican victory will send the extreme shitlibs into such a meltdown that the damage to the Cathedral is going to be real and lasting.

        I think this is the beginning of the end for feminism and pound me too. State churches don’t last forever, and having a particulary successful ruler who is an open heretic in regards to the state church (which Trump is) tends to be very bad for them.

  9. eternal anglo says:

    Wew

  10. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Final thread: say what you want for ‘the final word’.

    The Cathedral concept was highly influential in persuading libertarians that the government wasn’t the entire necessary&sufficient cause of the malaise they were responding to.
    Libertarianism (Hyper-Reaganism without the Keynesian economics) was, in 2008, the best weapon against the Left. Moldbug moved things on.

    Jim’s contribution to the discussion was to apply nuance to Moldbug’s early work and emphasise the priority of the sexual aspects of The Current Year.

    The position I’ve been trying to represent here has been that of ‘the alt right’: namely that libertarianism was not just ‘not perfect’ but was in fact part of the problem; that a love of capitalism is not in fact any answer to the problems of the SJW state.

    I’ve convinced absolutely no-one, I’m assuming, and that’s fine. You’re still allies to the white race: even those of you who think you could cull 50% of us – in practice you can’t. We’re better than that and we won’t allow it.

    Ultimately though any of you who were convinced by Moldbug that anarcho-capitalism wasn’t the way forward (privatise the oceans) should allow yourselves to question the idea that private sector actors are somehow IMMUNE to the power The Cathedral exerts over, say, academics and journalists, not to mention Joe Public.
    What is it about rich people that helps them rise above that?

    The ‘red pill’ here is that they don’t rise above it.

    There’s nothing more to be said. I’ve made the case that capitalists (Jim agrees that ‘venture capitalist fund-managers’ are capitalists) are funding THE WORST forms of left-wing activism.
    I’ve made the case that the co-operation of the largest multinational corporations with the left-wing agenda is *not obviously* happening under duress.

    And I’ve made the case that the results of the left-wing agenda (open borders, atomised individualism, present-moment consumption, etc.) are beneficial to capitalists in general.

    If you’re not convinced by those cases, that’s fine.

    If you think there’s more to be explored, I’d strongly recommend The Right Stuff, Millennial Woes or Morgoth’s Review for perspectives you might find congenial.

    With that, I’m bowing out. I have no wish whatsoever to be a troll.

    I value this blog and will continue to read it, but all the questions that could reasonably be posed have been posed and answered. If individuals are unsatisfied with those answers, they are of course welcome to conclude that the premises have been disproved.

    With that I wish you all well, especially the host, who is one of the most unique and talented minds of this generation.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Solzhenitsyn tells the truth about the ‘Russian’ revolution of 1917

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW2-4OvXTV8

    • glosoli says:

      Briefly breaking my self-imposed comment ban here to note that CR is correct about capitalism and its evil nature.

      One example, Tesco in the UK, always pushing homo stuff. Had an advert a couple of years ago ‘We made Good Friday better’. Refuse to work with churches on charitable matters. Pure evil, selling poisonous food products.

      Recently launched a discount chain, called ‘Jack’s’ to battle the successful German retailers Lidl and Aldi.

      ‘Jack’s’ is named after their founder, Jack Cohen.
      Do your own research into the founders of Marks and Spencer. Or law firm Mishcon de Reya, and their mission and founder.

      The capitalists are not white Christians, rather they seek our demise, and to steal ALL of our property.

      Jim, and anyone who fails to see the obvious driver of the shift leftwards is indeed the money men, are just plain stupid.

      I’ll not be debating this, just wanted to let CR know, on this issue, he’s correct.

      • jim says:

        Been there, been dangerously close to the center of conflicts between Human Resources and management, and it was entirely obvious that Human Resources (a tentacle of the state thrust into the orifice of every corporation with more than fifty employees) was pushing this crap on management.

        And, as I said, watch every video about political correctness and “sexual harassment” in the workplace, both humorous and serious, both for it and against it. None of them say that management is coming after you for political incorrectness. They say that human resources is coming after you – even if you are the CEO and the board.

        Which is what I myself saw.

        • glosoli says:

          As usual you address an entirely different point to that of CR, and to the point I made. You refuse to see evil by the tribe I highlighted, preferring to blame whites. You’ve admitted this before. I think you’re probably therefore one of their boys.

          • Roberto says:

            >Jim is a Jew

            Reminder that you threw out all your pork stash, and practice Old Testament rites like a fucking kike, because you had an interaction with a demon (in your mind).

            • glosoli says:

              I’m obedient to Jehovah, the kikes aren’t, you lot aren’t. It’s sad that you mock Christians, when you’ve identified already it’s a choice between Jehovah and Allah. Mocking Christians and our God will cause you to be our enemy.

              Only one winner in this race, you guys can circle jerk for years, tslk the hind legs off many donkeys, but you’re not going to space, you’re not building or saving a nation, you’re accursed.

              A reaction that turns the clock back 250 years is of the kikes, of satan. Enjoy it.

              • jim says:

                No one is mocking Christians, except Alrenous.

                Not everyone, however, agrees with your version of Christianity – indeed, looks to me that you are the only Christian who adheres to your version of Christianity, so you could with equal validity accuse every other Christian of mocking Christianity.

                > A reaction that turns the clock back 250 years is of the kikes, of satan.

                back 250 years is 1768. Pretty sure that was an unkiked, unpozzed Christianity, authentic to the New Testament and the Communion of Saints.

                Though I favor 1660, 1663, when my favored brand of Christianity came into force in the English speaking world, or 1800 or so, when it expired. Not sure why you choose 1768. Maybe because that is around the period when my favored brand of Christianity ruled the world, or a mighty big part of it. Its power started to wane with the American Revolution.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                “A reaction that turns the clock back 250 years is of the kikes, of satan.”

                Why’s that?

                I’m genuinely interested and for what it’s worth am with you regarding our Lord. These atheist types are so smug but so small. If the universe is a set of rigid physical laws that just happens to have tended to produce ever more Goodness over (geological) time, it’s not so unreasonable, even by a Lee Smolin type of account, to imagine the essence of all that benevolence and wisdom crystalised into a living human, that the system can see what it’s like from the inside.
                (OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT – this is what faith’s for anyway)

                I digress.

                It sounded before as though you were broadly in agreement with me that capitalism, ie. 1820 Whiggery, was a huge blunder and that Carlyle’s observations were pretty valid: having workers sell their labour as a commodity on ‘the vagabond principle’ is inhumane and will inevitably lead to ever greater calls for votes and gibs. (He was clearly right in that prediction at the very least, whether you share his hatred of laissez-faire or not.)

                I have some sympathy for the idea that a healthy society cannot *simply* be a roll-back, but must include many aspects of modernity, including some that aren’t necessarily ‘right wing’ at all (a state healthcare system for example, if done in a fascist kind of way, could work very well indeed).

                What’s your own motivation for regarding the rollback as satanic?

                Jim’s analysis is almost certainly right, by the way, that the Bronze Age Collapse caused Moses (or indeed Jehovah) to structure the Commandments in the way H/he did.
                I assume your model society would take seriously the prohibitions on covetousness and theft, as well as obviously adultery and bearing false witness.

                • jim says:

                  > > “A reaction that turns the clock back 250 years is of the kikes, of satan.”

                  > Why’s that?

                  Because he is a progressive and you are a progressive. Restoring the social technology of two hundred and fifty years ago is almost the definition of reaction – or rather a theory that explains that social technology has been being destroyed by leftism for about two hundred fifty years is the ideology and intellectual system of reaction.

                  He thinks he is a reactionary because he is a Nazi, but Nazis and commies are just Goys and Jews fighting over who should lead the left wing singularity, fighting over who is the more authentic voice of progress.

                  Commies are descended from Judaism gone holier than God, Progressives (the dominant faction) descended from English Puritans gone holier than God, Nazis descended from Lutherans gone holier than God.

                  As all late stage aneuploid maligant metastatic cancers look much alike, progressivism, communism, and twenty first century Nazism look much alike.

                • Roberto says:

                  Glosoli is not mocked for being a Christian (to paraphrase a popular saying: “Christianity is the worst religion, except for all the others that have been tried”), rather, he is mocked for telling Jim, “You refuse to NANE THE JEW, therefore you must be one,” while at the very same time himself practicing a form of Biblical Judaism, all the way down to e.g. pork avoidance, which eclectic religion he discovered at the age of 49 after he had had an “incident” involving assault-by-demon.

                  To paraphrase another quote: “the asylum is empty, and all the nutters are here.”

                • jim says:

                  > Then why are you calling me a leftist for wanting to restore pre-laissez-faire? I a

                  You don’t propose to restore the pre corporate capitalism economic system that preceded Charles the Second, but the absurd and incoherent economic system that Lenin and Stalin denounced as “left wing communism”, which economic system is currently being tried in Venezuela.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Jim:

                  “Restoring the social technology of two hundred and fifty years ago is almost the definition of reaction”

                  Then why are you calling me a leftist for wanting to restore pre-laissez-faire? I agree entirely, much of the change needed is of a rollback nature, and I’d only add to that that much of the change needed is of the following nature: restoring authority UP the hierarchy to where it belongs and undoing the harmful DOWNWARD transfer of power that people down the hierarchy will always agitate for throughout history: left is disorder, right is order. (Hence laissez-faire, being the downward transfer of power from aristocrats to entrepreneurs, is left.)

                  Roberto:

                  [glosoli is saying to Jim] “You refuse to NANE THE JEW, therefore you must be one,”

                  You’ve done that to me. I saw you on at least three occasions attempt to get me to say things you know full well would be illegal in Europe.

                  {disclaimer to our friends in MI5: that does not presuppose that I concede I would agree with such statements}

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “You don’t propose to restore the pre corporate capitalism economic system that preceded Charles the Second, but the absurd and incoherent economic system that Lenin and Stalin denounced as “left wing communism”, which economic system is currently being tried in Venezuela.”

                  You genuinely believe that? lol

                  I thought you were pretending and misrepresenting.

                  I expect a sane leader would simply wash his hands of many of the big corporations of today.

                  Beyond that, workers should be tied to their jobs, and if someone’s roaming around jobless he should be put to work as an indentured servant.

                  The economy would benefit from a hell of a lot more saving and a hell of a lot less spending, and that means it’d probably be focused more on producing clothing, food and so on, as well as some organically emerging manufacturing of course, and much much less on services.

                  People should not be taking multiple foreign holidays, people should not be dining out multiple times a week and people should not be living like Lords when they’re working for minimum wage.

                  It’s neither sustainable nor even desirable.

                  Peasants should be as comfortable as the society can make them, but *no more*.

                  Quite how that makes me a ‘lift up the proles’ leftist, I have absolutely no clue and absolutely no interest in revisiting it.

                  You think you can restore Georgian England but preserve all the jet-setting and high living of the peasantry.
                  Fine, you’re entitled to think that.

                • glosoli says:

                  I advocate for Judges-period Christianity. Laws adjusted only for the death and resurrection of Christ. A society of kith and kin, obedient to Jehovah. No extra holiness required, but no cheating, no quick deals with non-believers to get your Mountain Dew.

                  Anything which varies from this, especially when proposed by petty non-believers who think Kings can do better than Jehovah, are by definition progressives.

                  You want the liberalism of a King’s fleeting rule over the eternal righteousness of Jehovah’s laws. You have the bible and the entirety of history to show you where Kings always lead nations. Yet that’s what you want. It’s amusing to think America was founded by those escaping a King’s rule. Sigh.

                  I’m the least progressive person on the fucking planet Jim, stop gas-lighting. And the fact the vast majority of Christians choose to ignore the law is why the world is in terminal decline. ‘Thy will be done, on earth, as it is on Heaven’ actually means what it says.

                  But you prefer your own wisdom, so you’ll go your own way, on the same path as all other unbelieving liberals. Stupid, we’ll never learn. Until Jehovah sends Christ back which will be much sooner than you all imagine.

                  I repeat myself though, and none of you give a shit, it’s all just posing and talk anyway.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  We’re all in a right-wing purity spiral lol

                  My instinct is to see your yearning for Rule By God’s Law as Whiggery 1820, no different to Ron Paul’s Rule By Constitution.

                  Yours is to see my yearning for Rule By Fuhrer as the Whiggery of passing power down the hierarchy from God to Kings.

                  Jim’s instinct is to see both of us as leftists because we’re not on board with Ted Cruz’s fiscal policies.

                • glosoli says:

                  A penny just dropped.

                  The reason you are happy to tolerate the financiers and capitalists pushing products that destroy White Christian society is because all you’re interested in is seeing your kids escape to space.

                  You don’t give a shit about humanity or about the planet we’ve been given. You vainly believe you can whizz off to another planet, given the set-up you desire for a nation to give you that opportunity.

                  Much like those who tried to reach Heaven at Babel, your dreams are self-serving and vain. And like the Babelists, your dreams will never be fulfilled, rather you’ll face pain and misery for your ingratitude.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Just so.

                  They’ll gladly see Warren Buffet start his new life on Mars while the Charlottesville Four rot on what’s left of Earth when the party ends.

                • Roberto says:

                  >People should not be taking multiple foreign holidays, people should not be dining out multiple times a week and people should not be living like Lords when they’re working for minimum wage.

                  The reason I so vehemently lash out at you is that I can tell a slippery slope when I see one. You’d start by shutting down one part of the catallaxy (e.g. consumerism) and inevitably end up shutting down all of it; which is hardly a far fetched conjecture given that you’ve already expressed rather clearly your Luddite designs for society in a several threads.

                  Scientific-technological progress in the Current Year wholly depends on capitalism; being opposed to capitalism-enabled Social Darwinism (like all left-wingers), you seek to eliminate capitalism itself and thereby dodge its corollary of biological and institutional Social Darwinism; which, should you succeed, would spell catastrophe for scientific-technological progress.

                  It’s worth noting that left-wingers of every stripe are on your side, hating innovation because innovation proves the efficiency of capitalism: hating capitalism because capitalism disproves egalitarianism (i.e. capitalism proves the veracity of Social Darwinist theory, viz. heredity, eugenics, and race-realism) by virtue of its very selection mechanism of proliferating the fittest and culling out the unfit. Ain’t nothin’ disproves egalitarian doctrine more compellingly than white male silicon valley billionaires.

                  Instinctively you grasp all that, hence your anti-catallactic penchant; your opposition to “consumerist spending” is but the first rung up the ladder of totalitarian Luddism, which culminates in the elimination of Social Darwinism as both a biological and institutional phenomenon. Technological innovation being the fruit or “brainchild” of whites, males, capitalists, and especially white male capitalists, you possess an atavistic aversion to anything that smacks thereof, seeking to suppress innovation and the system which enables it (capitalism or catallaxy) with as much force as can be applied.

                  You seek totalitarianism because you seek to deny both the validity and the existence of Social Darwinism as an evolutionary force; you seek to deny the civilizational utility and indispensability of natural selection; your worldview is akin to Creationism or Lysenkoism translated from theology or biology (respectively) to political science:

                  “Natural selection by means of spreading beneficial mutations and eliminating deleterious ones must be wrong, because its implications challenge muh domestically interventionist aspirations; if natural selection via mutation — a mechanism which is as intrinsic to sociology as it is to biology — is correct, then there’s absolutely no sense in shutting down the value-creating white male billionaires, which is and has always been the very premise and the very raison d’etre of my political philosophy.”

                  Progressives are atavists, atavists are Progressives, and your worldview is the latest, most shrieking attempt at implementing Luddism before the techno-singularity reaches escape velocity and the left-wing is finally screwed eternally.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Roberto still thinks I’m claiming to be for capitalism and free markets, somehow:

                  “The reason I so vehemently lash out at you is that I can tell a slippery slope when I see one. You’d start by shutting down one part of the catallaxy (e.g. consumerism) and inevitably end up shutting down all of it; which is hardly a far fetched conjecture given that you’ve already expressed rather clearly your Luddite designs for society in a several threads.”

                  I fail to see what the destruction of future wealth has to do with price-setting, but you’re not wrong: in the end most prices of finished goods will probably be set by dictat.
                  Mises correctly identified the necessary condition for enterprising intelligence: a free market in the factors of production.
                  That would of course be respected if I were declared Great Leader Generalissimo.

                  Finished goods don’t need to be subject to a free market because they’re not used to calculate anything apart from specific demand, which is not a neutrally valenced variable.
                  It’s not for the peasantry to determine how much pie should be eaten. If pie isn’t causing problems in society, there can be as much as people want of it, but if the King notices a problem with pie, he has a responsibility to intervene to reduce its prevalence.

                  If he observes one particular foreign corporation turning pie into a societal cancer, he has a responsibility to drive them out of the country altogether.

                  etc. and so forth.

                  There’s no sense rehashing the entire argument. Every time you assume I’m a leftie, you’re misunderstanding by choice or by default.
                  Every time you assume my fascist bully-boys will crack down on your corporate buddies, you’re absolutely right, you’re not imagining it and you’re not exaggerating.

                • jim says:

                  > I fail to see what the destruction of future wealth has to do with price-setting,

                  Just as you redefine methodological individualism as Marxist class theory, you define the kulak’s cows and crops as the destruction of future wealth, so when you slaughter his cows and burn his crops, you are supposedly protecting future wealth.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Progressives are atavists”

                  This is just weasel wordsmithery.

                  Reactionaries are atavists too. You just want to draw distinctions when it suits you.

                  If your brand of futurism is against all forms of atavism and for the culling of the white populations, then it’s you, not I, who is the progressive.

                • Roberto says:

                  My brand of futurism totally depends on the survival of the white race, actually. However: the white race =/= wiggers. It’s obvious to me that it’s primarily whites (with only *some* help from Ashkenazim and East-Asians) who will usher in the techno-singularity and conquer the universe. No other race can pull that off, realistically. Thus, any futureo-reactionary restoration program must necessarily be pro-white, if not explicitly and de jure, then at least implicitly and de facto; but again, pro-white does not equal pro-wigger, and never will.

                  Also, the culling process under discussion here is morally justified because it’s one of non-coercive self-culling; it is nothing more and nothing less than the unfit removing themselves from the gene pool by their own stupid choices. I non-ironically support the legalization of all hard drugs for this exact reason; the vast majority of niggers will be gone, albeit those few Thomas Sowells — who in all likelihood constitute no more than 0.5% of American blacks — may remain.

                  My worldview is not so much race-centered as it is quality-centered; it just so happens that Aryans — Anglos, Dutch, Germans, and Scandinavians — are the highest quality hominids. (By writing “just so happens,” I tongue-in-cheek refer to millennia of very extreme selective pressure) To deny the absolute superiority of silicon valley engineers to wiggers is leftism, only different in degree from denying the absolute superiority of whites to blacks. Wignats are leftists, and parasites too.

                  Men and women aren’t equal to each other, the races are not equal to each other, and intra-ethnic subgroups aren’t equal to each other. Whites are superior to Jews and Asians; Whites, Jews, and Asians are superior to everyone else. Elite Whites interbreed with Jews and Asians, which is not very good, because superior white genes become diluted with inferior non-white genes, but not very terrible either, because the offpring will still be civilized enough to assimilate into white civilization and perhaps even contribute to it. Thus, you will witness the rise of triracialism among the elite; a triracialism in which the preponderant element will be Aryan, to be sure.

                  White male billionaire capitalists like Donald Trump and Peter Thiel will spring humanity to space and build an inter-galactic empire, and insofar as national socialist wignats (leftists) position themselves as being against scientific-technological innovation, it is the wignats, not the billionaires, who will have to be physically removed.

                • glosoli says:

                  https://blog.jim.com/war/paternity-war-and-conquest/#comment-1914129

                  All should note that when Jim ignores a direct critique of his peculiar brand of progressive ideas, his gaslighting, and his neo-Babelism it’s because he has no defence at all. It’s the leftist way, just move on, hope no one notices.

                  Im sure plenty do notice, they should grab a Bible, read the Books that cover the Law, read what Jesus had to say on the matter, and act accordingly. I’m amazed any Christians would be interested in supporting your futile attempt to build your new Babel.

                • jim says:

                  The bible commands us to fill the earth and subdue it. In context, this obviously means fill solar system and subdue it, then the galaxy and subdue it, then the local group, then the Virgo cluster.

                  You are more a Gaia worshiper than a Jehovah worshiper. You oppose science, technology, and capitalism because you feel that subduing the earth is impious.

                  Male gods conquer, and sponsor conquest. Which is why you don’t really like the Christian God, and don’t like the capitalism and science of The Restoration, which conquered both nature and the Indies.

                  You are Nazi nature worshiper practicing entryism, as CR is a cultural Marxist practicing entryism. I have no idea whether he is biologically Jewish, but he is completely immersed not only in Cathedral memes and incapable of seeing or thinking outside them, but also in Cultural Marxist memes, Cathedral memes of Jewish, rather than puritan, origin, and incapable of seeing or thinking outside them. Since Nazism is out of power, you are somewhat more aware of competing strands of thought than he is.

                  Aryans love nature, and they express their love of nature by erasing the native ecology wherever they go, and installing grassland or wheat fields lightly studded with trees, buildings and ponds. We love nature that is under our mastery. The “untouched nature” meme of Nazism is a hostile enemy meme, part of the left singularity of Lutheran origin.

                  It is our divinely ordained destiny to place all of nature under our supervision and mastery, to subdue the galaxy. We will not destroy nature, but we will destroy any part of nature that fails to bend to our will.

                • glosoli says:

                  I hit the bullseye, I can feel you squirming with anger and frustration from the other side of the world. Call me all the names you want.

                  Zero effort at facing the facts. Sad, many such cases.

                  The darkness hates the light, it burns you. You’ll burn a long time in hell Jim, this exchange should be a lesson to you to cease your lies. But I doubt you’ll learn that lesson, you’re too smart. I pray that you will come to know the Truth and love our God, Jehovah, and this planet He gave us. Amen.

                • jim says:

                  The facts are that when you reject our mastery of the universe, you admit your purported Christianity is nothing of the kind – that you are yet another entryist, albeit from an out of power branch of leftism, the post Lutheran branch, while CR is from the in power branch of leftism, the post Judeo Puritan branch.

                  You are telling us that your post christian religion is Christianity, much as CR is telling us that Marxism and Cultural Marxism is reaction.

                • glosoli says:

                  You write in such a clever way, obfuscation and stating fake views as if they are facts, yet you show your inherent weakness by ignoring the facts about yourself, facts you’ve admitted here on your own blog. You and Moldbug and Land are just another flavour of Enlightenment humanists. The newest version, but full of the same vain ideas and ambitions that date back to Babel. Jehovah will crush you.

                  Like all good leftists, you like to deflect and gaslight, hoping no one will notice your own position is incoherent. I’m sure some notice, the Truth shines through darkness, always.

                  One of us will leave this planet eventually and go to a better place. No prizes for guessing if it’ll be you or me.

                • jim says:

                  > Jehovah will crush you.

                  As CR’s reaction is strangely similar to Cultural Marxism, your Jehovah is strangely similar to Gaia.

                  The story of Babel is not about space travel, but about empire. You are yet another a post christian leftist, albeit of the post Lutheran, rather than post Judeo Puritan, flavor.

                  The moral of the story of Babel is not that we should refrain from cities, sky scrapers, and technology, but rather that we should refrain from trying to make everyone one people.

                • Koanic says:

                  Right. One of the main ways Jehovah manages the wickedness of fallen man is by international competition. The world in its current form will not end until the Anti-Christ has succeeded in dismantling this Chesterton’s fence.

                • glosoli says:

                  This should be posted as the header of your blog:

                  >A penny just dropped.

                  The reason you are happy to tolerate the financiers and capitalists pushing products that destroy White Christian society is because all you’re interested in is seeing your kids escape to space.

                  You don’t give a shit about humanity or about the planet we’ve been given. You vainly believe you can whizz off to another planet, given the set-up you desire for a nation to give you that opportunity.’

                  You’re a sad old man Jim. No self-control over your life, your eating, your libido, nor the lies you write here. No faith, nothing, a typical boomer, a weak conservative (pick your favourite period in modern history and aim for that, never going to happen). The rest of your days will be as filled with you acting a sad role, more vacuous emptiness with various whores, none of whom will see the real you, but with age you will only grow more bitter, more sad, more of a liar. And then, barring a miraculous conversion, you’ll be dead, and gone, forever, how sad, I truly pity men like you, and give thanks that the wonder of the Internet and technology gave me the chance to ask about Jehovah, and for His loving response. You font know that love, that peace, that security, so you think the coldness of space might ease your pain. Even if you got there, it won’t. There is only one way to joy and love and peace.

                  If you were an honourable man you’d retract the lies you wrote about me above. I doubt you will, but you’ll consider the truths I write about you in the still of the night.

                • Roberto says:

                  By the time Jim goes geriatric, he may have enough money to go for cryonics, so he stands a good chance to be resurrected. You, glosoli, will definitely go into ETERNAL VOID when die. Now fuck off.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Glosoli writes:

                  “Like all good leftists, you like to deflect and gaslight, hoping no one will notice your own position is incoherent. I’m sure some notice, the Truth shines through darkness, always.

                  One of us will leave this planet eventually and go to a better place. No prizes for guessing if it’ll be you or me.”

                  This.

                  I honestly was not expecting to encounter intellectual dishonesty on a right-wing blog, with the expectation that the further right you go, the less of that you’ll encounter. The left is well-known for it: dishonesty is their bread and butter, but the implication is that when you’re among the right, this behaviour will be limited to entryists and moderates.

                  Not so. These are some of the most legitimately right-wing guys out there.
                  Jim wants to restore full patriarchy, Cominator wants to privatise the air and Roberto yearns for a cull of the population so that more people can understand the more obscure Sheldon&Leonard jokes in “The Big Bang Theory”.

                  Yet each of them has used deliberate misrepresentation, out-of-context citation, obfuscation, semantic technicalities and ad hominem irrelevancy to *prevent* the progress of intellectual discussion.

                  It’s a jaw-dropping surprise but your conclusion is dead right: God is Truth and the follies of fallen Man are Falsehood.

                  Reality’s a lot simpler than the intellectuals (ourselves included) would have you think.

                  Follow Christ’s example and God’s commandments and the Holy Spirit will be within you. That way lies salvation and the forgiveness of the sins that inevitably come from being human.

                  It’s an imperfect form of Free Will, just as Daniel Dennett tells us it is.

                  We have to try, we have to strive, we have to conform to rules. We ‘commit ourselves’, we are ‘determined’ to do better.

                  The straight and narrow path.

                  Peace to you and thank you for bolstering my faith in these most hubristic of God-shunning times of darkness.

                • jim says:

                  You are unresponsive: You repetitiously and tediously assert Marxist theory as if self evident truth, and when challenged on these claims will not produce evidence or argument for them.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  glosoli, looks like your church just gained its second member. Be careful with the holy water, you’ll burn him.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Jim attempts to enrage me with another Straw Man:

                “The facts are that when you reject our mastery of the universe, you admit your purported Christianity is nothing of the kind – that you are yet another entryist, albeit from an out of power branch of leftism, the post Lutheran branch, while CR is from the in power branch of leftism, the post Judeo Puritan branch.

                You are telling us that your post christian religion is Christianity, much as CR is telling us that Marxism and Cultural Marxism is reaction.”

                In a way this is literally true.

                Marxism legitimately WAS a reaction (in both senses of the word) against laissez-faire.
                Marx wanted to overturn laissez-faire and so did Carlyle.

                (This is not a novel idea: Carlyle is regularly cited as inspiration by Marxists and Moldbug explored the relationship in detail.)

                Everyone here agrees that Marx’s solutions were awful, and that Marx’s philosophy was thoroughly incorrect and evil.

                Where we disagree is WHY. See ultimately people who endorse ‘natural rights’ and unlimited sovereignty when it comes to individual property rights are really egalitarians with respect to rights…. so their disagreement with Marx’s own egalitarian dogmas is ultimately extremely shallow.

                As Striker’s said many times, the commies and the capitalists want the same thing in the final analysis: a kind of universal ‘democracy’ of equal stakeholders obeying certain radical, law-driven rules with no formal systemic hierarchy.

                Libertarian-leaning reactionaries disagree with Marx over the KIND of egalitarianism, whereas alt right people disagree with Marx over the desirability of ANY form of egalitarianism whatsoever.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  (And before anyone points it out, of course neither communism nor capitalism are GENUINELY egalitarian in practice. Under capitalism we see a permanent élite of capital owners beyond a certain point – Bernie’s millionaires and billionaires basically. Under communism we see people with influence in the party in permanent, often hereditary, positions of privilege in society.
                  The difference between these two forms of aristocracy and GENUINE aristocracy in a reactionary traditional society is formalism: the Lord Of The Manor is formally your Lord. The secretary of the local council, or the billionaire hedge fund celebrity investor, are INFORMALLY your Lord.)

                • jim says:

                  > > You are telling us that your post christian religion is Christianity, much as CR is telling us that Marxism and Cultural Marxism is reaction.”

                  > In a way this is literally true.

                  > Marxism legitimately WAS a reaction (in both senses of the word) against laissez-faire.

                  > Marx wanted to overturn laissez-faire and so did Carlyle.

                  Carlyle’s objection to laissez-faire was that the masses were unable to manage and needed supervision, not that the capitalists were unable to manage and needed supervision. Carlyle wanted feudalism and slavery, you want socialism and Chavismo. You think the capitalists need supervision, and delusively claim that they can only function because they already have it. Hence Obama’s claim “You did not build that”

                  These are fundamentally opposite programs.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Precisely: the masses are not mentally capable of negotiating the world in the way that the Tom Woods of the world think they are.
                  We are not equal: the masses are stupid and need significant amounts of guidance from their betters.
                  Among those betters are of course innovators and entrepreneurs!
                  I still consider myself a free market guy, even though I want to pretty much end all forms of laissez-faire.

                  It’s not that capitalists need guidance: it’s that if you let them, capitalists will exploit the peasantry.

                  Not exploit as in ‘have a yacht while the peasants have none’, but exploit as in ‘those stupid mothers will buy ANYTHING R.O.F.L. what-what’

                  Times have moved on since ‘natural law’ and ‘universal property rights’ could be taken seriously.

                  This picture might be better than the million words we’ve wasted talking past each other:

                  https://bbs.thegoyimknow.to/uploads/default/original/4X/5/3/3/533ceaa52b9031474418480b85944384c0ae027c.jpeg

                • jim says:

                  > It’s not that capitalists need guidance: it’s that if you let them, capitalists will exploit the peasantry.

                  So you are going to make the capitalists into teaching assistants controlled by the Department of Education. And what will stop the Department of Education from exploiting the peasantry?

                  But, in any case you already revealed that you hate the peasants and intend to kill their cattle and burn their crops, for your Cultural Marxist economics redefined saving and investment as waste and destruction.

                  The peasantry are capitalists, which is why the Trots set them on fire. It is the agricultural laborers, not not the peasants, that Carlyle proposes to re-enserf and that you propose to protect by making capitalists into teaching assistants, thereby setting their status to lower than your status.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “So you are going to make the capitalists into teaching assistants controlled by the Department of Education. And what will stop the Department of Education from exploiting the peasantry?”

                  What Department Of Education?

                  Peasants need to be put to work for life. Carlyle had it right. The deal is this: the peasants get enough resources for their labour to raise a family in their own family home and they never get fired. (Though they may get flogged.)
                  In return, the employers are totally exempt from agitation and the need for compromise: what they say GOES and the flipside of peasants not being fired is that they have to do as they’re told. Conditions should be as good as necessary, but no better.

                  “But, in any case you already revealed that you hate the peasants and intend to kill their cattle and burn their crops, for your Cultural Marxist economics redefined saving and investment as waste and destruction.”

                  Liar. I’ve stated saving is the goal more times than I care to count, as well you’re aware.

                  “The peasantry are capitalists, which is why the Trots set them on fire.”

                  Libertarian. No they’re not. They yearn to have order and to be led. If they can’t take instructions from someone who knows better than them in their daily lives, they look to celebrities and politicians.

                  “It is the agricultural laborers, not not the peasants, that Carlyle proposes to re-enserf and that you propose to protect by making capitalists into teaching assistants.”

                  Your words not mine.

                  Anyone who genuinely IS an entrepreneur is of course at liberty to excuse himself and set up on his own. There’s nothing wrong with the small businessman, and if someone wants to have a go at that, they should go ahead and do it.
                  Our tax system would generously favour that.

                  ‘Social Credit’ in the 1930s sense not the Chinese sense is a very good way for enterprise to be stimulated without interfering in the health of the social structure.

                  You’re afraid to address the anti-capitalist right’s real position so you just lie.

                • jim says:

                  > > “The peasantry are capitalists, which is why the Trots set them on fire.”

                  > Libertarian. No they’re not.

                  I have spent a lot of time hanging out with peasants, and while hanging out, I have personally looked after a pig, which they subsequently killed and I ate. Definitely capitalists, that pig being literal capital, which is why the Trots set them on fire.

                  Agricultural laborers are a rather different kind of creature to peasants.

                  Capital means “head” as in head of cattle. So that pig was capital, therefore, that family are capitalists.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Well you and this community are really just part of the problem.
                  Your loyalty to nation and people is sporadic and insecure whereas your loyalty to Ron Paul egalitarianism is iron-clad.

                  This is really a fringe outpost of libertarianism with some MRA and Trumpism thrown in.

                  That’s a broadly good thing, but like so many almost-allies, your lack of ethnic solidarity and your dedication to egalitarian doctrine make you untrustworthy.

                  The lies and deliberate misrepresentations are just further supporting evidence for that view.

                  I wish you well. You do some very important work.

                  At crunch time though, you can be relied upon to side with corporate oligarchs, leave peasants high and dry, and step over piles of white bodies in the street.

                  Definitely not allies.

                • jim says:

                  > At crunch time though, you can be relied upon to side with corporate oligarchs

                  I personally saw corporate oligarchs wetting their pants in fear before the terrifying power of Human Resources, and have heard anecdotes of them wetting their pants in fear before accountants empowered by Sarbanes Oxley, which is, like Human Resources, armed with laws making every one of those corporate oligarchs criminals who commit multiple felonies every day.

                  So, yes, I am definitely going to side with those corporate oligarchs.

                  As I keep repeating, check out every video on political correctness in the workplace, whether humorous or serious, for it or against it. They don’t say that if you are politically incorrect, your boss will nail you. They say that if you are politically incorrect, Human Resources will nail you. A capitalist can pay you or refrain from paying you, but HR or accounting can put him in jail.

                • Koanic says:

                  I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on which should be BBQ’d: the pig or the people!

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Yeah. The trouble is it’s rather serious.

                  Normies think capitalists are a bit greedy but the government will sort it out on their behalf. They also laugh when they hear what academics are saying, and groan at the nonsense coming out of the press.

                  Libertarians understand that government’s a huge part of the problem, and jump to the understandable but wrong conclusion that this is a problem with government per se rather than government under observed conditions. They see capitalists as victims, or at the very least potential allies. Any bad things coming out of ‘the free market’ are presumed to be due to government coercion and meddling. They’re also aware that something bad’s being done to white people, but they insist that in a fully privatised world this problem would just go away peacefully. Ultimately a bit of mixing and migration is nothing to worry about.

                  Reactionaries note that the reason government is as it is is that academics and the media are spreading evil religious memes in the population through lifelong indoctrination, though they assume capitalists are weirdly immune to this effect. They’re also aware that something bad is happening to white people and because they’re often race realists, they may worry about the effect of lower average IQ on productivity.

                  The alt right sees the war on white people as a largely deliberate conspiracy between capitalists, academia, the media and government, partly because of a hostile take-over by groups with higher in-group preference and partly because capitalists prefer a dumb, submissive, impulsive population willing to buy their garbage.

                  Given the stakes here, there’s no harm in assuming the more pressing scenario: a new “Pascal’s Wager” if you will.

                  The tragedy is that libertarians will just call you a statist racist and reactionaries will call you a Marxist. Neither group will actually help white people because both prefer the capitalists to their own people, but see the capitalists don’t return that affection.

                  Sad, but after weeks of trying, it’s quite obvious there’s nothing I can do. As soon as reactionaries, including Jim surprisingly, see that their holiest beliefs are being challenged for a mere trifle like the existence of our people, they get defensive and begin deliberately lying to score points and assassinate your character.

                  Very sad.

                  Like I said, not allies.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  In many ways the NRx framework’s good enough for most purposes.

                  The trouble is, it doesn’t adequately explain – or in many cases even care about – the problems afflicting our people, such as (but not limited to):

                  – pornography
                  – pro-race mixing propaganda in advertising and television
                  – the LGBTQA+ agenda being weirdly racially targeted
                  – the opioid epidemic being weirdly racially targeted
                  – the fact that billionaire venture capitalists are funding the most egregious left-wing outfits
                  – anti-white propaganda fast becoming anti-white laws
                  – the rather specific nature of US foreign policy
                  – the toxic effects of usury on working-class people
                  – the factors involved in lower white reproductive rates
                  – the nature of the relationship between individual politicians and the capitalists who fund them

                  None of this is adequately explained by The Cathedral theory, but IS adequately explained by a broad-based assault on our people by this with power, which means politicians, propagandists AND CAPITALISTS.

                  The idea (held to be true by NRx as well as libertarians) that capitalists have no power in society is a very, very convenient one for the capitalists, which itself points to a propagandistic and complicit relationship between them and the propagandists.

                  This is far too subtle for ex-libertarians who don’t want to give up their American Revolutionary natural rights.

                  Anyway enough. This addiction must cease.

                • jim says:

                  > None of this is adequately explained by The Cathedral theory, but IS adequately explained by a broad-based assault on our people by this with power, which means politicians, propagandists AND CAPITALISTS.

                  Capitalists don’t have power. If they had power, we would not have laws that make all of them criminals.

                  We are always ruled by priests or warriors. “The capitalist class” is no more capable of governing than is “the proletariat”.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Another repeat of Marxism 101 deleted – we are supposedly ruled by the capitalist class, so change requires overthrow of capitalism*]

                • jim says:

                  We heard you the first dozen times.

                  We are not ruled by capitalists. We are always ruled by priests or warriors. “The capitalist class” is not a kind of entity that is capable of ruling.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Not an ally, because these capitalists are among the worst enemies we have, enthusiastically replacing us for better consumers.

                  Yep, those capitalists want in on that sweet, sweet action that the capitalist class has going on in Somalia – with their better consumers!

                  Jim – can you please just delete this tedious Marxist’s repetition? Guy is on a script and simply repeats his assertions no matter how often they’re refuted because he’s hoping to drown out signal with noise.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Steve Johnson I assume you were once a real libertarian rather than a racist one.

                  Did you ever hear Tom Woods’ interview with Michael Matheson Miller about Africa and the “Poverty Cure”?

                  Apparently Nigeria could easily become the next Taiwan if only they had adequate connections to global for profit micro-finance. (Phones and internet aren’t sufficient of course.)

                  Go back and listen to it.

                  How THAT sounds to you, YOU sound to me.

                  I’m sure our totally not triggered host has left a few comments standing. Go find the praxeological case as to why INDIVIDUAL corporations would much rather you spent your money than saved it.

                  Then join the dots you dumb twat

                • jim says:

                  I am entirely sure that Bill Gates has said much similar, and does not believe a word of it.

                  Bill Gates is seeking to be granted status from those whose status and power is greater than his.

                • Roberto says:

                  It can now be safely assumed that CR’s whole sperg out against this blog is simply him arguing with his own former libertarian self in his own mind. Hence, when we say, “Capitalism will take us to the stars,” what he hears is “inalienable human right to pursue happiness,” which is what *he* believed when *he* was a libertarian.

                  Autism 101: his entire “posting career” is an inner conversation he’s having with himself, not with other people. That’s why he comes across as NPC. (Which is ironic, because NPCs are said to *lack* an inner voice, so I guess it’s hard to tell if someone is NPC or just a sperg)

                • jim says:

                  CR was never a libertarian. He lies, it is part of his hail-fellow-white-male schtick. We were all libertarians, so he tells us he was a libertarian, without, however troubling himself to learn what libertarianism is. He is as unfamiliar with libertarian memes as he is with reactionary memes. If he had ever been a libertarian, would have been exposed to libertarian economics, which obviously he never was.

              • glosoli says:

                Humanist desires to cheat death are futile, like the idea of new planets. There’s only one way to eternal life.

                I’m sorry you are filled with hatred Roberto, I know why though, the darkness hates the light. I pray you’ll find love and faith one day, the Truth will set you free. Amen.

                • Roberto says:

                  >Humanist desires to cheat death are futile, like the idea of new planets

                  For you and for your non-existent descendants, both those things are definitely futile indeed. You are staying down on Earth, and will die down on Earth, having left nothing of value behind. It’s like you never even existed.

                  Also, lol-just-lol at being called a “humanist.” I’m probably the least humanist commenter here. Maybe you just don’t know what that word actually means. As a One Man Egregore Factory, I… never mind, you won’t get it anyway.

                • glosoli says:

                  You certainly don’t get Christian faith if you think a barb about my earthly legacy is effective.

                  Treasure in heaven, I’m not of this earth, just temporarily in it.

                  You should give the Bible a listen:

                  http://earnestlycontendingforthefaith.com/ListenToTheKingJamesBible.html

                  Just pray to know Jehovah and the Truth, see what happens. But you have to mean it. I did, as you know.

                • jim says:

                  You interpret the story of Babel as against skyscrapers, spacetravel, and conquering the stars. That is not Jehovah worship, that is Gaia worship.

                • Roberto says:

                  >You certainly don’t get Christian faith if you think a barb about my earthly legacy is effective.

                  It’s funny: I disagreed with Alf’s contention that Christianity is “as dead as the parrot in the Monty Python sketch,” but if you are any indicator, perhaps he had a point.

                  (Nah; you’re just a random kook)

      • alf says:

        Makes sense that you’d agree. You both want the same thing: rule by priests. You want kings and capitalists in second place to priests, we (or, I) want priests in second place to kings and warriors. My point is not that Trump should listen to me, my point is that I’ll listen to Trump.

        • glosoli says:

          Makes sense you’d comment, and lie whilst doing so.
          Gamma.

          • Roberto says:

            Makes sense that you’d come here to peddle atavism; did the demon return to rape your ass, perchance?

          • alf says:

            Seems the word gamma has officially jumped the shark ^_^;;

            • glosoli says:

              Aw, a cute emoji, what a clever girl you are.

              • Roberto says:

                What a faggot you are.

                • glosoli says:

                  And yet it’s you who’s tetchy about my comments to others like a little puppy yelping for his master.

                  You are my litmus test Bob, if you respond, my point is well made. Jim ignores points he dislikes, you bite hard, well, as hard as a little puppy is able.

                  Try to accept that others sometimes will be correct, especially when they’re simply adhering to the Bible. I accept that progs like Jim and Moldbug will be wrong, it’s their nature, it’s why their ancestors killed Christ. They are unlikely to learn humility and obedience to Jehovah. Who knows, I pray Jim does, and you too.

                • jim says:

                  Your God is not Jehovah.

                • Roberto says:

                  Suck on my nuts, cunt.

                • glosoli says:

                  Come on then Jim, I challenge you to prove I’m anything but a biblically-based theonomic Christian, obedient to Jehovah. Use any of my comments you like. You’ll find nothing, you’re just gaslighting me, because He’s not your God.

                  Calm down Bob, you’re turning back into a high schoolers with that language. Sad, many such cases.

                • jim says:

                  > I challenge you to prove I’m anything but a biblically-based theonomic Christian

                  What Church follows and preaches your idiosyncratic and unusual interpretation of the Bible?

                  What Christian community ever did?

                • glosoli says:

                  And to clarify Jim, I’m not interested in your weird interpretation and views on the bible. To prove your statement, you’ll need to quote scripture, and not twist it into (for example) a command to become Buck Rogers. Stick to plain vanilla scriptural reading, not your own fantasies.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m not interested in your weird interpretation and views on the bible

                  The only person who follows your interpretation of the bible is you. You are telling us that a true Christian would accept your post Christian beliefs, but when a progressive tells us that a true Christian would follow his post Christian beliefs, it is somewhat impressive because his post Christianity is in power, and therefore is in fact widely followed, while your post Christianity is out of power, and you are a voice in the wilderness.

                • peppermint says:

                  Sola scriptura is heresy.

                • glosoli says:

                  The challenge has been given Jim.
                  I don’t care about other churches who choose to ignore the Bible. Stop the strawman crap.

                  Put up or apologise.
                  Regards.

                • jim says:

                  You implicitly admit that your Church has but one member. Point me to ten thousand members, and I will issue a rebuttal.

                • glosoli says:

                  [Irrelevant insults and unsupported lies deleted]

                • jim says:

                  Waste of bandwidth. Don’t tell us that you are right, provide evidence that you are right.

                  On matters of faith, provide evidence that your faith is shared by at least some existent Christians that reasonable people might consider to be Christians, or by the communion of saints, by past substantial Christian communities.

                  On matters of fact, provide claims that can be checked, not mere improbable assertions.

                • glosoli says:

                  >it is somewhat impressive because his post Christianity is in power, and therefore is in fact widely followed, while your post Christianity is out of power, and you are a voice in the wilderness.

                  Can you think of anyone else in history who preached true faith, adherence to the law, in your heart, not on paper, not with bells and whistles attached to grab cash and power? He was a voice in the wilderness too, they hated Him, and crucified Him. He’s a great inspiration to many Christians who actually grasp His message. And those who do are universally mocked, shunned and attacked by progs, by Catholics, by Puritans, by atheists, by pretty much the whole world. And we welcome it, as we follow the Word and speak the Truth, not some man-made fakery installed by the father of lies.

                • alf says:

                  > when you realize glosoli is the Second Coming.

                • glosoli says:

                  [*lies deleted without comment*]

                • jim says:

                  If you are Christian, tell us your Church.

                  Who, when, where?

                  Is there perhaps some group, some past Church, that you admire from afar? Some past Christian community and hierarchy that you hope to resurrect?

                • glosoli says:

                  >Waste of bandwidth. Don’t tell us that you are right, provide evidence that you are right.

                  You started this. You have falsely accused me of not worshipping Jehovah, of worshipping Gaia, and of being a Nazi, without a shred of evidence.

                  [*repetitious lies deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  > > Waste of bandwidth. Don’t tell us that you are right, provide evidence that you are right.

                  > You started this. You have falsely accused me of not worshipping Jehovah, of worshipping Gaia, and of being a Nazi, without a shred of evidence.

                  Your beliefs are evidence. The beliefs you are preaching are not Christian. You are not a Nazi, but you are part of the holiness spiral that gave rise to the Nazis.

                  And I will not allow you to repetitiously assert that your beliefs are Christian. If you want to argue that you are Christian, that your beliefs are Christian, do so. Where is your Church? If you are alienated from all existing Churches, what recent past branch of Christianity do you identify with, which espoused and practiced beliefs and a way of life that you endorse? If no existing Church, what Church would you like to see revived in something close to its recently existent form?

                  Repetitious assertion is a waste of reader bandwidth. I allow commentators to get away with it a few times, but eventually you have to provide evidence and argument. Do so.

                • glosoli says:

                  [*repetitious lies deleted*]

                • glosoli says:

                  So be it.

                • jim says:

                  You are welcome to make an argument that you are Christian. You have not made it. Continued assertions that you are Christian will continue to be censored.

                  A claim to be Christian is a claim of kinship by adoption with other Christians, thus an argument that one is Christian is necessarily, in the tribalist language of the Dark Enlightenment, an argument that ingroups a long existent Christian community, or ingroups the communion of saints.

                  I urge you to make such an argument, and I urge you to make such an argument within the frame of the Dark Enlightenment, using the shibboleths of the reaction, the alt right, or the Dark Enlightenment.

                  All are welcome here, provided that they do not waste the bandwidth of other readers of this blog, or otherwise impede our ability to communicate with each other.

                • glosoli says:

                  Too late Jim, you’re just repeating yourself now.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Zuckerberg and Dorsey aren’t at alllllll like our host.

                  No echo chambers here folks.

                • glosoli says:

                  https://blog.jim.com/politics/who-speaks-for-reaction/#comment-297311

                  He’d do well to consider his own words from 5 years ago.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Thanks glosoli, only just saw this.

        Tesco is a very strange beast isn’t it.

        I applied for one of their bank accounts two years ago, with the intention of just parking £3000 there for the 3% interest (the depths we’re brought to!).
        They essentially pretended (a bit like these guys) not to understand. They pretended they didn’t believe I was who I said I was, then they pretended that my ‘upstanding referees’ had jobs that didn’t count as upstanding. Then they pretended there were administrative difficulties with the application, etc. etc. etc.

        Upshot is I told them to do one in the end.

        At the same time, in every store there are leaflets that would make the Soviets blush: the text in the leaflet is in six different Eastern European languages, telling in-sourced labourers how to send some of their wages out of the country and back home.
        The picture on the front is of two Africans lol

        I predict Tesco is angling for a bail-out with the whole “Jack’s” thing. They’re putting these ‘discount’ outlets in failed mainstream sites (that resulted from an incorrect judgement of future sales about 2 or 3 years ago – standard Misesian malinvestment based on the artificially attractive cost of borrowing to fund future provision) and, most damningly of all, the flagship store in the back of beyond is sharing its site with Poundstretcher (also headed towards bankruptcy).

        The “Jack’s” range is no cheaper than (and in some cases more expensive than) the old “Everyday Value” range available in mainstream Tesco (Tessa Cohen) stores, so it’s not a ‘discounter’ in any meaningful sense. It’s certainly not cheaper than either Aldi or Lidl.

        They’re desperate to raise their prices but they don’t have the guts.

        One of their worst transgressions is fooling around with weights and measures. (You couldn’t make it up: the same biblical problems thousands of years on.)

        Basically to shop with the Cohens, you have to ignore the price ticket and look only at price per 100g.

        It’s a surreal experience. They’re a paradigm case of a company that cares little for profit, benefits from benefits, offloads much of its wage bill to Mr Brown’s tax credits, makes excuses for Mr Cameron’s bag tax, and hates its own customers.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          (They own “One Stop”, which has replaced many of the old family corner shops. I bet if you did some digging, Tesco Bank probably lends, directly or not, to other parts of the organisation through fractional reserve privileges.
          I think their pitch is to blame Brexit and ask for a bail-out on the grounds that their disappearance would impact large shops, medium shops, small shops, corner shops, and now discounters. They’re a company with a plan for failure and collusion. A paradigm case of a partner in globohomo.)

          (PS. Stay away from the nappies section if you care about your blood pressure.)

  11. The Cominator says:

    Lets not quarrel today, its the most glorious day since the God Emperor’s election.

    The Democrats will lose the midterms, the more traditional left (what is left of them) will blame the Cathedral fanatics SJWs and feminists for the defeat. No state church last forever and the Cathedral probably just suffered a mortal wound.

  12. peppermint says:

    The scrolling is too much so I’m moving the thread.

    > 1. Most large corporations haven’t cared about profit for some considerable time

    …because banks get free money from the government

    > 2. ALL large corporations hate us – the idea they secretly agree but are doing what they’re told is entirely wrong and just wishful thinking

    Corporations, to the extent they have ideologies, have the official ideology. The people running them probably are scum or pretend to be scum.

    > 3. ALL of the most poisonous left-wing organisations are bankrolled voluntarily by the richest of the rich

    As voluntarily as they let trannies read to their children.

    > 4. Capitalism (as in the profits made by those who hold capital, since Jim now thinks the capitalist class doesn’t exist) benefits when sales go up

    Meaningless. Profits aren’t people and can’t benefit or plan; gaywads like Tim Cook can.

    > 5. In the world of insane levels of debt, investment is only very obscurely linked to saving – in fact it pretty much isn’t related at all

    Yes. Govt gives free money and subverts the incentives of capitalism, beyond merely telling companies they need to hire Fiorina and the woman who ruined Yahoo.

    > 6. Look at the culture: some of it’s come out of academia and legislators, for sure, but some of it clearly has not. I don’t recall reading any Gramscian papers on the merits of hamburgers and very fancy bullshit coffee

    The anti-grilling nonsense and anti-burger nonsense comes from academics; expensive burnt coffee which ironically should be just as bad as grilled meat is indeed created by capitalists to service a market need for positional goods and spaces where positional goods are consumed. Starbucks is in fact run by a jew, and recently was memed into turning its stores into free public restrooms, at best on the theory that most of the customers would still feel socially obligated to buy something.

    > 7. The left-wing press now hates the left. I showed you the response to yesterday’s Union protests all across France. The BBC and the Guardian STILL haven’t even mentioned it. The only coverage has been by the Daily Mail, the Express, Fox News and RT, and that’s been largely hostile. Today the Guardian ran with an article by a Labour Member of Parliament outlining why nationalising water in England&Wales would lead to dirty water.

    This is an insult, not an insight. Kurt Vonnegut described the New Left in Harrison Bergeron but couldn’t give up his attachment to the Old Left, though he reluctantly ended up reestablishing capitalism from New Leftopia in Player Piano.

    • peppermint says:

      PS the most right-wing late 20c scifi authors are Kurt Vonnegut (old left) and Heinlein (neocon/civnat), maybe also Tolkien (primitivist, really from the early 20c). Several authors from Dungeons and Dragons Appendix N are memory holed and Lovecraft is regarded with horror. The pedophiles Lewis Carroll and Albus Dumbledore are held up as the heights of 20c literature. The most right-wing scifi movies are Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back.

      Why?

      • The Cominator says:

        Um Jerry Pournelle… His Iron Law of Bureaucracy isn’t mentioned enough among NRxers.

        • peppermint says:

          Everyone knows about Ringworld / Known Space and Wheel of Time, some know about Incarnations of Immortality.

          Everyone knows about the Robot Novels and Foundation, which are acutally pretty legit, which Asimov got away with by being a jew and dying of arterially injected death sentence in the late 90s.

          No one has heard of Jerry Pournelle.

          • peppermint says:

            Oh yeah, anyone remember Cory Doctorow’s Eastern Standard Tribe and the non-PC comments on Muslim crime in England being covered up? Or Douglas Adams mocking bureaucrats…

          • The Cominator says:

            The Mote in God’s Eye and Gripping Hand (which were done with Known Space’s Niven) are I think as well known as “Known Space”.

            Pournelle SHOULD HAVE done a lot more work in the Empire of Man universe at the higher tech levels, Pournelle’s problem is that alone (ie when Niven wasn’t there) he liked to do sort of low tech science fiction (it might be set in a higher tech universe but it would generally be set on some primitive outpost planet.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      CR

      6. Look at the culture: some of it’s come out of academia and legislators, for sure, but some of it clearly has not. I don’t recall reading any Gramscian papers on the merits of hamburgers and very fancy bullshit coffee

      versus Moldbug on Starbucks:

      Starbucks, similarly, is aspirational. If you’re anyone who’s anyone and you live in San Francisco or Berkeley, you will not set foot inside a Starbucks. (I once had this horrible fat hippie woman tell me this at a party. She was boasting that never once, in her entire life, had she patronized Starbucks. I couldn’t help but be impressed.) No, if you are a proper Bay Area Brahmin, you go to Peet’s, which costs about 10% more and really does have better coffee. Or, better yet, you go to an actual independent local cafe, which certainly sells “fair-trade” coffee and probably has some kind of Communist revolutionary theme. (My first date with Mrs. Moldbug was at the now-deceased Cafe Macondo, which was basically a shrine to Patrice Lumumba.)

      The point of Starbucks is that it allows an enormous slice of America, a slice certainly far bigger than the 20% or so who can actually claim to be Brahmins, to feel like they are part of the ruling class for 15 minutes or so. Perhaps it is different in Omaha, but what you see when you go into a Starbucks in SF is Vaisyas, Vaisyas, Vaisyas. Good ordinary people, who get to pay $3 for a pretty good coffee, and feel like they went to Harvard and work for a nonprofit.

      Yay! We can now get treated to another long repetitive post by CR about how Moldbug isn’t actually reactionary.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*repetitious lies deleted*]

        • peppermint says:

          McDz: 10$
          *bux: 5$
          5 nips of Smirnoff every day: 5$
          rent: 1k$ to have a room with your bros, 1.5k$ alone

          multiply 20$ by 30 days to get 600$ which maybe gets you a good fraction of a moldy room in a particularly dangerous to young Whites area.

          Meanwhile African-Americans get nice places for 300$ plus Section Ape.

          Saving money is a waste because everyone knows money will be worthless soon and investing is hard and frustrating in terms of taxes and laws to get into otherwise people would have stocks instead of savings accounts.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Peppermint’s analysis is at odds with Jim’s insistence that capitalists are all Randian entrepreneurs seeking to maximise profit, and wherever you see one funding soup kitchens for the Hindoos, they do so under duress.

      Peppermint’s analysis is the more sane analysis and yes of course government *has effects in the world* ROFL

      The influential parts of The Cathedral / Globohomo:

      1. Academia
      2. Media and schools
      3. Government subsidies, regulations and other incentives
      4. Money, regardless of the source, that funds ’causes’
      5. Sorry guys: Israel
      6. Human frailty – the mob is stooopid

      Not necessarily in that order.

      • Roberto says:

        Jim BTFO Chomsky a long, long time ago.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Basically what the Jimians are saying to me is [*repetitious lies deleted*]

          • Roberto says:

            >Basically what the Jimians are saying to me is “you can’t be a reactionary: you’re too paternalistic!”

            We have different values. You are morally outraged by the notion that dumb and impulsive people should suffer for their dumb and impulsive behavior. I don’t find that morally outrageous at all, and in fact, believe that dumb and impulsive people don’t have it nearly hard enough in 2018, whereas it’s the high competence people — in other words: value producing white males — who get screwed over by a Feminist and (((race denialist))) system whose memetic center is Harvard and whose tentacles are the Anglo governments and the disproportionately Jewish media.

            Capitalism is probably the only channel there is to escape Judeo-Puritanism and thus defeat it, according to the principle of E>V: “Exit over Voice.” NRx wants a King not so he can shut down capitalism but for the exact opposite reason: so he — unlike democracy aka communism — will allow capitalism to uplift civilization and liberate it from the Cathedral; nothing undermines the Cathedral more profoundly than free association, private property, and freehold.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*repetitious lies deleted*]

              • Roberto says:

                Without capitalism in general and techno-capitalism in particular, there wouldn’t be NRx and there wouldn’t be alt-right. Check-mate, statist. (xDDD)

              • peppermint says:

                Bill Gates is a Boomer and sought status in a typical Boomer way.

                All tech companies need to have a foreigner or a faggot as CEO.

                Elon Musk was too edgy and got forced out.

                What we wanted 20 years ago was to give Bill Gates status for being a tech CEO and no status for his post-CEO career.

                What we want now is, in addition, to make senior management competent Americans again.

              • jim says:

                > any profits made are divided up between the shareholders (most of whom are not our guys) and various ‘good causes’ – in Sprott’s case aboriginal Canadians, ‘the homeless’ and food banks

                The shareholders are our guys, and if anyone else gets some, it is definitely under duress.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “The shareholders are our guys”

                  In what universe?

                  ‘Shareholder activism’ is very, very big and the fact you’ve missed it doesn’t change that.

                  But since I can’t prove that every single shareholder is glad Sprott’s giving millions of dollars to the abos and bums, let’s reduce it further:

                  Regardless of their personal opinions, by being shareholders they’re approving the transfer of part of the profits of the entity they own to the targets it chooses to transfer them to.

                  They voted with their dollars by continuing to hold.

                  The fact you don’t expect Google and Facebook shareholders are glad of right-wing censorship is just mindblowing to me.
                  If that was me, I’d sell sell sell if a firm did something like that. Google and Facebook (with the possible exception of this week, which has more to do with interest rates than anything else, arguably) are beating all expectations in terms of share price.

                  Shareholders are voting with their dollars and that vote is a vote in favour.

                  Who are the biggest corporations right now, and the ones doing best in the free market? Google, Facebook, Amazon, Twitter etc.

                  By a very wide margin.

                  Shareholders LOVE the companies we hate.

                • jim says:

                  > > “The shareholders are our guys”

                  > In what universe?

                  I am a shareholder. I get drunk with other shareholders. Sometimes, admittedly rarely, I get drunk with shareholders who own a hell of a lot more shares than I do. They hate progs and cultural Marxists, but conceal their hatred because they fear you. Their hatred, however, leaks out after a few drinks. Their enemies are our enemies. You are their enemy, and ours.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Marxism 101 deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Everyone here is already familiar with Cultural Marxism 101, and telling us all over again is not going to convince us.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “I am a shareholder. I get drunk with other shareholders. None of them own Facebook or Amazon.”

                • jim says:

                  I own some Amazon. Not a lot. Not aware of having gotten anyone who owned a substantial chunk of Amazon drunk, but worked with some people who worked at Amazon. From this third and fourth hand information, I have reason to suspect Jeff Bezos of having the correct enemies, even though he is paying them Danegeld and putting them on the Washington Post.

                  He buys newspapers because he needs to buy political influence. He puts lefties on his newspaper because lefties have political influence. It is a shakedown engine. The more threats they can gin up against Amazon, the more money he has to pay them, hence their propensity to bite the hand that feeds them.

                • alf says:

                  OK, devil’s advocate. Take heartiste’s last post: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2018/10/10/break-up-amazon-and-fund-the-wall-three-times-over/

                  Seems to me Bezos really does represent the evil capitalist overlord CR points to. Richest man in the world, and owner of major cathedral outlet. He does not seem to do it under duress; my impression is that he enjoys his life and what he does.

                  What is our solution for Bezos? I guess we are in favor of Amazon, not in favor of Wash Po. But, Bezos will not take likely, and money does talk, not in the way CR says, but does talk.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, Bezos enjoys his life. But he is funding people who hate him, which is pretty bad for one’s testosterone levels, and is no fun at all. Maybe he is funding them because he loves them, but the love is not reciprocated.

                • jim says:

                  The day that it becomes possible that we might confiscate Amazon to build the wall, I guarantee that Jeff Bezos will declare he is a shitlord, and always was one.

                • jim says:

                  If you google Jeff Bezos, you will find a lot more progs and Marxists complain he is paying off their fellow progs and Marxists, than you will find right wingers complaining he is paying their fellow Marxists.

                  Typical article says “Jeff Bezos is paying progressive so and so to say X, where X is likely to have the result that economy is insufficiently destroyed, white males are insufficiently exterminated, and Jeff Bezos not ruined the way he so thoroughly deserves to be”.

                  Maybe they are right – that the Jeff Bezos is holding back the brown race-war-now, Chavismo socialism, tide. That is what they say. It is plausible. Of course Danegeld never works for society as a whole, but it likely works for Jeff Bezos individually.

                  Come the restoration we will, of course, prohibit and penalize individual payment of Danegeld.

                • jim says:

                  It is possible that Jeff Bezos gives our enemies money because he loves them. I am pretty sure that Soros loves them.

                  But:

                  If you google Soros, you get no end of posts by right wingers complaining that he funding our enemies.

                  If you google Bezos, you get no end of posts by left wingers complaining that he is bribing other left wingers to endorse insufficiently destructive and murderous programs. Which is what we would expect if George Soros is funded by the State Department to promote color revolution against Duterte and Orbán and the extermination of the Ashkenmazi Jews of Israel, while Bezos is paying Danegeld.

                • alf says:

                  > I have reason to suspect Jeff Bezos of having the correct enemies, even though he is paying them Danegeld and putting them on the Washington Post.

                  spicy take

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You either don’t get it, or you’re an ideological libertarian.

                  “I own some Amazon. Not a lot. Not aware of having gotten anyone who owned a substantial chunk of Amazon drunk, but worked with some people who worked at Amazon. From this third and fourth hand information, I have reason to suspect Jeff Bezos of having the correct enemies, even though he is paying them Danegeld and putting them on the Washington Post.”

                  You’re literally part of the problem. You’re literally funding Amazon.

                  The government is not coercing you to do this, you’re doing it on purpose.

                  Roosh V’s blood is on YOUR hands.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “It is possible that Jeff Bezos gives our enemies money because he loves them. I am pretty sure that Soros loves them.”

                  Motives don’t matter.

                  I don’t give a damn if abolitionists thought blacks would be better off if slavery went away and schools were integrated.

                  I don’t give a damn if pornographers thought Christian morality was stifling human creativity and giving everyone neuroses.

                  I don’t give a damn if the bureaucrats in Rotherham turned a blind eye because they thought it’d be character building for the victims.

                  Actions speak louder than words and a LOT louder than motivations.

                  Your capital, sat in Bezos’ bank account, is what got Roosh shoah’d

                • jim says:

                  > > “It is possible that Jeff Bezos gives our enemies money because he loves them. I am pretty sure that Soros loves them.”

                  > Motives don’t matter.

                  Of course motives matter. If their motives are what I say they are, then come the restoration, HR will rip down their old posters, and put up their new posters, without much reading either set of posters.

                  I say culture is downstream of power. You say power is downstream of culture.

                  I say our culture is pozzed by the priesthood. You say our culture is pozzed because our evil capitalist overlords want the wonderfully profitable capitalism that they enjoy in subsaharan Africa.

                  If you are right, then in order to accomplish reactionary ideals we have to destroy capitalism, destroy technological civilization, reduce everyone to desperate property, and bring back the dark ages.

                  If I am right, reactionary ideals will make us rich and virtuous, advance science and technology, and enable us to conquer our neighbors, the earth, nature, and the stars.

                • alf says:

                  I wanted to say Bezos has adopted an Asian daughter which seems evidence towards him liking progressive ideals. But, Asian, not African. So business minded after all.

                • jim says:

                  At his economic level adoption is status whoring. This does not necessarily indicate that he has internalized prog ideals. It likely indicates he has internalized that progs are high status, while mere capitalists, such as Trump and himself, are disgracefully low status. It likely indicates he has internalized the prog status hierarchy.

                • peppermint says:

                  CR, you’re not going to be able to claim to be holier than everyone who participated in the economy when this is over.

                  I thought that the servant who buried the talent did the right thing when I was little because I thought investing in anything other than precious metals was reckless.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “I say culture is downstream of power. You say power is downstream of culture.”

                  This ‘downstream’ crap is no better than positive vs negative rights. “I have a positive right to healthcare” is equivalent to “I have a negative right to not be left to die of my wounds if injured”.
                  “The content of the media is downstream of the power to create media content” is equivalent to “The people who control the media content creation mechanisms create media content”.

                  It’s not useful.

                  Praxeologically, people who bought Microsoft Office because they thought it’d reduce costs and increase efficiency ended up saving African lives, which was a necessary condition of the migrant crisis.

                  In the end they saved no money because now you have to pay off the malware guys, the installation guys, the software rental guys and the social media guys. On top of that, the amount of paperwork inside the office hasn’t gone down and the amount of paperwork created outside the office has mushroomed out of control

                  I received a 5000 word document from Barclays today in a manilla envelope (pretending to be important) which, had they taken two seconds to look into my history, they would have known was a total waste of their time and resources.

                  “I say our culture is pozzed by the priesthood. You say our culture is pozzed because our evil capitalist overlords want the wonderfully profitable capitalism that they enjoy in subsaharan Africa.”

                  No, I say the evil capitalist overlords FEED the priesthood of their own free will. You say they’re being coerced, without any evidence for this.

                  “If you are right, then in order to accomplish reactionary ideals we have to destroy capitalism,”

                  Yes. Carlyle was right.

                  ” destroy technological civilization, ”

                  No, although the extent of the electrification is questionable. Air travel needn’t be abolished but needs to be drastically scaled back by 99%+.

                  “reduce everyone to desperate poverty, and bring back the dark ages.”

                  Depends how you measure poverty. If you mean wear simpler clothing, change their kitchens less frequently and eat home-cooked food much more often, while eschewing foreign travel and even long-distance communting, then yes.
                  If you mean hunger and misery, then no. People will be happier. Consumerism does many things, but creating happiness is not one of them. How many people have you heard say “it was alright but I wouldn’t go back, it wasn’t great”.

                  “If I am right, reactionary ideals will make us rich and virtuous, and enable us to conquer our neighbors, the earth, nature, and the stars.”

                  The British conquered the West Indies and India. Now they’re paying the price.
                  Keep your mits to yourself: not in commerce but certainly in foreign relations.

                • alf says:

                  > “The content of the media is downstream of the power to create media content” is equivalent to “The people who control the media content creation mechanisms create media content”.

                  Such a nice example of complete gibberish.

                  CR, you have nice words. ‘We need a right wing revolution but capitalists are still the devil’ could work. You should start a blog.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Alf:

                  “Seems to me Bezos really does represent the evil capitalist overlord CR points to. Rich