The Faith

Holy war is coming, as the poz gets ever more extreme, ever faster, and our ruling elite increasingly uses state coercion and the FBI to accomplish political outcomes, coercing fellow members of the political elite for political reasons.

Have to bring a gun to a gunfight, and a faith to a holy war.

Deus Vult.

Whites are detribalized, and contrary to the white nationalists, “white” is not a tribal identifier. Whites are wolf to whites. A religion, defining religion broadly to include things like communism and poz, is a synthetic tribe. To win, we need a faith.

With our enemies going further and further into delusion, we have to form a faith on the Truth of Gnon, the Will of God as manifested in the natural order, the Logos manifested in the order of the world, natural law as the will of God. We will, in accordance with the Christianity of about a thousand years ago, interpret Christ as, among other things, the incarnation of the Logos, and thus interpret his words as in accordance with game theory and evolutionary psychology, and divine prophecies as the predictable outcome of cause and effect.

One can deduce ought from is, which is exactly what the Book of Solomon and the copybook headings do, what every reasonable person does in practice.  If one is a strict atheist materialist, then “good” is what game theory and evolutionary psychology tells us that we should desire in our  kin, our friends, and the character of those that we should ally with.  If God created the world then “is” was created by God, and cause and effect a manifestation of the Logos.  And if a Christian, then cause and effect manifested as  wholly man, and that man ended Talmudic legalism, ended the practice of deducing “ought” from some other “ought” taken as given and absolute and then deducing ever sillier and ever more repugnant conclusions from the first “ought”, whether one takes that given “ought” as the “greatest good for the greatest number”, or takes as that given “ought” that one should not boil a goat in its mother’s milk.

The expulsion of the Jews by the Romans illustrates the Divine Logos telling us “The letter killeth but the spirit giveth life” The divine will manifested through entirely natural causes, because the natural order of the universe reflects the will of God. And the spirit of the law, being manifest in cause and effect and manifest in the natural order, needs to be understood with reference to natural law, game theory, and evolutionary psychology. When the Jews obeyed the letter of the law while massively violating the spirit of the law, they were, in accordance with prophecy, expelled from Israel – which reflects the will of God and divine prophecy, but also reflects the fact that if you violate the spirit of the law, you will get into stupid wars with your neighbors, and eventually war with one of your neighbors that happens to be a six hundred pound gorilla. The Jews got into war with Rome not because of corrupt Roman tax collectors, oppressive taxation, harsh Roman law enforcement, and all that, but because they were so scrupulous about avoiding contamination by blood that they wound up getting covered in the wrongfully spilled blood of a Roman cop whom they murdered in the performance of his duty while he was attempting to impartially enforce a just, reasonable, and necessary law that applied to everyone. Which would not have led to war had they not felt so very righteous about it because they were being so faithful to rule about avoiding blood – so faithful to it that they spectacularly disregarded the commandments on coveting, theft, and murder. Attending synagogue while avoiding walking on ground contaminated by chicken blood was so terribly important that they could do anything they liked to accomplish these holy goals, including theft and murder, and their great determination to accomplish these holy goals demonstrated their superior holiness.  And their stubborn self righteousness over this incident eventually and predictably led to the Romans going Roman on them.

In Christianity, the rot set in on women about a thousand years ago, with romance and contractual marriage, with natural law increasingly being tortured to fit church doctrines that were increasingly arbitrary, unreasonable, and out of contact with reality, and with contractual marriage quietly and subtly replacing sacramental marriage, though Christianity only went really progressive on women during the twentieth century. We endorse old style contractual and old style sacramental marriage right now, at least as a moral standard and ritual solemnization, even though we are in no position to enforce it collectively, and after we gain power, start by rolling contractual marriage back to the late eighteenth century, while celebrating sacramental marriage at least symbolically, and eventually go all the way back to sacramental marriage.  We approve of and support husbands and fathers unilaterally enforcing it, even though such enforcement is highly illegal and subject to social disapproval, and we will have our marriage ceremonies proclaim it.

Evolutionary psychology and game theory implies that the family law of the Old Temple Hebrews and the first Millenium Christian Church was entirely correct, and the eighteenth century Christian position on family, war, identity, and the establishment of religion was quite good.

Pozzed Christianity, which dumps on fathers on father’s day and tells us we are Homer Simpson, and which thinks that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is far more important that a bunch of priests having gay sex in a great big pile, because the priests were all consenting adults, is not Christian.

Chaos is coming.  Chaos is already here, and will get a lot worse.  Eventually order will be restored through Caesarism, that being the cycle of history.  I hope this happens soon, with Holy American Emperor Trump, but if it does not happen soon, it will happen eventually, possibly after a century of blood and ruin.

When it starts happening, and I hope it is beginning now, we should catch that tide and sail it to victory.

Revolutionary movements never get anywhere without backing from a substantial faction of the elite. So what section of the elite is going to back us?

Warriors need priests, and priests need warriors. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, so they tend to struggle for power, priests destroying the military, instead of sustaining it and giving it cohesion. The recent stupid wars where the military fought for no sane, useful, or achievable purpose, with one hand tied behind its back, were attacks by the priesthood on the military, as was insourcing logistics, putting camp followers in military uniforms.

To explain these stupid wars, people say they were fought for Israel, but if fought for Israel, would have been fought to win, rather than lose. If fought for Israel, we would not have women in the military, Israel would not have women in the military, we would not have kicked Israel out of Gaza, and logistic workers would not be wearing warrior uniforms.

We are priests who believe warriors should rule (using the term “priesthood” to mean any knowledge faction that internally coordinates its story in order to give the story more effect and in order to gain power, analogously to using the term “religion” to include communism and poz.)  We are therefore in a good position to catch the coming tide.

The time of Ceasarism approaches. Caesar, Napoleon, or Augustus will need priests who say and believe his rule under God is right, because God said so, because one stationary bandit is better than mobile banditry, and because one King three thousand miles away is better than a thousand kings three miles away.

1,435 Responses to “The Faith”

  1. alf says:

    All good and mighty, but you ignore the more pressing issue, namely that this is the second time we almost break the thousand-comment barrier just before you write a new post.

    • 2019 is boring says:

      Well, all we need to do is to stop telling the shills, feds, heretics, kooks, and retards to GTFO – then every thread will reach at least 3,000 comments.

      • Corvinus says:

        So why don’t you adhere to your own advice?

        Regardless, on this fine 4th of July, most normies are resolute. Holy war? No. The Alt Right has too many intellectual holes in it to be a sustained influence. You have the homo crowd with Jack Donovan and Milo, the gamma crew led by Vox Day, and the rest in between. Best wishes finding a Caesar in that motley bunch.

  2. The fact that the wars were stupid, fought stupidly and were permeated by stupidity shared by Israel and the Israeli government doesn’t automatically mean that they weren’t fought for at least in part for Israel.
    Decision-making by committee means gathering a coalition of usually stupid people who pool their stupid voices and drown out the tiny or nonexistent minorities of smart people on the committee. This necessarily means bartering for those voices.
    Anyone who wants to rule by committee in modern America needs to barter for the voices of stupid Jews. It’s easy to purchase these voices with stupidly-worded pro-Israel rhetoric. Power leaks from the modern state and it is readily seized by Jews, who turned out to be better at priestly bullshit than Puritans. The Jews have adopted and internalized the puritan memetics, indeed Moldbug considered Reform Judaism a protestant sect, and have necessarily internalized prog stupidity. Their innate ability for twisting the letter of the law until it no longer resembles anything close to the original intention of the law gives them outsized power in the modern empire of lies.
    Also, when pointing out that even secular and poz-compliant Jews have an affinity towards Israel, it’s not to imply that they’re secretly flag-waving nationalists. In my experience, they tend to have a bullshit patriotism similar to Brits getting all dewy-eyed about the NHS and abolishing slavery. To these people, Israeli patriotism means celebrating Israeli achievements in democracy, feminism and turning Tel Aviv into an open-air gay disco.
    For my part, I have no problem with wars for Israel, insofar as they’re fought rationally and honestly – i. e. the rationale is “we are defending our Judean satrapy from local savages at the behest of our loyal servant, the Satrap of Judea Bibi Netanyahu.” That’s how a God Emperor would justify a war against barbarians.

    • BC says:

      > Power leaks from the modern state and it is readily seized by Jews, who turned out to be better at priestly bullshit than Puritans.

      Does the FBI pay you write this dribble? Jews are being purged from power everywhere in the west.

      • Nicholas R. Jeelvy says:

        Can I see some evidence for this purge of Jews, please.

        • shaman says:

          If America were controlled by techies from Unit 8200, would the Inner Party aka the Democrat Party become so vehemently hostile to Israel and no Jew with minimal ethnic identification — as opposed to those Reform aka Protestant Jews you mentioned above — can identify with it? The Democrat Party is the Palestinian Party, and the American State Department is the Palestinian State Department. At this rate, Jews won’t stay for long within the Coalition of the Colored.

          • kawaii_kike says:

            I guess Jews as a privileged class were always just a cudgel to hammer whites into guilty compliance but as white demographics decline and the holy spiraling descends into further insanity, Jews will eventually get jettisoned. But until progressives finally give kikes the boot, Jews are just getting replaced by more progressive Jews and slowly losing power. Maybe people get too focused on the Jews as a separate entity, when in actuality they’re just masters of pedaling progressivism. Centuries of societal infiltration and in-grouping made them the perfect soldiers of leftism.

            If Democrats are ditching Jews for the Coalition of the Colored then why does AIPAC still have such a large influence in Congress?

            And if most of the wars fought in the Middle East have been for Saudi Arabia rather than Israel then what does the US gain from a potential war with Iran?
            I don’t understand the Middle East at all, all our interference has ever done has created more terrorists, do our actions in the Middle East have any practical goal or is it purely progressive insanity? What did the US gain from the destruction of Iraq, Libya, and the attempted destruction of Syria?
            Also Netanyahu lied to Congress about their being weapons in Iraq, so was the Iraq War fought for both Israel and Saudi Arabia?

            Preemptive disclaimer: I’m not a shill, I just don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of history like everyone else here.

            • jim says:

              > If Democrats are ditching Jews for the Coalition of the Colored then why does AIPAC still have such a large influence in Congress?

              Women in the Israeli military, the resistance to moving the Embassy to Jerusalem, and Jews being ethnically cleansed out of Gaza suggests that AIPAC has very little influence in Congress.

              The way the wind blows, Israel is very soon going to be deemed a fascist apartheid state. Zionism will be defined as hatred, and the supposed distinction between zionism will fade away, soon thereafter followed by the distinction between Zionism and being biologically Jewish.

            • Not Tom says:

              Maybe people get too focused on the Jews as a separate entity, when in actuality they’re just masters of pedaling progressivism.

              Exactly; they assimilated into the WASP political class, just as they assimilated into most other groupings of cognitive elite.

              If Democrats are ditching Jews for the Coalition of the Colored then why does AIPAC still have such a large influence in Congress?

              Democrats boycotted the last AIPAC conference. AIPAC does still have influence with Republicans, which doesn’t support the “Jews pushing poz” narrative, but rather the “Jews pooling their resources to do damage control” narrative.

              And if most of the wars fought in the Middle East have been for Saudi Arabia rather than Israel then what does the US gain from a potential war with Iran?

              Why does it have to be a foreign entity? Is it so hard to believe that domestic interests – like a Blue Empire that wants to kill Red Empire soldiers, and a Red Empire that wants excuses to expand the military-industrial complex – could converge on this policy?

              And desert hellholes are great places to get into forever-wars, thanks to locals being incapable of adopting American norms (too low IQ, too different religion) and the Red Empire being incapable of colonial rule. They’re just easy targets; it wouldn’t work so well with Russia or some Central American hellhole.

            • jim says:

              > If Democrats are ditching Jews for the Coalition of the Colored then why does AIPAC still have such a large influence in Congress?

              It does not have influence any more.

              > And if most of the wars fought in the Middle East have been for Saudi Arabia rather than Israel then what does the US gain from a potential war with Iran?

              Iran is primarily Saudi Arabia’s enemy, not Israel’s enemy. Iran versus Saudi is shia versus sunni.

            • 2019 is boring says:

              But until progressives finally give kikes the boot, Jews are just getting replaced by more progressive Jews and slowly losing power.

              Jews are unfortunately way too comfortable with agitation on behalf of subhumans against whites, but as Cthulhu swims ever leftward, more and more Jewish men, especially the spergy ones, and especially the ones who are mischlings to begin with, will find it emotionally and logically untenable to cling to Cathedral Orthodoxy, and will switch sides. Jews — particularly mischling spergs — are vastly overrepresented in Reaction, and even exert disproportionate influence on the explicitly antisemitic alt-right.

              #MeToo was the first domino to fall in the ineluctable chain leading more and more leftist Jewish men to re-think their own leftism.

              • Cordell says:

                Jews over-represented in Reaction? Could be, but that’s the first I’ve heard of it; do you have evidence? Offhand I can only think of Lawrence Auster, Moldbug (half?) and, if you count him, Stephen Miller.

                • jim says:

                  Moldbug all by himself constitutes over-representation in the reaction. Jewish blood is inherently priestly, and Jews are inherently over-represented in all knowledge factions. Including, indeed especially, in knowledge factions like the Trots, who are even more anti semitic than the Nazis.

        • shaman says:

          CR:

          “Oh look, Jim’s high-level Mossad handlers are having a conversation among themselves. How have I stumbled into this ZOG-blog…? Anyway, fellow Concerned Comrades, listen up: Jeremy Corbyn should be the British Prime Minister. Although the Zio-Capitalists are still grabbing this country by its balls, I see some positive signs. Labour is slowly but surely becoming the party of oppressed proletarian POCs, and this is as it should be. Acid attacks in London, after all, are committed by spoiled Englishmen. Those punks! We need Corbyn to curb-in (heh!) the fucking kikes who currently rule over us with an iron fist, so that, by Allah’s will, we will make all manifestations of heterosexuality completely illegal both de jure and de facto, and also ban pizza. Corbyn 2022: Make Britain Pre-Industrial Again.”

        • Not Tom says:

          Rather than waste our time gathering evidence that you’ll summarily dismiss or ignore before returning to inane ranting, why don’t you tell us what evidence would be sufficient to convince you?

          Apparently the meteoric rises of Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib are not sufficient; nor are the eviction of DWS, the seething hatred of DiFi, the indifference or history toward Jews from the Hispanics who are taking over the party, or the actual results of the 2016 and 2018 primaries. So what do you need to see: a literal memo from Hillary saying “no Jews allowed”?

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            From my perspective, Jews being ostracized for being Jewish would suffice. Not the wrong kind of Jewish, but just Jewish, in the same way that white males are being ostracized for only their whiteness.

            I can save you some time and effort; Jews aren’t being ostracized. They are just suffering blowback from being an illegitimately protected class for 7+ decades. And my sympathy for them can be measured in Stanley Nickles.

            • Not Tom says:

              I’ve seen no one arguing that Jews are being pogrommed because Jewish, only refuting the nonsense claim that they have absolute power over the U.S. government and that everything that USG does is all for Israel or for Jews who support Israel.

              To disprove that assertion, it isn’t necessary to demonstrate cause and effect; the observable inability of Jews to retain their positions of power, block enemies from power, and advance Israel’s legitimate interests should be sufficient. If said group ever had said power, it is rapidly waning and has nearly disappeared.

              All protected classes in the USA other than “American” are illegitimately protected, but that’s a separate concern.

              • Nicholas R. Jeelvy says:

                Claiming that Jews have absolute power over USG and that all of USG’s actions are for Israel is indeed a nonsense claim, but what I claimed is that Jews have SOME power over the USG, and SOME US actions are due to pro-Israeli influence, at least in part.

                We already know that Israel is a red empire satrapy. It’s not unheard of historically for satrapies of declining empires to wag and manipulate the center, especially if that center is already weak. Blue empire satrapies such as Kosovo and Palestine do the same thing.

                As for the Jewish purge, we can accept that they’re making prog orthodoxy incompatible with traditional Judaism, but that shouldn’t stop reform Jews from reforming even further. As has been said before on this blog, Jews are very capable of convincing themselves that black is white with enough talmudic interpretation. I’m pretty sure there’s a reform rabbi out there who can find scriptural justification for cutting your dick off and transitioning from nudnik to yenta.

                Finally, advancing Israel’s legitimate interest would be something that a genuine ZOG may do, but we don’t see that happening. What we can witness is influence-peddling by stupid (reform-protestant) Jews to advance what they stupidly consider to be Israel’s legitimate interests, such as democratizing Israel’s Muslim neighbors.

                • Not Tom says:

                  what I claimed is that Jews have SOME power over the USG, and SOME US actions are due to pro-Israeli influence, at least in part.

                  That’s a significant backing-off of your original claim. Smells like motte-and-bailey to me.

                  I have absolutely no doubt that there are ethnically-Jewish progressives who have deluded themselves into believing that bringing the Light of Democracy to Israel’s neighbors is good for both Israel and Israel’s neighbors. Do you want to explain how this differs substantively from the lily-white progressives who demanded universal suffrage in Rhodesia and South Africa, who shriek in horror at “autocratic” Russia and China, who are very concerned that sodomy is still illegal in most of the Arab world, and who are equally as enthusiastic as the Jewish progressives about sending our best warriors off to die in mortal combat with sand people?

                  If this behavior only or primarily occurs in Jewish progressives, and also other progressives, but not other Jews, then the problem is progressives, not Jews, and definitely not Israel.

                • jim says:

                  > Claiming that Jews have absolute power over USG and that all of USG’s actions are for Israel is indeed a nonsense claim, but what I claimed is that Jews have SOME power over the USG, and SOME US actions are due to pro-Israeli influence, at least in part.

                  Unfalsifiable claim, Motte and Bailey claim. Everyone has some influence over USG, including us. Indeed, the problem with the USG is that power has been dispersed into thousands of little bite sized pieces, making it hard to do anything, and resulting in anarcho tyranny – where easy things like imprisoning good middle class husbands get done, and hard things like imprisoning vicious criminals after their umpteenth savage random unprovoked attack on someone who was minding his own business do not get done.

                • Nicholas R. Jeelvy says:

                  Decision-making by committee means gathering a coalition of usually stupid people who pool their stupid voices and drown out the tiny or nonexistent minorities of smart people on the committee. This necessarily means bartering for those voices.
                  Anyone who wants to rule by committee in modern America needs to barter for the voices of stupid Jews. It’s easy to purchase these voices with stupidly-worded pro-Israel rhetoric. Power leaks from the modern state and it is readily seized by Jews, who turned out to be better at priestly bullshit than Puritans.

                  That’s what I originally said.

                  Jews have SOME power over the USG, and SOME US actions are due to pro-Israeli influence, at least in part.

                  That’s the restatement. We can discuss the proportion of power held by groups, and I maintain that organized Jewry holds more power within the USG and Cathedral than organized NRx or many other factions.
                  But from what I can gather, we need to define “Jew” more closely before proceeding, specifically to see whether ethnic Jews who don’t practice Judaism or practice pozzed Judaism are counted as Jews.

                  A final note, it’s good to keep in mind that the Jewish faith is highly mutable for reasons that Jim himself has specified elsewhere. Indeed, this is what made them susceptible to rapid and thorough Cathedral assimilation in the first place. Jewish rejection of traditional Judaism doesn’t invalidate “jewing” as a group survival strategy- they’ve reinvented themselves many times before.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Israel’s influence is probably far far weaker then Saudi Arabia’s.

                  The Saudis ought to have been wiped out man woman and child after 9/11. But they avoided any reprisal until Trump got the new crown prince to at least arrest most of the people involved and kick them out of the government.

                  Robert Mueller also created the BS dancing Israelis story to muddy the waters that they and the FBI leadership in DC (possibly under orders possibly not) were solely responsible.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  we need to define “Jew” more closely before proceeding, specifically to see whether ethnic Jews who don’t practice Judaism or practice pozzed Judaism are counted as Jews.

                  There are biological Jews who don’t subscribe to either Progressivism or Judaism – e.g. various converts to Christianity, who are often right-wing. According to Jim, biological Jewishness is not a problem (at least not a significant one), and intermarriage between whites and Jews not a problem at all. Racial purity is not one of Jim’s priorities.

                  It is true that abstracted Jewish science differs from creatively-engineering Aryan science, but ideally they should not compete for supremacy within the same location, but complement each other: Israel being the center of Jewish science, and the Anglosphere and North-Western Europe being the centers of Aryan science.

                  Fearing racial pollution from Ashkenazi Jews makes even less sense than fearing racial pollution from East Asians, whose inborn thinking is more dissimilar to that of whites. Numbers also play a role, in that — counting, of course, the Chinese — there are over a billion of East Asians, while there aren’t a whole lot of Jews. Biologically assimilating some Jews is not a problem, and the results are often spectacular.

                  When the state religion stop being leftism, many Jews will adapt to the new status quo. Those who won’t adapt to it should take the flight to Israel.

                • According to Jim, biological Jewishness is not a problem (at least not a significant one), and intermarriage between whites and Jews not a problem at all. Racial purity is not one of Jim’s priorities.

                  I’m gonna have to disagree with Jim on this, then. Each sub-population of humans is such for a reason. I find a good way to think about race and subracial group differences in behavior is to keep in mind Hegel’s maxim that “if it exists, it is reasonable”, which is to say, there’s a reason for it. Chesterton’s fence, for example, is a special case of this dictum.
                  Therefore, if the distinction “Jew” persists, it has informational content pertaining to behavior, given that 85% of the entire human genome influences the brain.
                  Therefore, when we say “Jew”, if we are to have a grouping describing a behavior, it will by necessity include most biological Jews, regardless of their religion. While a Jew’s behavior will be different based on whether he practices prog-atheism, prog-reform Judaism or trad-Orthodox Judaism, all behavioral Jews will demonstrate recognizable behavioral patterns which we may term “jewing”. Some Jews will fall behind due to insufficient “jewing” and probably cease being Jews by explicitly assimilating into host populations (eg. Andrew Klavan)- indeed, this process of shaving away the insufficiently judeo-behaved probably created the behavioral Jew as we know him today. Others will invent a new variation of “jewing” which will fall in the broad pattern, but put a new spin on it, (eg. frankfurt school postmodernists developing Talmudic bullshit philosophy).

                  Understand that this can be said for any ethnic or racial group – they have general behavioral patterns and will exhibit those general patterns regardless of faith. Coming from the Balkans, I have direct experience with genetically similar people of various faiths acting more or less in the same manner as each other, with tiny differences (which generate narcissism).

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  “if it exists, it is reasonable”

                  And yet here you sit, typing away.

                  Just once, I want my team to not consist of hamfisted cretins.

                  I have some serious reservations about jews, but until more intelligent allies show up, I’m just going to sit in silence about the JQ. Indeed, JBJM is far more interesting and informative than any of my hail fellow fags.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Nicholas,

                  Nobody denies the HBD aspects of Ashkenazi ethno-genesis and ethno-continuity or that Judaism selects for “Jewishness.”

                  The claim is much simpler: Ashkenazi Jews, who are genetically 40% European and 60% Levantine, and who have been selected for abstract intelligence and similar marketplace-dominant traits, are not unassimilable (or, to be more precise, their assimilation is not genetically deleterious), in the way blacks and browns are.

                  An Englishman should prefer an Englishwoman, but it’s not obvious that taking an Ashkenazi wife would be bad, nor — speaking of the Balkans — is it obvious that an Ashkenazi wife would make for a worse genetic influence on one’s progeny than an Albanian wife.

                  Jim’s argument is not that Jews are exactly identical to North-Western Europeans, indeed an absurd and retarded contention that no on here makes. Rather, it is that breeding with them is just not very horrible, certainly not as horrible as breeding with blacks and browns.

                  Jews are not an abstraction (just as whites aren’t, which Greg Johnson’s White Nationalist Manifesto explicitly admits): actual real-world Jews are what should be considered, and actual real-world Jews, according to the prevailing position here, are not as incompatible with Western Civilization as some on the alt-right present them.

                  To argue against this position, explain why it is genetically (not culturally) worse for an Englishman to breed with an Ashkenazi woman than with an Albanian woman.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Also,

                  (eg. frankfurt school postmodernists developing Talmudic bullshit philosophy).

                  As opposed to… French Post-Structuralism and German Idealism?

                  (I mean, you have a point, but non-empirical rationalist bullshit is certainly not the prerogative of Jews, even if Jews do excel at it)

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Nicholas can reasonably argue that Jewish behavior tends to be “low trust” compared to the behavior of Hajnal Line whites, but is Jewish behavior less trustworthy than the behavior of whites from outside the Hajnal Line?

                  One can say that, due to the IQ gap, when a Greek (average IQ in Greece: 92) or an Albanian (average IQ in Albania: 90) screws you over, you lose 50$, but when a Yekke screws you over, you lose 5,000$. Okay, but the point still stands.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Therefore, if the distinction “Jew” persists, it has informational content pertaining to behavior

                  Half of your post is a useless strawman trying to prove that “Jews exist”. Do you think you’re on prog-twitter arguing with soyfaced pantifags and aggro-trannies claiming “race isn’t real?” No one here is race denialist; race realism is a central tenet of reaction.

                  Therefore, when we say “Jew”, if we are to have a grouping describing a behavior, it will by necessity include most biological Jews, regardless of their religion.

                  Yes, we know that. Where you go off the rails is in trying to characterize that behavior. While most would describe it as occasionally nitpicky, abrasive, mildly neurotic, prone to over-abstraction, less chivalrous, etc., you characterize it as being power-mad and parasitic with an incurable hatred of white Christians, which are symptoms of progressivism, not Judaism or Jewishness.

                  I’ll also point out that this line of reasoning is entirely incompatible with your earlier argument that Jews are perfect chameleons who can convince themselves of anything and thus blend into any group. You’re contradicting yourself. Are Jews always gonna Jew, or are Jews infinitely malleable and constantly reinventing themselves? Which is it?

                  By the way: if by “group survival strategy” you’re talking about something similar to “ethnic genetic interests”, then there is no such thing.

                • “No one here is race denialist; race realism is a central tenet of reaction.”

                  Khm. I need to add that there is the complexity that you can see who is black, who is Asian, but you cannot really see who is racially Jewish. Jared Kushner does not look like that known caricature. If he would tell you he is a white gentile, you would believe him. He looks like one. This makes Jews a fairly fuzzy group in the racial sense.

                  Now this might not be a big issue in the US, as it seems to be that American Jews are proud of their identity. They are telling everybody they are Jews. And they tend to not have much outmarriage. However over here in Central Europe things are murkier, sometimes it seems everybody smart has a Jewish grandparent somewhere. Or two.

                  For this reason, I tend to not see Jews racially. Because yes, race is ancestry, not looks, but but it is looks you see, not ancestry. And if you cannot determine who is racially Jewish by looking at them, you cannot really work with the racial model, that is how I think. Even surnames don’t help, Shekelburgstein might be a good joke, but names can be changed, or the opposite, someone could have a white gentile mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and so on and yet still have that kind of name. Which is hard to distinguish from German names anyway. So I tend to see Jews on a culture/identity level: Jews are those who identify as Jews. Everything else is just hopelessly fuzzy.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Now this might not be a big issue in the US, as it seems to be that American Jews are proud of their identity. They are telling everybody they are Jews. And they tend to not have much outmarriage.

                  This is, generally speaking, not correct. “Jewish pride” is a combination of flight-from-white (to quote Steve Sailer) and over-generalizing based on a small number of loudmouthed progressives and assorted gnats like Little Bennie Shapiro. But the larger error, and the one I feel compelled to correct, is the false claim about low outmarriage rates.

                  Per La Wik: Jewish outmarriage is 58%, including Orthodox. For liberal Jews, it’s a massive 71%.

                  A recent Pew poll, which nowhere mentions the word “Jew” so I assume they simply lumped Jews into White, considers college-educated Asian intermarriage to be “highest” at 39%, with less education corresponding to much lower and declining intermarriage. If we dig deeper into other polls, we find specific Asian ethnicities, e.g. Filipino and Japanese, to be quite high, approaching even 40-45%, but still not at Jewish levels. Hispanic browns hover around 25%, with blacks about half of that, except for black-man-white-woman couples which are probably only near 25% because of being relentlessly hyped by globohomo.

                  The one group consistently lowest in intermarriage rates is Indians, with both men and women around 10-12%. And from personal experience, having lived in areas with depressingly-high Indian populations, I can confirm it’s extremely rare to see Indians of either sex paired up with a different race.

                  Objectively, Jews have the highest outmarriage rate of any ethnic/racial group in the USA, and that’s important because negative ethnocentrism would be characterized by a much lower outmarriage rate. Jews may have higher positive ethnocentrism, but unlike NE, PE has not been shown to be biological in origin, it is a learned behavior. As far as the PE goes – “Jewish pride” – I don’t find myself exposed to that nearly as often as black pride, gay pride, La Raza solidarity, etc. Maybe Jewish cohesion looks excessive to some whites, because Jews look white and they are comparing to white liberal ethnomasochism.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Hmm, I just noticed that my outbound links are highlighted like hyperlinks, but don’t actually point anywhere, so perhaps they are being stripped out. Here were my citations – hopefully this post doesn’t get flagged as potential spam:

                  [1] Wikipedia – Interfaith Marriage in Judaism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism
                  [2] Pew – Trends and Patterns in Intermarriage: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/05/18/1-trends-and-patterns-in-intermarriage/
                  [3] By the Numbers: Dating, Marriage and Race in Asian America: https://imdiversity.com/villages/asian/by-the-numbers-dating-marriage-and-race-in-asian-america/

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                I’m having a hard time seeing how one jew being replaced by another is “jews losing power.” They aren’t losing power in entertainment, pornography, universities, think tanks, or the civil rights industry. These are all high status, disproportionately powerful cultural fields.

                At the risk of landing on the wrong side of the JBJM, i think it is a bit of a red herring to point at lefty anger at Israel and declare that the Jews Did Nothing Wrong. I don’t feel like finding my naughty data hard drive, but IIRC the US has the highest percentage of Jewery. Europe used to, and they still have a lot. Additionally, many of the powerful jews in the Levant are of primarily Russian and European-by-American background. There are many instances of Israeli intelligence biting the hand that feeds, from the declaration of their colony as a country through the Arab wars into the global spread of terror and into the GWoT. There is a special relationship between the US and Israel. That terminology is a quote from every president from Truman forward IIRC. This, in my mind, establishes some very deep links between Jews in the Homeland and jews in my homeland.

                More to the point of this post, i don’t think it is antisemitic to say that when founding a government, a religion, a nation, or a bridge club, one should be wary of jewish entryism. This doesn’t necessarily mean non-inclusion should be codified, but the twentieth century shows us that jews, when acting in concert, wield an outsize level of influence in proportion to their numbers. They have socially evolved some pretty high power memetic tendencies for moving in, through, and around cultures and societies.

                I am not advocating jews be blamed for all problems, but it would be willful ignorance to ignore or dismiss the cultural culpability of powerful jews in literally every atrocity of the 20th century (i have not done a deep dive on this claim and am open to correction, but i would wager a goy foreskin on some of the best agents the SSR sent to east asia being Chosen carefully).

                It is a very tricky problem; some of the smartest people i know are apolitical jews. Some of the worst people ive studied are jewish midwit powerplayers. It is hard to found a sound method for dealing with jews. In an interesting way, the white westerners have the same trouble with jews that Israeli jews have with Druze: so effective, so hard to detect, so little known about what goes on behind closed doors.

                Because i am pretty sure i have invited a sho’ah on my head, i will state my position clearly:

                Jews that can conspire are a risk factor when forming any kind of group.

                Jews have a well documented history of adept social manipulation.

                Jews are a powerful force to be reckoned with.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Pretty sure that Jim himself has said many of these very things. The problem with Jews is unilateral in-grouping: Jews demanding whites to accept them, without in turn accepting whites into the fold of Jewry. Therefore, strongly-identified ethnocentric Jews, or Jews who are otherwise demonstrably incompatible with non-Jewish societies, should simply be in Israel.

                  On the memetic level, though, the neocons did not innovate anything; their worldview is fully derived from gentile ideologies, and is hardly distinguishable from Protestantism gone amok.

                  Jews who seek to hold statal or quasi-statal jobs within a white country should be viewed with suspicion, and should be required to officially renounce Judaism and/or Progressivism and to sincerely convert to the country’s official state religion, e.g. Restoration Anglicanism. And, from time to time, they’ll undergo checks to verify that their conversion to the official state religion perseveres. This, I believe, is Jim’s position.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m having a hard time seeing how one jew being replaced by another is “jews losing power.” They aren’t losing power in entertainment, pornography, universities, think tanks, or the civil rights industry. These are all high status, disproportionately powerful cultural fields.

                  If in order to avoid being replaced by another Jew, they have to oppose moving the embassy to Jerusalem, support the expulsion of the Jews from numerous places, Gaza among them, and their porns have to depict women being utterly horrified and repulsed by rape and rapists, are they not losing power?

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  My claim relies on one jew being interchangeable from another jew. This presupposes that jews are all cut from the same cloth. This is is a weak point in my argument, but not an invalidation of the argument.

                  The question then becomes: are jews interchangeable specifically in positions of power?

                  I assert yes.

                  Therefore: no, they are not losing power.

                  If jews are like whites (endlessly and needlessly diverse in interpretation) then I’m wrong.

                  If jews are like minorities (endlessly and intentionally changeable/maliable/ductile) then I’m right.

                  I’ve been wrong before, many times.

                  I’ve been right a lot.

                  My mind is open, but i am nervous.

                • jim says:

                  > My claim relies on one jew being interchangeable from another jew.

                  Two Jews, three factions.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  As Jim says, for now, the replacements for the Jews are other Jews. For now. Once “Israel is an apartheid state,” “Free Palestine,” types get replaced on the left, the tune of their replacements will be suspiciously similar to certain famous German political rhetoric. Jew or not, once you get left of, “Israel deserves to exist,” it does not matter what your ethnicity, lefter means “Gas the kikes, race war now,” territory.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’m pretty sure the shoahs are for actual shills who make no other contributions besides “Jim needs to dedicate 100% of his time to fedposting on the JQ”. It’s the explicitly Marxist position that’s a red flag. I don’t see you doing that; however, I do think you are factually incorrect on a couple of points, namely:

                  1. That Jews are mainly being replaced by other Jews. Sometimes they are, but the POC ascendency is the real threat. Historically it was often Talented Tenth half-blacks, but today it’s increasingly Indians with a bit of Chinese. Look at the number of wealthy woke corporations with Indian CEOs.

                  2. That the relationship between the US and Israel is unique or notable. US also has a “special relationship” with UK, which President Trump explicitly affirmed; yet we don’t hear about unsavory English influence, even though London is ten times more pozzed than Tel Aviv. There are definitely some odd things about Israel, like their violation of the nuclear NPT, but I’m comfortable accepting that every U.S. protectorate is going to do some backdoor dealing and influence-peddling, and actual rivals (namely, China and Russia) will try to screw us over explicitly.

                  Aside from that, I don’t think anything here is too controversial in these circles. Jews do tend to get over-represented in the political elite (why they do is up for debate) and are, at present, disproportionately Democrat/progressive. It may be anti-semitic to say that Jews should be regarded with extra suspicion, but that doesn’t mean it’s wrong, it means that the label is used as a cudgel for rational behavior like “Islamophobia”, “homophobia” or “racism”.

                  But at the end of the day, if we believe that elite white gentiles can be converted to a new state religion, then I see no reason why elite Jews can’t also. The ones who refuse to convert will be excluded from power, or in extreme cases given helicopter rides.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  My claim relies on one jew being interchangeable from another jew.

                  Well, there’s the flaw. There are several Jewish “types,” and moreover, Jewry has churned out lots of total outliers throughout the ages. Now, it is true that outliers are exactly that — outliers — but the cognitive elite is not composed of all that many people to begin with, and it’s probably possible to find a few decent Jews to replace the badly behaved ones.

                  This, however, is beyond the bigger point: those Jews who are truly incompatible with white society should be separated from white society (ideally, in a completely peaceful manner). Ah, if only there was a country where they could go… wait, I think there is one. Incidentally, this country attracts the most furious and fanatical condemnation issued by progs, including progs who dress as nazis. Hmmm.

                • The Cominator says:

                  [blockquote]Even given all of this there’s still a significant role for not exactly Israeli interest but for men who want to signal that they support Israel. The Office of Special Plans run by Wolfowitz and Feith and the neocons in the press all sold Iraq not because it’s in the interest of Israel exactly but because they want to show that they’re loyal to Israel without actually leaving for Israel – no skin in the game. In other words, the Iraq war might not have been in Israeli interest but these guys who pushed it did it because they were convinced that it was.[/blockquote]

                  I see these people while they certainly existed as more of the matador cape phenomenon.

                  I was on a “free speech” forum some time after 9/11. These people were constantly mentioned by the same kind of people who constantly talked about the dancing Israelis… all the while maintaining that the FBI leadership and muslims dindu nuffin.

                  We know now that the dancing Israelis was lie straight from Robert Mueller (he couldn’t let the Saudis or the FBI take all the blame so the waters had to be muddied)… so the fact that the shills and dupes pushing “dancing Israelis” also talked about Wolfowitz and co constantly tends to make me think it was the same kind of bullshit.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  I see these people while they certainly existed as more of the matador cape phenomenon.

                  You’re arguing by assumption.

                  I’m asserting that there’s no single reason for why USG does anything – it’s a vector summation of a bunch of forces that if it goes over some threshold and causes activation.

                  By saying asserting that there’s a matador / cape you’re assuming that there’s a single actor using other actors as a distraction – that there is a matador.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You’re arguing by assumption.

                  I’m asserting that there’s no single reason for why USG does anything – it’s a vector summation of a bunch of forces that if it goes over some threshold and causes activation.

                  By saying asserting that there’s a matador / cape you’re assuming that there’s a single actor using other actors as a distraction – that there is a matador.

                  I don’t think there is any one secret king but I think there is a secret politburo and my understanding from discussing it with Jim (the discussion on Academia, Star Wars, and the Dear Colleague Letter) is he believes there is a sort of secret politburo. We believe this because the media seems to be fairly well coordinated in whatever stupid narrative its pushing.

                  The Cathedral press started agitating for an invasion of Iraq in a coordinated manner long before an invasion of Iraq actually happened.

                  Jim if you disagree with any of this (I don’t think you do) I’m sorry.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Forgive me messing up on not putting quotes or blockquotes I have a bad headache and its making me fucking retarded… I’m used to posting where I can edit things (like for years and years) so I’m used to editing my posts after the fact.

              • While most would describe it as occasionally nitpicky, abrasive, mildly neurotic, prone to over-abstraction, less chivalrous, etc., you characterize it as being power-mad and parasitic with an incurable hatred of white Christians,

                That is not my stated or argued position. It is not even the stated position of Kevin MacDonald. This is the stated position of obvious morons and limited hangout types. I merely pointed out that there’s an identifiable behavior pattern of Jews. This behavior, I’ll grant corresponds to being nitpicky, abrasive, neurotic, over-abstracted and unchivalrous (I’d add servile and duplicitous).

                I’ll also point out that this line of reasoning is entirely incompatible with your earlier argument that Jews are perfect chameleons who can convince themselves of anything and thus blend into any group. You’re contradicting yourself. Are Jews always gonna Jew, or are Jews infinitely malleable and constantly reinventing themselves?

                1. I did not argue that Jews are perfect chameleons. If they were perfect chameleons, there would be no discussion of the JQ whatsoever. However, we have the parenthesis memes and endless discussions on Jews. What Jews do is modify the tenets of Judaism to be accepted into the general umbrage of the dominant faith of the society they inhabit – they invent Reform Judaism to be accepted by progressivism. Crypsis is an interesting concept of MacDonald’s but I don’t think the Jews are successful at pulling it off, even if they are attempting it. A Jew discovered while pretending to not be a Jew is at greater danger than a Jew who successfully convinces you (and himself) that Judaism isn’t incompatible with your society’s dominant ideology and faith.
                2. Yes it is very much possible for both to co-occur if we accept that Jews aren’t chameleons but rather seeking to exist as Jews within a dominant order. Jews will modify Judaism and jewing to the dominant order while still maintaining the general jewish behavioral pattern. There are infinite numbers between 1 and 2, and not one is bigger than 2 or smaller than 1. Something similar is at play here. There is a large amount of workable memeplexes which satisfy the requirements of the jewish behavioral pattern and they can all be practiced for the benefit of Jews in the context of various societal orders.

                is it obvious that an Ashkenazi wife would make for a worse genetic influence on one’s progeny than an Albanian wife.

                Depends. If I want my sons to have a warrior spirit, I’m willing to pay the price in potential IQ lost if it means my sons will be Skenderbeg reborn. On a related note, IQ above 130 is a bloody liability in my experience, and probably has no effect on economic performance above 110 or some number in that vicinity – which would explain why the IQ-income correlation is 0.6 – relatively weak.

                Just joking, of course. I would never in a billion years take an Albanian wife, but I’ll be happy to take many Albanian war brides once SHTF.

                • jim says:

                  > That is not my stated or argued position.

                  It is not clear what your stated or argued position is.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It is not even the stated position of Kevin MacDonald.

                  Yes it is. Just because he writes better, uses more citations and hides behind metaphor and insinuation, doesn’t make his position on Jews substantively different from Louis Farrakhan’s.

                  I did not argue that Jews are perfect chameleons […] What Jews do is modify the tenets of Judaism to be accepted into the general umbrage of the dominant faith of the society they inhabit

                  I’m seeing a pattern here. Like a good little leftist, you want to hold us to absolute textual literalism, while you redefine various terms to your liking. We need to cut Kevin McDonald some slack, because he didn’t literally say that Jews hate whitey. We need to cut you some slack, because you didn’t literally use the phrase “perfect chameleons”.

                  We know what he means, we know what you meant, and I’m pretty sure everyone here knows what I meant otherwise they would have called me out or asked for clarification as they generally do. You’re advancing two contradictory ideas, that Jews change themselves to assimilate and yet cannot be changed by assimilation.

                  they invent Reform Judaism to be accepted by progressivism

                  It was invented to convert Jews to mainline Protestantism. This agenda isn’t even hidden; it’s openly advocated by Jews for Jesus, J-street, etc.

                  But in your fevered delusions, Jews bleeding off into Protestantism is just more evidence of Jewish ethnocentrism and general deviousness.

                  IQ above 130 is a bloody liability in my experience

                  Sounds totes legit. After all, what have 130+ IQ men ever done for the world?

                • Sounds totes legit. After all, what have 130+ IQ men ever done for the world?

                  How many children did Sir Isaac Newton have? How many children did Leonardo Da Vinci have? How many living descendants does Nikola Tesla have?

                  Being an extreme neural outlier makes your reproductive success less likely than it normally would be. Without a big ole patriarchy designed to bring young virgins your way, you’re facing genetic death, and even then it’s tough.
                  There’s an argument for the existence of genius, but it involves group level natural selection, and judging from the unkind words spoken about Kevin MacDonald, I don’t think you guys will appreciate it.

                  But in your fevered delusions, Jews bleeding off into Protestantism is just more evidence of Jewish ethnocentrism and general deviousness.

                  Right. Now I’m sensing a pattern. It’s like there’s a manual for dealing with deranged cartoon hakenkreuzers who come in rambling about how the Jews control everything, have perfect crypsis and want to shoah the white man and you’re just flipping through it, putting words in my mouth and then accusing me of backing off of arguments and practicing literalism when I say I didn’t say shit I didn’t say.

                  It is not clear what your stated or argued position is.

                  That the wars in the Middle East were at least in part due to Jewish and Israeli influence, that the decision to wage them was reached by consensus and that Jews were part of that consensus and that therefore claiming the wars were not for Israel is at the least an incomplete statement. The insanity and stupidity inherent in how those wars were waged do not falsify the claim that they were fought at least in part for Israel.

                • jim says:

                  That the wars in the middle east were lost, run forever, and are unreasonably expensive is not due to Jewish influence – and to the extent that Jews were involved, those Jews responsible for stupid war losing strategies, stupid military objectives, stupid victory conditions, and stupid exit conditions, hate Israel, hate Orthodox Jews, hate Jewish nationalists, and want Jews ethnically cleansed from Jerusalem the way they were ethnically cleansed from Gaza and Iraq.

                  The outrage over moving the embassy to Jerusalem is because the objective of ethnically cleansing Jews from Jerusalem is rather high on their list of priorities and getting higher.

                • jim says:

                  We need a society in which Dads queue up to marry their virgin daughters to Isaac Newton, and are mighty comfortable with their slightly suspect daughters becoming one of his numerous concubines.

                • The Cominator says:

                  That the wars in the Middle East were at least in part due to Jewish and Israeli influence, that the decision to wage them was reached by consensus and that Jews were part of that consensus and that therefore claiming the wars were not for Israel is at the least an incomplete statement. The insanity and stupidity inherent in how those wars were waged do not falsify the claim that they were fought at least in part for Israel.

                  Both of the Gulf Wars were fought by Bush Presidents. If the Bush family is on any foreign payroll its on that of the Saudis. The Saudis should probably have been exterminated man, woman and child after 9/11, certainly the Saudi form of Islam (Islam is bad but the Saudi form is worse) should have been wiped out and certainly Bin Laden’s and the hijackers families should have been killed.

                  The fact that Saudi Arabia was treated so gently suggest despite deserving genocide for what it did tells me Israel was a minor factor.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  The fact that Saudi Arabia was treated so gently suggest despite deserving genocide for what it did tells me Israel was a minor factor.

                  Only if you model USG as a unified actor.

                  When USG acts it doesn’t do things for *a* reason it does things for lots and lots of reasons – reasons that motivate all the people who have input in steering the leviathan.

                  Given that after 9/11 some foreign actor was going to be attacked the motivations as I see them were as follows:

                  Bush family rules out KSA as a target – KSA funds the Bushes and the Clintons, KSA is paid off with all the right people, they buy American military hardware so they quietly pay off defense contractors and indirectly pay off congressmen with mil hardware manufacturing in their districts, etc. A full cost accounting of USG writes off KSA as a liability and slaughters them but USG is unowned so KSA can bribe men who have enough influence to protect it even when imposing costs on USG that are much greater than their benefits.

                  The prog-hive mind – they accepted that some military action was going to be needed to prevent a stronger reaction from potential competitors – hedging against the remote risk of some military officer taking power somehow (electorally or otherwise) by waving the bloody shirt and saying “they did nothing about this”. Once that was the consensus the key part became making sure that warrior rule was never used anywhere so they set out to undermine through their agents in Red Gov – at the high level they’d acquiesce if the justification was about bringing priestly rule to the Arab world with proper liberal attitudes (which would solve all the problems of the Arab world – because those problems are (of course) caused by insufficient progressivism).

                  Neither of these forces sets an actual target – they just rule out methods and one target. Actually picking the target is again a compromise – Bush himself probably thought Iraq was pretty good because there was lingering anti-Iraq propaganda from the first Gulf War and personal feelings from the attempt on his father’s life.

                  Even given all of this there’s still a significant role for not exactly Israeli interest but for men who want to signal that they support Israel. The Office of Special Plans run by Wolfowitz and Feith and the neocons in the press all sold Iraq not because it’s in the interest of Israel exactly but because they want to show that they’re loyal to Israel without actually leaving for Israel – no skin in the game. In other words, the Iraq war might not have been in Israeli interest but these guys who pushed it did it because they were convinced that it was.

                • Not Tom says:

                  How many children did Sir Isaac Newton have? How many children did Leonardo Da Vinci have? How many living descendants does Nikola Tesla have?

                  Congratulations, you’ve discovered that freakishly smart men tend not to have a lot of kids, while simultaneously being responsible for the vast majority of innovation. A fact that nearly everyone on the planet already knows.

                  You also stupidly attribute their lack of fertility to their intelligence, and not their freakishness. High-IQ groups like the Japanese and Ashkenazis didn’t have any problems with fertility before progressivism came along. If you put a bunch of 130 IQ men and women of similar background together in the same room, and don’t fill their heads with suicide memes, they’ll have no trouble pairing off.

                  This is all irrelevant anyway because you’re talking about outliers whose descendants would regress toward the mean anyway – not eugenic fertility. Mating with a member of a race or tribe that has higher average IQ actually does raise the average for yours; mating with someone in your own tribe who has way higher IQ than any of their siblings or ancestors, not so likely. That’s why American negroes have an average IQ of 85, but Talented Tenth families eventually regress back to TNB.

                  and practicing literalism when I say I didn’t say shit I didn’t say.

                  As Jim has already pointed out, you keep using motte-and-bailey tactics or just shifting the goalposts. You are also now using Marxist DARVO tactics. You are doing this in a community full of people who are wise to these tactics. You are an idiot.

                • The Cominator says:

                  As Jim has already pointed out, you keep using motte-and-bailey tactics or just shifting the goalposts. You are also now using Marxist DARVO tactics. You are doing this in a community full of people who are wise to these tactics. You are an idiot.

                  On the contrary I judge him to be far brighter then a typical shill… hes a shill but hes a higher level one. He shows some genuine understanding of how we think and some genuine adaptation. CR just either couldn’t or wasn’t allowed to do this, no matter how badly Jim and the rest of us would beat his ass he’d come back with exactly the same shit in very slightly different words.

                  Low fertility among outlying high IQ is indeed something the priesthood of a restoration society should do something about, maybe if they have enough children some of them don’t regress to the mean and some don’t regress to the mean even now.

                  http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15126631/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/son-follows-fathers-footsteps-nobel-win/

                  Proven scientific and engineering geniuses should get legit harems (young attractive females who get caught having leftist views will be auctioned off as bound concubines, basically non hereditary slaves, the geniuses could each be given 10 of the most attractive of these maybe they should also be screened for IQ) and a state subsidized staff to raise all their children?

                • Not Tom says:

                  maybe if they [high IQ] have enough children some of them don’t regress to the mean

                  I’m not so sure about this. It is indeed self-evident that environment can select for intelligence over time – that’s why some groups have higher IQ than other groups. However, when 100-IQ parents produce a 130-IQ child, we don’t really know what causes that; we know that IQ is 80-90% heritable but have no idea what the other 10-20% is.

                  The Law of Truly Large Numbers implies that we will definitely see some instances of unusually smart parents with at least one unusually smart child. The numbers are large enough that we might even see it for 3 or 4 generations – but that those subsequent generations could have been just as likely to come from 100-IQ parents as 130-IQ parents. It’s possible that there are some real heritable IQ gains in there, but I don’t think it’s been adequately studied.

                  Of course I personally like the idea of a mandatory harem. But in the interests of maximizing social good, I think capitalism does a fine job of routing resources (and therefore fertility) to the more intelligent, when not subverted by dysgenic laws and IQ shredders.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Of course I personally like the idea of a mandatory harem. But in the interests of maximizing social good, I think capitalism does a fine job of routing resources (and therefore fertility) to the more intelligent, when not subverted by dysgenic laws and IQ shredders.

                  The shill is right in raising the point that generally speaking it fails high iq outliers (even when they get rich, Newton got rich), when you’re right you’re right.

                  Surely this is worth an experiment in eugenic breeding to produce more scientific geniuses? we should aim to have each of them father at least 50 children.

                  For normies even rich normies I would not allow harems, every honest man needs a wife. Allowing harems outside of that will cause a shortage (you want to screw someone else we’ll have very affordable brothels available for that). But truly top scientists and engineers we need to find out how to create them, breeding education genetic engineering whatever but we need more of them.

                • shaman says:

                  But truly top scientists and engineers we need to find out how to create them

                  Need to encourage breeding among people from high IQ backgrounds. A family in which the average IQ is 120 is more likely to produce a genius than a family in which the average IQ is 100. The cognitive elite needs to be imbued with pro-natalism, and to live under conditions conducive to pro-natalism.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The shill is right in raising the point that generally speaking it fails high iq outliers (even when they get rich, Newton got rich), when you’re right you’re right.

                  I don’t think it does, at least not in the way that he is implying and you are tacitly accepting.

                  Capitalism optimizes for the average, not the outliers. However: higher average, higher outliers. There are many more geniuses to be found in America’s 300 million than there are in India’s billion.

                  Since we don’t yet understand why geniuses exist, I personally am wary of advocating for large-scale social experiments with uncertain outcomes, especially since the random mutations that cause high intellect also tend to come with other deleterious mutations. I’m simply being small-“c” conservative here; since we don’t have proof that genius-level individual IQ is heritable (as opposed to population-level average IQ, which definitely is heritable), I don’t think we should try to mess with nature. What we should do is try to map the genome of as many high-IQ individuals as possible and start using modern tools like GWAS to understand more about why they’re so smart.

                  And if we want to have more Isaac Newtons in future generations, focus on a breeding strategy that incrementally raises the average IQ, and focus on institutional support for geniuses – keep women, Marxists and mediocre intellects out of universities, reinstate IQ testing for employment screening, ramp up the R&D/think-tank divisions where geniuses can work without much supervision or budget restriction.

                • Ron says:

                  @The cominator

                  Re: harems for smart guys

                  Unnecessary. As others have pointed out, women gravitate to high status. When we have laws that crucify normal men for getting in fist fights or socially destroying an engineer who lands a spacecraft on a comet but made the terrible sin of wearing a shirt with pictures of naked women on it, then the women will be disgusted with the nerds and the nerds will have zero confidence, which will guarantee that no one will want to fuck them.

                  Which leaves the thugs and sociopaths

                  When instead the nerds have decided it is better to be dead than a coward, they will do mma, agitate for laws in favor of their interests, tell the priests and busybodies to fuck off, look forwards to fixing traitors and thugs; and generally behave like men, then I believe the women will naturally gravitate to them.

                  But this requires the virtues of integrity and courage, both qualities require faith in Gnon and the fear of Gnon’s anger if they fail to give it their all. Otherwise they will rationalize their cowardice and dishonesty as courage and integrity, and we are back to the same mess.

                  My take

                • If you put a bunch of 130 IQ men and women of similar background together in the same room, and don’t fill their heads with suicide memes, they’ll have no trouble pairing off.

                  I can agree with this. However, you’d have to isolate them, and especially the women from the general Butt Nakeds of the world, and more specifically, from general Butt Naked’s low IQ but similarly violent cousin. This requires patriarchy. Absent patriarchy, the violent thugs push the IQ 130+ nerds out of the way and steal all the women. Even with patriarchy, you have to police the culture for for toxic memes. Basically, if you want smart guys to get laid, either they or society as a whole has to jump through a whole bunch of hoops. From this perspective, IQ is a liability if you value survival and propagation of your genes.

                  The Office of Special Plans run by Wolfowitz and Feith and the neocons in the press all sold Iraq not because it’s in the interest of Israel exactly but because they want to show that they’re loyal to Israel without actually leaving for Israel – no skin in the game. In other words, the Iraq war might not have been in Israeli interest but these guys who pushed it did it because they were convinced that it was.

                  This guy gets it.

                  As Jim has already pointed out, you keep using motte-and-bailey tactics or just shifting the goalposts. You are also now using Marxist DARVO tactics. You are doing this in a community full of people who are wise to these tactics. You are an idiot.

                  My point straight out of the gate was “nonzero Jewish influence towards the Iraq war”, rather than “ZOG invaded Iraq to kill sainted Saddam Hussein”, which are the words you’re trying to put in my mouth. Read my original comment again and you’ll see. Better yet, read or skim the articles in my linked profile, and you’ll see that I’m very much a minority of one on counter-currents opposing this idea of “ZOG controls everything”.

                  Now, where I’m open to changing my mind is the definition of a Jew and what Judaism means to Jews. Jim argues, not without a degree of truth that for a Jew to attain power in the Blue Empire, he has to decouple himself from historical Judaism and the self-aware Jewish community – in essence he has to LARP as an atheist gentile or better yet, become an anational atheist. I don’t fully agree with this view, as I’ve said before, but I’m willing to entertain it. If this is true, then ferreting out ethnic Jews where they try to LARP as atheist gentiles is good because it paints them with a laser and their fellow Cathedral members smell blood in the water, unless that Jew goes even harder left – by putting a guy in triple parentheses, we’re provoking strife within the Cathedral and accelerating the left singularity.
                  After this discussion, I’m willing to entertain the idea that the panic over the triple parenthesis meme came not from Jews being found out for being Jews, but being reminded that they are Jews and that they can’t really stop being Jews while they are trying to LARP as anational atheists. Reminding Lenny of his cousin Schlomo with the curls cramps Lenny’s style.
                  Hopefully, Lenny decides “than let me be Jewish” and he returns to being a religious Jew (and Israel).

                  On the contrary I judge him to be far brighter then a typical shill… hes a shill but hes a higher level one. He shows some genuine understanding of how we think and some genuine adaptation.

                  Lemme just put an alternative hypothesis out there. I’m a guy who’s been lurking around the blog since last Christmas. I’ve read much of the older posts, and I’m about 70-80% on board with Jimism, with most of my disagreements stemming from my skepticism of anything anglo and his misguided faith in the red empire. I even understand the alarm bells going off about possible shills and federasts (better 100 good faith actors excluded than a single fed accepted).

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  by putting a guy in triple parentheses, we’re provoking strife within the Cathedral and accelerating the left singularity.

                  Accelerating the leftist singularity may or may not be good, but that is neither the objective of NRx nor its praxis, so who exactly is “we” here? Accelerating the leftist singularity may perhaps be a goal for 4chan trolls, and indeed, 4chan trolls do serve their own role in this regard. Presumably, you self-identify as a White Nationalist, and I’m not sure that White Nationalists are broadly even aware of the Jimist concept of Leftist Singularity. Are they aware of it?

                  After this discussion, I’m willing to entertain the idea that the panic over the triple parenthesis meme came not from Jews being found out for being Jews, but being reminded that they are Jews and that they can’t really stop being Jews while they are trying to LARP as anational atheists. Reminding Lenny of his cousin Schlomo with the curls cramps Lenny’s style.

                  Hopefully, Lenny decides “than let me be Jewish” and he returns to being a religious Jew (and Israel).

                  Sounds to me that you have something against Lenny. Now, if Lenny stands for a Blue-Check Marked pozzed shitlib Jew, then sure, getting rid of him one way or another is a worthy goal – albeit I’m not so sure that the echoes meme is as effective as advertised.

                  But if Lenny happens to be a simple Jew who gets along well with whites, actually sees himself as white, is usually perceived as white by non-Jews, and does not consciously or unconsciously promote anything anti-white, then it’s not obvious that convincing him to make aliyah by constantly shoving Uncle Shlomo in his face is a worthy goal.

                  Abusing Cathedral Jews in funny and creative ways is fine, just as abusing Cathedral Anglo-Saxon Protestants in fun and creative ways is fine. But we don’t share the unstated premise that ordinary Jews are a harmful influence. You seem to be fixated with ordinary Jews using crypsis to harm white society, but are you sure that ordinary Jews — in contrast to Prominent Leftist Jews — actually harm white society?

                • Not Tom says:

                  My point straight out of the gate was “nonzero Jewish influence towards the Iraq war”, rather than “ZOG invaded Iraq to kill sainted Saddam Hussein”

                  Your point straight out of the gate was as follows:

                  I have no problem with wars for Israel, insofar as they’re fought rationally and honestly – i. e. the rationale is “we are defending our Judean satrapy from local savages at the behest of our loyal servant, the Satrap of Judea Bibi Netanyahu.”

                  Now perhaps the issue here is that you’re not lying on purpose, but just don’t really know what you believe and are prone to vacillating unintentionally between extreme and more moderate positions. Nevertheless, it looks like motte-and-bailey, so if you don’t want to be labeled a shill, stop doing that.

                  If this is true, then ferreting out ethnic Jews where they try to LARP as atheist gentiles is good because it paints them with a laser and their fellow Cathedral members smell blood in the water, unless that Jew goes even harder left – by putting a guy in triple parentheses, we’re provoking strife within the Cathedral and accelerating the left singularity.

                  And here’s the motte and bailey again. “We agree that these so-called Jews are either larping as mainline Protestants or actual mainline Protestants, so… we should totally call them out for having Jewish ancestry because it will make the Cathedral suspicious!”

                  There is nothing realistic or sane about this induction. It’s either deliberate manipulation or fridge logic.

                  I’m willing to entertain the idea that the panic over the triple parenthesis meme came not from Jews being found out for being Jews, but being reminded that they are Jews and that they can’t really stop being Jews while they are trying to LARP as anational atheists.

                  Yeah, that, or they were reminded of the kind of people who are obsessed with discovering and branding Jews, including half- and quarter-Jews, attaching racial signifiers to everything they do, and periodically sending them pictures of ovens and showers. You know, the kind of people whom their organization fought a major war against and won.

                  Personally, I think they goofed and Streisanded the meme by having such thin skins about it, but you’re being rather transparently dishonest here when you claim that the only explanations all have to do with Jews’ deep inner emotional turmoil over being found out and not straightforward facts about the WNs who largely perpetuate it.

                  Do you really not get that the Cathedral is highly adapted toward this style of activism? It does absolutely nothing to put reactionaries in power, because it will get painted as low-status behavior and generally is the behavior of low-status proles; and it rallies the troops on the left by giving a face to the invisible enemy. “Accelerationism” is definitely a concept that’s been discussed in some reactionary communities, but so far as I know, the only people who actually agree that it’s sound strategy are alt-rightists.

                  Hopefully, Lenny decides “than let me be Jewish” and he returns to being a religious Jew (and Israel).

                  And there, once again, is the bailey. We’ve gone from “Israel might have had some minor influence in the Iraq war” to “Everyone with Jewish heritage living in the USA needs to convert to Orthodox Judaism and move to Israel”. If they’re perfectly fine with Jimism, tough luck.

                • Accelerating the leftist singularity may or may not be good, but that is neither the objective of NRx nor its praxis.

                  While I’m keeping an open mind with regard to the possibility and desirability of a Trump coup as described by Jim, my default position is that the USG is an entity of pure evil which has to disappear if sanity is to prevail. Acceleration is a good idea towards that end. I interpreted “Become worthy, then rule” right out of the gate to mean “become antifragile to SHTF, then rule”. Maybe I’m wrong in this regard.

                  Presumably, you self-identify as a White Nationalist.

                  Not really. One of the luxuries of being European is that you have an actual nation to belong to, so I don’t even have to think of myself as “white”.

                  You seem to be fixated with ordinary Jews using crypsis to harm white society, but are you sure that ordinary Jews — in contrast to Prominent Leftist Jews — actually harm white society?

                  Not really. Lenny from my example is a Paul Wolfowitz/Rod Rosenstein type sleazebag who’s more dangerous than say, a white Cathedral leftist due to the unique Jewish psychological and behavioral profile.

                  We agree that these so-called Jews are either larping as mainline Protestants or actual mainline Protestants, so… we should totally call them out for having Jewish ancestry because it will make the Cathedral suspicious!”

                  Reminding LARPers of who they really are is a good way of disrupting their RP. Make Lenny feel like a Jew and he might go further left or choose to defect from the Cathedral and convert to Judaism.

                  And there, once again, is the bailey. We’ve gone from “Israel might have had some minor influence in the Iraq war” to “Everyone with Jewish heritage living in the USA needs to convert to Orthodox Judaism and move to Israel”. If they’re perfectly fine with Jimism, tough luck.

                  The first is a truth claim (it is), the second a prescriptive statement (we should). They’re not mutually exclusive, nor related to each other and the second is not a moderated version of the first.

                  Yeah, that, or they were reminded of the kind of people who are obsessed with discovering and branding Jews, including half- and quarter-Jews, attaching racial signifiers to everything they do, and periodically sending them pictures of ovens and showers. You know, the kind of people whom their organization fought a major war against and won.

                  May I direct you to read “Technology, Communism and the Brown Scare” by a certain gentleman called Mencius Moldbug (actually a Jew, but don’t tell anyone). It would appear that regardless of the activities of Nazis, real or imagined, the Cathedral is going to burn Hitler in effigy as part of its hierophanic mysteries. Hence the ‘nudda shoah’ of memetic lore.

                  Do you really not get that the Cathedral is highly adapted toward this style of activism? It does absolutely nothing to put reactionaries in power, because it will get painted as low-status behavior and generally is the behavior of low-status proles;

                  Not in the current system. Under my interpretation of “Become worthy, then rule”, which is “become antifragile to SHTF, then rule”, it doesn’t really matter whether the Cathedral considers me and my prole friends high or low status. We are willing to accept a low place in society for the duration of the Cathedral’s remaining life (my estimation, until 2024). When the Cathedral goes, me and my low status proles suddenly have bargaining power through our superior asabiyyah, which is partially generated through negative ethnocentrism (scapegoating outsiders).
                  Besides, you can dodge the most punishing aspect of low status, which is the circumscription of access to high-quality sexual partners by imbibing the lore of Heartiste, Jim, Aidan MacLear et al and becoming the local alpha or someone close to him.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I interpreted “Become worthy, then rule” right out of the gate to mean “become antifragile to SHTF, then rule”. Maybe I’m wrong in this regard.

                  Antifragility is a nonsense idea popularized mainly by NN Taleb. His original intended application was to financial markets, which idea was BTFO by smarter guys who pointed out, bluntly, that his strategy amounted to buying the volatility index, which would have terrible returns over almost any historical window, to which he replied with some embarrassing handwaving about profits already being priced into that index (but not other indices, somehow), to which the smarter guys explained that he had then pivoted to arbitrage, which most traders wouldn’t have the resources to do even if they could find such opportunities, which they generally can’t.

                  Then either he or his followers, apparently realizing that this concept was never going to gain traction in the financial community because it sucked, decided it was better as some sort of rhetorical device, which depending on who you ask and the context in which they’re using it can mean any of the following: robustness, redundancy, defensibility, financial independence, territorial independence, diversification, and probably a dozen or so other ideas, none of which have anything to do with Taleb’s original theory.

                  So no, “worthy” is not “antifragile”, not only because “antifragile” is rhetorical nonsense, but also because “worthiness” doesn’t mean any of the things that antifragile is normally employed to mean, and it’s hard to imagine such a grave misinterpretation of Moldbug and NRx ideas happening accidentally.

                  Worthiness is Jim’s “memetic sovereignty”. It’s being free of Cathedral ideas – not free of Cathedral influence, because no one can be completely free of Cathedral influence until the Reaction actually happens. It is, to a limited extent, putting those ideas into practice, as with Game and Mannerbunds and so on, as proof of capability to rule.

                  What worthiness is definitely not is engaging in activist activities against the Cathedral. NRx is very explicitly passivist. You imply seizing power rather than merely accepting it, and suspiciously leave out the formal step of relinquishing it.

                  Not really. Lenny from my example is a Paul Wolfowitz/Rod Rosenstein type sleazebag who’s more dangerous than say, a white Cathedral leftist due to the unique Jewish psychological and behavioral profile.

                  Motte and bailey again. You just can’t help yourself. You said:

                  After this discussion, I’m willing to entertain the idea that the panic over the triple parenthesis meme came not from Jews being found out for being Jews, but being reminded that they are Jews and that they can’t really stop being Jews while they are trying to LARP as anational atheists. Reminding Lenny of his cousin Schlomo with the curls cramps Lenny’s style.

                  Thus casting Lenny as a typical secular Jew, essentially any ethnic Jew who doesn’t practice Judaism. Lenny is not the category of “ethnically-Jewish blue-check sleazebag”, because that not only contradicts your previously-stated position, it’s a subcategory that we don’t agree exists or is relevant as a subcategory of simply “blue-check sleazebag”. This is both motte and bailey, and arguing from fake consensus.

                  Reminding LARPers of who they really are is a good way of disrupting their RP.

                  They aren’t larping. You’re the one referring to it as larping, and I think it’s acceptable as a rhetorical device, but you can’t make valid logical inferences from rhetorical devices. You aren’t disrupting anything; they know they’re ethnically Jewish, and they know they’re progressives, and incessantly pointing out the former doesn’t scare them, it just paints you and anyone foolish enough to hang out with you as a target.

                  It would appear that regardless of the activities of Nazis, real or imagined, the Cathedral is going to burn Hitler in effigy as part of its hierophanic mysteries.

                  Correct, which Moldbug and Jim use to mean that you should never accept the progressive frame, and which wignats take to mean you should straight-up adorn yourself in swastikas and spend every waking second Naming the Jew. See the difference?

                  When the Cathedral goes, me and my low status proles suddenly have bargaining power through our superior asabiyyah, which is partially generated through negative ethnocentrism (scapegoating outsiders).

                  This is trying to cloak wignattery in the verbiage of reaction. Reactionaries are already high status, which is why the media avoids giving them any attention. Coups are elite against elite. Revolutions are proles against elite, and are inherently left-shifting.

                  Post-reaction, most proles are still going to be proles, but they’ll be able to have social lives like proles did in the 1800s, with stable families and safe streets in addition to modern technology. That is what Reaction offers to proles, and it’s all Reaction can offer to proles, because if it offers actual status in the priesthood in exchange for political support, then it’s no longer Reaction, it’s Leninism.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Post-reaction, most proles are still going to be proles, but they’ll be able to have social lives like proles did in the 1800s, with stable families and safe streets in addition to modern technology. That is what Reaction offers to proles, and it’s all Reaction can offer to proles, because if it offers actual status in the priesthood in exchange for political support, then it’s no longer Reaction, it’s Leninism.

                  Proles who side with us if it comes to war… will likely also get a share of the property of leftists who become part of the Final Solution to the Leftist Problem. It will be a huge mistake to NOT eliminate all the leftists if we get a chance to do so.

                • “ethnically-jewish blue check sleaze bag” … it’s a subcategory that we don’t agree exists or is relevant as a subcategory of simply “blue-check sleazebag”

                  If we identify “blue check sleazebags” as a coherent, cohesive group who are our enemies, we should use every opportunity to disrupt their cohesion. Think of it as negative asabiyyah psych ops. In the past 3 years, we’ve seen a typically neurotic response to the triple parenthesis thing. More neurosis = cathedral makes more exploitable mistakes. You can call it active activism, but I’m liable to shitpost on twitter regardless.

                  As for antifragility, I can only say that I read NN Taleb’s Antifragile cover to cover and from my understanding, antifragility is not robustness or defensibility, whereas redundancy, financial independence, territorial independence, diversification etc. are aspects of antifragility. An antifragile thing has little to lose and much to gain from uncertainty, stress and chaos – eg. Reaction is antifragile to SHTF, the Cathedral isn’t. The Amish are antifragile to SHTF, Coca Cola isn’t. Similarly, the broader alt-lite proved itself fragile to Charlottesville and the resultant Cathedral response as a stress (completely routed), the wignats were robust (followers intransigent) while NRx antifragile (Cathedral showed its hand, center collapsed, more people got it).
                  If the concept is unclear, I’m willing to give Taleb and his crew the benefit of the doubt and give it time to become clearer. Logically, I’d expect that there are things that gain from disorder. I can’t address the objections from finance because I’m not a finance guy.

                  What worthiness is definitely not is engaging in activist activities against the Cathedral. NRx is very explicitly passivist. You imply seizing power rather than merely accepting it, and suspiciously leave out the formal step of relinquishing it.

                  I imply first SHTF, then (and only then) homesteading the resulting chaos, in the case that Jim is wrong about a Trump self-coup. But I get it, you don’t understand or accept antifragility. And any prole who serves in my peaceful and nonviolent männerbund whose primary and formal purposes are physical self-improvement and field trips in nature will get that which is his right – a chance to marry an obedient virgin wife and full dominion over her, a chance to honestly build a home and be useful to his sovereign, and a chance to have children and grandchildren. I don’t mention relinquishing power because I’m a monarchist and a traditionalist and not a neocameralist (Moldbug goofed big time on that one). If indeed SHTF and I successfully homestead part of the chaos, then I intend to be king, or at the very least marquis, as my great-great-grandfather once was.

                  Reactionaries are already high status,

                  I think we’re gonna have to define high status before we proceed here, friend, and also establish whether status under USG is the same thing as status under Reaction.

                  Regarding the whole motte and bailey Jew stuff, I’m officially and formally backing away from that argument. Nothing more to be gained, no truths to be reached, until we can agree what constitutes a Jew, and the various degrees of jewiness in secular, shitlib and orthodox Jews. My frame of thinking is always first and foremost biological, looking for survival behaviors as exhibited by various peoples. However, if your conception of Kevin MacDonald’s theories is “honky Farrakhan”, yeah, I guess we can’t agree on Jews and their behavior.

        • jim says:

          They are not purging Jews as Jews, just as the commies generally did not murder Jews as Jews. But they are implementing criteria for sufficient holiness that are increasingly difficult for a Jew who thinks of himself as Jewish to fulfill. Similarly, the Khmer Rouge did not think of themselves as murdering everyone with glasses, but anyone who wore glasses tended to get murdered.

          • Rollory says:

            And yet a lot of the people implementing those criteria happen to be Jewish, and Jewishness is disproportionately overrepresented among groups and social movements tending toward the corruption and dissolution of healthy society, while being disproportionately underrepresented among those attempting to resist those trends.

            Is this an opportunistic infection? A correlation with some other underlying cause?

            Really, if they’d just stop trying to tell me what I am or am not allowed to think and say, and stop trying to redefine everything to be all about them, I’d stop caring about them. As long as they keep doing those things – which they really should stop doing, today, this instant – I’m not going to lift a finger to stop the swastikas, and I’m not going to take any anti-anti-semite arguments particularly seriously. Even if it’s just a surface problem and not an underlying cause, clearing it out of the way will clarify matters.

            • Not Tom says:

              Ancestrally-Jewish elite are, by your own admission, advancing ideas and enacting policies that run counter to ethnically-Jewish interests; and by virtue of this, you’ve arrived at the conclusion that the problem is Jews.

              This makes exactly as much sense as “White Privilege” and “White Supremacy” being the reason why WASP elites are continually acting against the interests of white gentiles. If only we could put the browns in power once and for all, both Jews and white gentiles would reap the benefits!

              • Rollory says:

                “Ancestrally-Jewish elite are, by your own admission, advancing ideas and enacting policies that run counter to ethnically-Jewish interests;”

                I said no such thing. You are a dishonest liar; thank you for self-identifying.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  You wrote:

                  Jewishness is disproportionately overrepresented among groups and social movements tending toward the corruption and dissolution of healthy society, while being disproportionately underrepresented among those attempting to resist those trends.

                  Are Jews not embedded within said society? When the oxygen we all breathe gets thoroughly pozzed, don’t Jews asphyxiate on it just as much as goyim? When leftism is high-status, are Jews not quite susceptible indeed to embracing it – and, evidently, ending up with below replacement level TFR?

                  Even if leftism were 100% Judaic in origin, it’s hardly deniable that the elite Jews have drunk their own kool aid, got high on their own supply. This is, moreover, implicit in all “the parasite undermines its host” arguments, because it is not in the interests of the parasite to bleed its host’s veins dry, and in this case, there’s not even a sharp demarcation between the “parasite” and the “host” – Jews have assimilated into the WASP elite, and have intermarried into it.

                  So, yeah, leftist Jews are undermining their own ethnic interests, and you are perfectly cognizant of that.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Your words:

                  And yet a lot of the people implementing those criteria happen to be Jewish

                  “those criteria” being criteria Jim had just previously identified as being hostile, whether intentional or not, to Jews. That’s the precise contextual meaning of “those criteria” here. It’s not in any way ambiguous.

                  You don’t get to call other people liars for quoting you accurately. Either you’re a shill, or can’t sort out your own ideas.

                • jim says:

                  That is exactly what you said. You don’t get to call people liars when you shift your position, your shift gets called out, and you want to shift back.

                  You are engaging in Motte and Bailey argument shifting, and were called out for retreating to the Motte. And, having retreated to the Motte, you now call someone a liar for calling out your retreat to the Motte and your attempt to re-occupy the Bailey.

                  The Motte being that Jews have some influence and pursue their individual interests, and the Bailey being that Jews rule, and Jews are one entity.

                  Motte and bailey (MAB) is a combination of bait-and-switch and equivocation in which someone switches between a “motte” (an easy-to-defend and often common-sense statement, such as “Jews are overrepresented in positions of influence”) and a “bailey” (Zionist Occupation Government) in order to defend a viewpoint. Someone will argue the easy-to-defend position (motte) temporarily, to ward off critics, while the less-defensible position (bailey) remains the desired belief, yet is never actually defended.

                  In short: instead of defending a weak position (the “bailey”), the arguer retreats to a strong position (the “motte”), while acting as though the positions are equivalent. When the motte has been accepted (or found impenetrable) by an opponent, the arguer continues to believe (and perhaps promote) the bailey.

                  You are a liar for disowning your own position.

                • Rollory says:

                  There is no fucking way that is what I said.

                  I remarked on an observable characteristic regarding Jewish activity, asked a question regarding how it might be reconciled with your claim, and noted my own behavior in response to that observable characteristic. Not Tom promptly aggressively jumped on that, declared I said something that I did not, and ran off in a direction that had nothing to do with my question. There’s a lot more I could say about his behavior but the plain facts are evident to a disinterested observer. At no point have I or will I retreat from the plain statements in my original comment. Nothing in what Not Tom has said relates to what I wrote in plain English.

                  If you want to make yourself part of that circus of dishonesty, that is entirely your problem.

                • jim says:

                  > There is no fucking way that is what I said.

                  Liar.

                  What you said is slippery, evasive, and shifting, which is the essence of Motte and Bailey. When the Bailey comes under attack, you retreat to the Motte and say you never were in the Bailey. In the next comment, you ignore your interlocutors previous attack on the Bailey, reoccupy the Bailey, and deny ever retreating from the Bailey.

                  So in one comment, you complain that we lie when we attribute the Bailey position to you, and in your next comment you complain that we lie when we attribute the Motte position to you.

  3. Friendly Fred says:

    Warrior-type rulers are very likely to be brutal, impulsively cruel people but are preferable to priest-type rulers because they aren’t inclined to fill the social atmosphere with rainbow-flag-type bullshit?

    If you’re an ordinary guy you might unexpectedly have your life smashed to pieces or slowly sucked away (by unpayable taxes as during the late Roman Empire) by a warrior-type ruler because he wants your stuff, but on the other hand you can reasonably expect to get and stay married?

    • Gilberto Carlos says:

      A Warrior-king needs his band of warriors.
      He can’t go around killing warriors just because he thinks it’s fun, otherwise, his warriors may sense their impending doom and he loses his warriors or gains a few stabs.

      A Priest-king however, can send his warrior to die, and can always convince his warriors that their death is good, and those other guys are sinners who deserve to die.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        The warrior-king’s warriors might abuse ordinary people for fun, though — although maybe this would be the exception rather than the rule.

        It’s abuse by the Mafia (warriors) vs. abuse by Human Resources (priests) I guess. Maybe the former tends to be extreme but rare, the latter a constant low-level humiliation.

        (What’s gotten me worrying about potential warrior-abusiveness to ordinary people is reading the first 70 pages of the Autobiography of Solomon Maimon, who describes growing up in 18th Century Poland and everyone’s terror when Prince Radziwill decides to take one of his drunken excursions through his domains.)

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          It happened in England as well during the middle ages. My understanding is having underlings beat up commoners is more a case of the center being too weak to police its subordinates (since the crown prefers people give it money).

          You do get dickishness from monarchs, but it is usually not personal. More having soldiers go into churches and smash collection boxes to get money. Or sell peasants into slavery to get money. Or loot and plunder to get money.

          • Bob says:

            My understanding of freehold is shallow. I like one king 3k miles away instead of 3k kings right here. But what about all the lords in between? The king doesn’t have time to make my life hard, neither does the duke, but the local baron might and probably the local knights too. Maybe it’s still better than 3k kings close by, but I wonder if there’s any way around it.

          • The Cominator says:

            Lords and knights rarely brutalized their OWN commoners. Brutalizing your own commoners unless they are rebelling is just stupid… but during wars and civil wars it of course would happen on other peoples land.

            • Mike says:

              Just make sure all free men have the right to be armed. Also make hand-to-hand combat and other basic combat skills a mandatory part of a boy’s education. Some idiot aristocrat will think twice about arbitrarily brutalizing some rando if there is the fear in the back of his head mr normie might bash his teeth in instead.

              Of course, all men would have the right to defend their person and property. I think that’s what’s meant by freehold right? I don’t come here that often so forgive me if I misunderstood something.

            • Qumielhan says:

              Not true. The same Radziwill princely family was infamous for leasing their holdings over to literel Jews, who proceeded to Jew the shit out of peasants. The peasants would rebel against being robbed and exploited, inevitably starting a small local Shoah, and inevitably the big R would ride himself with his princely retinue and proceed to kill, maim and torture his human resources by impalement, dismemberment and… eh… how is it called in English when you impale a man on a hook and leave him there to die for several days? In-hook-ment?
              For the insufferable crime of refusing to pay arbitrary extortionist taxes to literal aliens because the big dude in a funny coat 300km away leased you.
              This happened like every decade.

              Fuck barons and princes. I’d rather have a couple thousand kings in 3km radius so long as I get my hands on some fireworks too. Each a king in his domain.

              • The Cominator says:

                I don’t want a literal hereditary aristocracy either but the slave state of renaissance Poland is hardly a good example of a functioning one.

                England prior to the Victorian era and Prussia were better functioning warrior ruled societies.

                • Bob says:

                  I hope someone knows (with at least a semblance of a bibliography) how Poland got a slave state and England didn’t.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I only know that is how things developed in Poland, Hungary and Russia but no I’m not quite sure why in detail the tendency was for the peasants to lose all of their customary rights and become slaves in all but name.

                • calov says:

                  Because in the east there weren’t enough peasants to work the land so it became necessary to keep them from moving around. Or so I’ve read.

              • Friendly Fred says:

                Qumielhan, wouldn’t that have been the situation no matter who was leasing and then subletting the land? This scenario seems to support a general wariness about rule-by-landowners (regardless of whether or not these were originally warriors).

                I think that Maimon more or less says what you say about the situation there, by the way; he’s not being untruthful, as far as I can tell. He finds the whole situation repulsive. I guess he’s a typical pro-bourgeois enlightenment guy, politically.

                Peasants were getting taxed into homelessness all over the Roman Empire — in Gaul homeless peasants aggregated into robber-armies called “Baugadae” or something like that, which were wiped out when the authorities got around to it, kind of like the Polish situation you describe, so it seems to be a general problem.

                I’m inclined to think that history is just a horrorshow. Rule by pettifogging non-ideological lawyers may be the best that can be hoped for. Make Politics Boring Again. (I’m thinking of 18th Century Britain — and dissenting, somewhat ignorantly — merely on the basis of the picture presented by a few novels — from the view, expressed by Cominator immediately below, that this was a “warror ruled” society.)

            • Mike in Boston says:

              Lords and knights rarely brutalized their OWN commoners. Brutalizing your own commoners unless they are rebelling is just stupid

              Maybe that was true in some places, but (just as the example I am most familiar with) periods of the history of Galicia were basically this, all the time. The szlachta’s argument, I suppose, might have been that absent said brutalization, the commoners were liable to revolt; give them an inch, and they’ll take a mile.

              Another reason to brutalize commoners is, of course, that it’s good fun and though the other nobles might cluck disapprovingly, they won’t do anything about it until, like the countess Bathory, you start chopping up the odd noble as well.

              Friendly Fred’s objection should not be dismissed. I never found Moldbug’s Fnargl convincing. Maybe, as another Mike suggests below, the key distinction is whether the commoners are armed.

        • The warrior-king’s warriors -are- the ordinary people. Imagine a Mafia where all the local business owners are part of the mob, and all the employees at those businesses are potential knee-breaking talent.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Overproduction of warriors results in invading other countries to give the warriors work. Overproduction of priests results in priests invading other occupations to give the priests work.

      Warriors will smash your stuff if they are mobile bandits (late roman empire, emperors had a short life span so not worth bothering about the long term). They can still screw over people for shits and giggles but historically the amount of damage they do isn’t too high (since otherwise they get invaded and conquered by other warriors).

      Also, priests can be impulsive and cruel but the tend to outsource the murder and bloodshed instead of lead by example. This is not an improvement.

    • Javier says:

      Genghis Khan crushed his enemies mercilessly but also promoted based on merit over birthright, and his empire was so safe you could walk from end to end without fear of bandits.

      • vxxc says:

        Exactly. The Mongols bought order.
        So did Tamerlane.

        So did the Romans.
        Our problem is chaos.
        Order is our solution.

        • Friendly Fred says:

          But 18th century Massachusetts and England were very orderly and not especially warlord-ish. Don’t we want things to be like that, plus dentistry?

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Order is imposed by force. A good warrior takes his share so that his share is the most he can possibly get, and encourages growth that his share might also grow. The Laffer maximum of taxation, his blessings on those that are loyal and his wrath on those who are not. A warrior has to deal with the world as it is, not how he would like it to be. A priest can invent all sorts of mad rationalizations to ignore reality. The natural law is that man is ruled by warriors who receive their power and authority from God.

            As Jim says, if God literally declared Man was to be ruled by Kings then that is why it was written, but if the prescription was written by those seeking the understanding of the natural law in guise of God, then still Kings rule Man. Jesus Christ, the messiah and the ruler of all mankind is the King of Kings, not the Priest of Priests or the Rabbi of Rabbis. The ancient and wise men wrote that because that is what they could see.

            In addition, those advances in medicine and technology were largely driven by the excess children of the warrior elite finding other ways to retain their status. If you want those things, you need to incentivise a system where those types reproduce.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            18th Century New England was also fraught with Indian Wars in the West and holiness spirals in the East. Every time some punk priest would show up and decide the resonant evil was too high, there would be clerical purges and forced mass exoduses.

            In short, some of “us” may want that type of order, but i certainly don’t want to be a part of a society that is susceptible to random purity events like OK deals with tornadoes.

            • Vxxc says:

              New England had 3 wars with French/Indians in 17th-18th century;
              King Williams War
              Queen Anne’s War
              French Indian wars

              Plus Pontiacs war 1763.

              Don’t forget (Indian) King Philips War 1675-76 that laid waste half of New England.

              Plus many Indian skirmishes- not too dissimilar with what we’ve been going through with Diversity, Jihad.
              Yes we’ve been here before.
              New England made this SAME mistake before and didn’t learn until King Philips war about coexist.
              Yes.
              Note we’re still here.

              King Philips war BTW was like 9/11 x 91 BTW.
              Hopefully it won’t take as much.
              If it does we’ll make it.
              But will we learn?
              Learning requires Pozzed Prog Priesthood be replaced.
              (Cough cue new priests cough cough).

          • Javier says:

            That was also a society where men were expected to go armed at all times and duels to the death were common.

    • The Cominator says:

      Remember the previous conversations on bullies. Remember how actual school elite alpha chads generally had exactly zero interests in bullying people and when they actually had chance to interact with people of lesser status they would normally be pretty nice. The only people who normally got bullied by them were people who just joined the football team who would get hazed to see if they could hack it.

      So why would warrior type rulers in general bully their own subjects, especially why would they bully them in peacetime? If we presume warrior type rulers to think and act a lot like school alpha jocks they will do zero bullying of people outside their own caste and horrifically haze people who decide to take OCS…

      When your status is way above people beating them into the ground for no reason is not going to make you look better to anyone. It definitely does not make you look better among Anglo and related peoples.

      Now feudal countries with a lot of intercine wars (which is NOT my model of warrior rule that is more an example of when warrior rule breaks down) had a lot of brutalization of other people’s peasants.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Strong agree at the end; it is the breakdown of the Warrior Code that leads to the brutalization of civilian populations. Those football chads you speak of were perfectly capable of brutality; it was the rigorous control and guidance exerted by the coaching staff that forged the chad identity fags fear and love.

        IME it was all the guys who went out for freshman football that got cut or gave up who became the most recalcitrant brutalizers after highschool. There is a lesson in there, and one that doesn’t just apply to the Warrior Class. What to do in those cases where we take in promising candidates, train them up, then either have to cut them or they lose their faith? Historically, it is always members of the Upper Class that inspire the downfall of said class. This was leftwardly formalized as the “vanguard” of the proletariat who were, in practice, rarely if ever members of the proletariat. The Koanics and CRs of the world are a grave threat to order, but i think this may be a “post-” problem. Still, it may be worth considering…

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Remember the previous conversations on bullies. Remember how actual school elite alpha chads generally had exactly zero interests in bullying people and when they actually had chance to interact with people of lesser status they would normally be pretty nice. The only people who normally got bullied by them were people who just joined the football team who would get hazed to see if they could hack it.

        I didn’t see that discussion, but it seems fairly clear to me that bullying is just the social hierarchy sorting itself out right when puberty hits and mating opportunities need to be decided. However, the modern version is enacted in an unnatural lord-of-the-flies/prison environment (among other things), which is probably bad.

        (And once that is over and done with, we get to hear the weaklings at the bottom ranting endlessly about it for the rest of their lives.)

      • Yeah, any commenter who actually hangs out with real guys in real life knows that people who like brutalizing others for fun get excluded from the male hierarchy if not relentlessly bullied. If gaining status requires participation in the male hierarchy, you don’t get many sadists in power.

        “Bullying” at early ages is about sorting out the hierarchy, and once the hierarchy is solidified around high school or so, bullying stops.

        • The Cominator says:

          Even in middle school when bullying is at its height the top chads at the time don’t do it.

          Hope this comment goes through… I’ve made a lot of replies to another post and they keep not going through.

      • 2019 is boring says:

        To all who missed it, the epic post and subsequent awesome conversation about bullying was here.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Thanks for linking direct. It really was a stellar thread. Feel like someone should screencap it and post it on /fit/.

        • Anonymous 2 says:

          Good thread, I certainly agree that homosexuals are social poison and need to be bullied out of it.

          Come to think of it, is there any society prior to ours which has gone as far downhill as ours in this respect? “Pride month”, etc. They are certainly pushing our faces in it. Revolutionary Russia under Lenin had the same tendencies but as far as I know that stopped at slutting up women.

    • Not Tom says:

      Warrior-type rulers are very likely to be brutal, impulsively cruel people

      Not really. Do you know people in your life who are impulsively cruel? Do they tend to be fit, confident, and successful with women? Or do they tend to be losers themselves?

      When you think of the phrase “likely to torture small animals”, does the image in your mind come up as chad warrior alpha… or pimply-faced unhygienic nerdraging basement-dwelling omega?

      What kind of person do we generally see shooting up schools or offices?

      Warriors don’t get to be clan leaders by being brutal and cruel to their own clan. At least not outside of Africa. Brutal and cruel – deliberately, not impulsively – to people who threaten the clan, absolutely.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        You’ve encapsulated a lot of my reaction to Other Fred’s post. It rubbed me wrong. This idea of a consensus that warriors by nature are bullies. It doesn’t jive with my anecdotal experience of Warrior types. They tend to be Sheep Dogs; brutal in response, but compassionate in motivation. I typed this in another comment, but bullies are the guys cut from the squad, not the leaders of the squad. The only reason one would call the captain of the sportsball team a bully is because they secretly want to fuck them over, or get buttfucked by them. Bullies are losers seeking agency in a different crowd than the one they were naturally assigned to.

        • Not Tom says:

          I would even take it one step further and argue that bullying and being a bully are not the same thing in substance, just as writing is not being a writer and playing field football is not being a football player.

          Chads/warriors may bully – strategically and in the interests of group cohesion. On the other hand, “a bully” is someone who does so compulsively, or even pathologically. That still may ultimately produce a social good, as I’ve argued before – but separately from that, warrior chiefs are not bullies, they may simply occasionally perform the same function.

          Post-rectification of names, bully/bullying may be declared an anti-concept, as it’s used simultaneously to mean tough love, social norming, status maximizing, establishing hierarchy and pointless sociopathic cruelty. Most of those things are pro-social.

        • Vxxc says:

          Yes. The exact model now is sheep dog.
          That’s taught.
          That’s memed.

          We’re sheep dogs (cops more than soldiers).
          We protect the herd.
          From enemies (wolves).

          Yes we must guard against inner wolf.
          But that’s not our problem. Our actual problem isn’t even the wolves.
          It’s The Judas Goat Priesthood.

          https://www.google.com/search?q=sheep+dogs,+sheep+and+wolves+meme&rlz=1CDGOYI_enUS810US810&hl=en-US&prmd=ivn&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjDp9HZiY7jAhWIbs0KHbrGAi4Q_AUoAXoECA0QAQ&biw=320&bih=526&dpr=2#imgrc=l1ZpqNK-svqfuM

          *I have some issues with this as we’re primates but I’ve learned it sounds pedantic so I’ve learned to nod at it. Good of the group, etc.

      • info says:

        Those who torture small animals should be preemptively watched and shot should they consider violent crime. Rids us of serial killers.

        • The Cominator says:

          Why bother watching them just kill them.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Meh. I used to feel this way. Then i traveled to a region that wasn’t soft and suburban. Excessive cruelty is one thing, but anthropomorphizing animals is pure lefty BS. Granola crowd is more concerned about rescuing pitbulls than it is about human babies. There is a difference between agrarian life and Ed Kemper, to be sure, but that distinction is lost on people who have never slaughtered their food.

          • 2019 is boring says:

            anthropomorphizing animals is pure lefty BS. Granola crowd is more concerned about rescuing pitbulls than it is about human babies.

            Exactly so.

            Torturing furry mammals (dogs, cats, foxes, squirrels, rabbits, gerbils, hamsters, etc.) is indeed the domain of unsavory characters, but torturing insects and bugs to death using ever more creative techniques is helluva fun, and as for birds, well, pigeons — while they should not be outright tortured — definitely deserve to have their stupid gay-ass invasive nests destroyed and scattered to the winds, and shooting chickens with air rifles is lulzy as fuck.

            Cockadoodl… *puff*

            Leftists hate hunting and even fishing, because they are cat ladies in male forms (or actual cat ladies) who are allergic to anything reminiscent of testosterone. I don’t particularly mind legislation against needlessly torturing furry mammals — slaying pitbulls in a great magnificent pitbullcide is not, to be clear, needless torture: they deserve death just as surely as Feminist sluts deserve rape — but I should be allowed to shoot wandering chickens for no reason other than my own amusement.

            “Animals” is really the wrong word. It is natural to feel empathy for entities that have been evolutionarily molded to arouse one’s mammalian nurture instincts; seeing them suffer should, under normal circumstances, trigger one’s mirror neurons and amygdalae and sheeeit. Thus, people who torture puppies and kittens and bunnies are probably capable of greater monstrosities. In contrast, it is not natural to feel empathy for food, and even less natural to feel empathy for disturbing and disgusting creatures such as insects.

            About reptiles, I am lukewarm. It’s more of a practical thing: the dangerous ones should be killed swiftly, the non-dangerous should just be relocated far away from humans.

            You’d much rather that your son play with setting ants on fire just to watch them burn than that he play with dolls.

            • Zach says:

              Japan had a cool TV show. It was more or less an insect no holds barred tournament. I was amused. On YouTube somewhere…

            • Feed pit bull mommies and feminists to pit bulls. Livestream the feeding frenzies online for profit.

              Thots will think twice about thotting if pit bull feeding frenzies are an acceptable and public means of thot patrol.

              • Not Tom says:

                What are you talking about?
                1. This has nothing to do with the conversation.
                2. Pit bulls need to be exterminated, not glorified in public spectacles.
                3. Women don’t have special receptors for ironic punishments. Their fathers and husbands can punish them just fine, without killing them.
                4. This is exactly the kind of low-status grotesquerie that makes wignats low-status; unnecessary, gratuitous Africa-tier violence.

                • Nicholas R. Jeelvy says:

                  Why are you affirming the Cathedral’s ideas on status? Gratuitous violence is FUN to watch and practice and I’m not gonna shoehorn my aesthetic sensibilities into some Harvard faggot’s idea of what propriety and high status are.

                • Nicholas R. Jeelvy says:

                  And furthermore, why should pitbulls be exterminated? Dogs are either tools or weapons (individual dogs are sometimes friends) and as such morally neutral. I’m pretty sure that pit bulls will have a function as weapons of war in the hands of state and private actors even in Reactionary America. The key problem here is female “ownership” of dogs. Some breeds are annoying, ill-behaved and yappy when “owned” by females, others are downright dangerous but the core problem is that women are not fit to own and control the behavior of animals, especially quasi-military animals such as pit bulls and Rottweilers. This makes the pit bull question a subset of the woman question which requires a woman question solution.
                  A chimp with a machine gun is a serious danger, but the problem isn’t the existence of the machine gun – rather, the out-of-control chimp and the society which allows it to brandish machine guns.

                • Not Tom says:

                  And furthermore, why should pitbulls be exterminated?

                  Because they’re stupid and violent. Smart and rationally violent is fine, stupid and compulsively violent should live somewhere else. It applies to humans and it applies to dogs.

                  Female ownership of anything is obviously a problem, but don’t extrapolate from “pit bulls” to “all dogs” and tell us that we are the ones adopting Cathedral ideas.

                • Not “you” as in Jim and his commenters, friend, but YOU, as in Not Tom. Also, I find it amusing that you believe that ‘rationally violent’ is in any way meaningfully distinguishable from ‘irrationally violent’ at the biological level. Even if there is such a distinction, it is better to have someone who relishes violence at the helm, rather than some grass-eater who cannot kill his own food.

                • shaman says:

                  Pitbulls are often owned by thugs, baboons, and other low-trust characters. One can say that literal pitbulls tend to belong to metaphorical ones. They absolutely deserve extermination, and so do their owners.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Not “you” as in Jim and his commenters, friend, but YOU, as in Not Tom

                  Good try on the Personalize and Polarize. Didn’t quite work out for you, did it? That’s because unlike you, I don’t claim to speak for others unless they’ve already made their opinions clear.

                  Like a typical wignat, you glorify violence for its own sake. That is not the reactionary position. Violence is a mechanism, not a goal.

                • quarty says:

                  > My frame of thinking is always first and foremost biological, looking for survival behaviors

                  If it was, you would know what irrational violence means wrt game theory and mammal psychology. Pit bulls are designed to exploit the advantage to be had when a fight is inevitable by attacking first and without warning, so when babby pulls pit bull’s tail, pit bull bites babby’s face off.

          • info says:

            I had in mind puppies and kittens. Rather than ants and lizards.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        I agree with your general psychological point, ~Tom.

        I think that I acknowledged above that impulsive cruelty probably wasn’t normal — cases of it are recorded precisely because of its shock-value, as with horror-crime-stories in the news today.

        Still, I’m not sure that rule-by-warriors is the thing to aspire to (nor I am sure that it isn’t the thing to aspire to) — for, isn’t the following train of thought generally correct?:

        Warrior-rule was established when barbarian invaders seized land and divided it up among themselves; their land-owning descendants aren’t necessarily warrior-type people at all. So everything’s carnage and chaos when the original warlike people are running things, and then when things settle down you don’t have really have rule by warriors any more. Just rule by landlords, who may or may not be decent people. Then I guess the king tries establish control over the landlords by instituting a system of laws, and after a while you have rule by pettifogging lawyers, and then people start having and creating nice things.

        • Not Tom says:

          That’s still rule by warriors. Order requires uncontested control over land and resources; property can only be secured by force or the threat of force.

          But warriors are too few in number and too unskilled at micromanagement to maintain order themselves; they need priests for that. The difference between “carnage and chaos” tribal Africa warrior-rule and “cradle of civilization” Greco-Roman warrior rule is the priesthood.

          Rule by pettifogging lawyers implies overproduction of priests, or priestly rule. At that point, the weight of the system retards innovation. That is why warriors must ultimately rule the priesthood: to enforce limited entry (no overproduction) and discourage holiness competition.

          “Rule by landlords” is more or less the optimal phase, except the landlords are actually warriors securing their land, not merchants. Merchants lease the land in exchange for the security provided by warriors, security being a necessary but not sufficient condition for trade and innovation (also need order, provided by priests).

          • Friendly Fred says:

            That makes sense.

            In TOM JONES (mid 18th Century), Squire Weston’s in charge of his county or whatever it’s called; he’s a decent guy who acts as “Justice of the Peace” — sometimes, though the lawyer who works for him has to say, “No, you’re not allowed to do that,” and the Squire says, “Oh … all right, then I won’t.”

            But in BLEAK HOUSE (mid 19th Century), of course, the lawyers are completely out of control.

            • Cordell says:

              The author of Tom Jones was himself a justice of the peace, and so the portayal of the scrupulous Squire Western isn’t surprising. One hopes it was accurate.

    • >Warrior-type rulers are very likely to be brutal, impulsively cruel people

      WTF no. Caesar, Pinochet or Franco used some calculated cruelty, but were by no means monsters. Remember the story of Caesar and the pirates? For a fictional account of how ideal warrior rule looks like, I recommend Jerry Pournelle’s Falkenberg-series.

      The Mafia were a bunch of dumb peasants from the most backwards ass end of Italy, hence clannish, not individualistic, and they had a good run in America because Anglo policemen had no idea how to deal with criminals who are clannish, not individualistic, and thus will not betray each other. Who simply don’t do Prisoner’s Dilemmas, partially because the occasional one who would be willing is sleeping with the fish. This combination of clannish criminals vs. individualistic policemen is a stupidly effective trick on the side of criminals, but other than that, they were just dumb peasants who would have been crushed in every other situation and definitely not warrior level men.

      • >implying italians were dumb
        >implying mafia was dumb
        >implying the mafiosi aren’t warrior
        >implying the police are warriors

        god damn you rodent half breed synagogue dwelling judeo masonic lovecraftian nrx trash

        you do know it was calabrians and not russians right? you’d know that if you knew and read all the posts your types were deleting the last 3 years. have some respect kid. this ain’t fake news. your boy miller plagiarizes off our guy too. you all are not as smart as you think you are.

        you all are not as smart as you think you are

        world salad does not make one smart

        is this some gay talmudic lodge discussion on these parts? of course it is.

        men actually educated on prominent cultures and their history- men who don’t just espouse anglo government generated memes- these do not hold the same ideas you do

        uneducated yet overly wordy half breed talmudic lodge scum who thinks they needs to wear sun tan lotion in say, provence, like you all? par for the course.

        do any of you golf? no, you all just read lovecraft and jewish trance auto writing rambling.

        • 2019 is boring says:

          is this some gay talmudic lodge discussion on these parts?

          Your writing style is remarkably characteristic of actual homosexuals. This is not even intended as an insult; it is merely a casual observation that your writing exhibits a kind of “flamboyance” that I can hardly imagine a straight man using.

          Reminder that faggots will be removed.

        • The Cominator says:

          >implying italians were dumb
          >implying mafia was dumb
          >implying the mafiosi aren’t warrior
          >implying the police are warriors

          I have never said such, though I would argue that the modern America mafia are far from warriors.

          The actual Sicilian Mafia which used to be willing to storm jails with machine guns and such certainly were warriors though.

        • Not Tom says:

          do any of you golf?

          Love it. He doesn’t ask if anyone is into bodybuilding, powerlifting, boxing, MMA, football, rugby, hockey, spartan runs, paintball, trap shooting, or any other highly competitive and physically demanding activity that takes years of intense training and/or exceptional teamwork.

          No, the sport of the true Renaissance Man is whacking a tiny little ball around in between cart rides and beer chugs. Why? Presumably because it’s stereotypically white gentile, even though most white guys don’t actually golf, and the stereotype was largely promoted by Jewish bugmen who were way more racially exclusive with their own clubs than any of the white gentile clubs ever were.

          I’ve got nothing against golf – as a hobby. But it’s pretty funny to read it in the context of “do you even golf bruh”. I’m with 2019 on this one.

  4. vxxc says:

    Jim,

    Thank you.

    This is it exactly.

    Thank you all.

    May I humbly suggest going forth and preaching.

    I can’t emphasize enough how much being a FATHER will sell with warriors.
    Its tough to make this gig work with the best of women.
    Too much strain and fear for them.
    Of course at will marriage sucks for all of us.

    Here is your God, go forth and preach.
    You’ll be filling a vacuum.
    That makes it easier.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      The more i think about your proposition, the more i like it. Where do you suggest “we” go preach? I do my bit in my area, but it is a dangerous game telling vets and cops how to better believe what they already basically believe.

      • Vxxc says:

        Tell them we need a world where men can form families safely.
        Not a state that holds Fathers as enemies.
        That men need a better social contract than divorce, child support, visitation rights.

        You may also point out the administrative state by openly flouting the Presidents authority violates the same oath we took, that we upheld no matter what deranged abuse of ROE and trials, investigations, abuse, open and rampant corruption; despite all we remained true to the Constitution*.
        That those who have not – if they will not learn from our example must be forced to bow not to us, not to the sword but to their own sworn and too easily forsworn oaths.

        *The Constitution; you cannot ask them to forswear.
        There is no replacement either.
        Mind you just crushing the Administrative state traitors destroys the Cathedrals actual powers of law and force. After that academe and media are defenseless (and probably broken in will) mop up.

        • vxxc says:

          Here’s your target audience giving a class on Red Dot sights.
          (M68 CCO aka Aimpoint).

          Just watch how he explains it.

          https://youtu.be/4QDpzM7kp5k

          That’s how you should explain the Faith.
          We want families. Here’s how they break us up, here’s our solution: marriage contract enforced.

          We want a country. Here’s some details they may not discern- such as asylum (which they know of) being granted by the courts to women of THE ENTIRE WORLD if they claim flight from domestic violence.
          Ahem. That they may not know.
          That’s basically the entire Southern Hemisphere.
          Billions.
          And their kids.

          Notice again the delivery: this is a highly skilled person, very detail oriented. “He knows his shit.”
          He doesn’t know-or care-about IQ.
          Or Carlyle. Or Moldbug.

          He cares about his marriage, his kids.
          He wants his country back.

          If the language of the marketplace was good enough for Socrates* then its good enough for all.

          *Socrates was so feared in war none would face him in single combat.
          Of course he fought as Athenian infantry.
          They all did.

  5. Isaac says:

    The American Reactionaries can’t even get a citizenship question added to their census. What an absolute joke your Emperor has been. Not even his supreme court justices are capable of polishing that turd. Bring on the leftist singularity, at least those radical anti-civilizational out-of-control priests have some vestige of self-respect. The right is simply content to be stomped into oblivion. Good riddance to them.

    • The Cominator says:

      You scared shill?

      Roberts is compromised this is not new, and Roberts left the door open to it being done personally by Trump’s EO which is in fact what he will end up doing.

    • Not Tom says:

      Do you mean American Conservatives? As in yesterday’s liberals? The people who reactionaries either mock, pity, or ignore?

      “Reactionaries aren’t doing democracy right!” ‘kay.

  6. The Cominator says:

    “So what section of the elite is going to back us?”

    There are some names I think we have, that have read Moldbug and probably read you. But you’ve asked me not to mention them by name.

    One of them is a former navy seal right wing billionaire who founded a mercenary company. I’m almost damn sure he is with us.

    • vxxc says:

      On Elite backing.

      Can’t help but note elites good at seeing where the wind blows and adjusting sails accordingly.

      Whatever they may have to say and have HR say to avoid Eye of Sauron.

      But we can start with Thiel.
      And we can certainly add Tucker Carlson.
      Then there’s Steve King.
      Lindsay Graham sure got on the Trump Train.

      We shouldn’t think its all just weathervane and self serving.
      Lindsey Graham sure seems to like having his balls back.
      Is it possible others miss their balls?
      Dislike groveling to SJWs?
      Would like to be sure that marriage contract until death does us part is upheld?

    • oh so another goy uhhhhhh prince who drinks the kikewater and loves it supposedly reads this shit? that is embarrassing for erik. but hey goys who fancy themselves princes like erik end up sucking masonic jew frankfurt cock like peter. right you half breeds! right!

      guess who reads me?
      guess who plagiarized me?
      guess who plagiarizes us?

      surely you as intellects would understand a plagiarist has no standing in the priestly class and yet that’s where you nrx synagogue head bobbing idiots have placed your cheat, inbred samo stephen miller.

      your notions of who the priests are is shit
      because you anoint shit priests

      your notions of who the warriors are is mostly shit because you’re all nerds who can’t see and read fucking lovecraft and anoint him a superior.

      but you’re all judeo masonic prot idiots, half breeds, and blind. your interpretations of anything are fucked from the start.

      keep propping up shit priests you blind jewish dweebs. none of you are priestly. you all look up to miller, who plagiarizes off me.

      fuck nrx you are all stupid. no, none of you will be allowed a harem to further breed the “priestly” judaism. your guys’ thought process is cancer because you all drink from the poison fountain. all your thoughts are bogged down in talmudic autism.

      you’re all half breed losers like beale and koanic

      you can’t even be honest about it as you shit on confused mixed race people.

      i know the guy that trains seals in coronado. the masonic synagogue killed his kid. or was that some black magik black ops dark arts at the borderline bar in november 2018? what do you all know? you’re all nerds who don’t know shit.

      but keep ripping me off.

      surfs up

      • The Cominator says:

        i know the guy that trains seals in coronado. the masonic synagogue killed his kid. or was that some black magik black ops dark arts at the borderline bar in november 2018? what do you all know? you’re all nerds who don’t know shit.

        Kookniac or some other schizo?

      • shaman says:

        Even though your mouth has breathed on “Frankfurter Würstchen,” you should stay for entertainment value.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Is this the written equivalent of an acid trip?

          • shaman says:

            Pretty much. Looks like hyper-verbalized failed information regulation, combined with literally gay humorous effect. Neuro-diversity!

      • Not Tom says:

        I’m almost curious what he thinks we’re plagiarizing, and who is plagiarizing it. Claims to have some association with Vox Day, but Theo doesn’t allow such basketcases in his cadre, and the kind of people who like to write out his name in full as though it’s some kind of magical incantation are usually SJWs.

        Not Kookanic. Give the guy some credit, he’s a much higher quality of crazy. Much better writing skills.

      • explicit_implication says:

        what’s wrong with Lovecraft? What storied would you prefer we read? BAP homoerotica?

  7. Octavian says:

    Great article, Jim.

    One of your best, and very timely. A lot of troops are getting tired of being down in the dumps and weary of living in the spirit of ’16’s afterglow.

    It is nice to reenergize and move forward.

    This is a time of metapolitical warfare and the value of good morale is difficult to overestimate.

    • The Cominator says:

      I’ll never tire of the afterglow of 2016 AND 2015, getting the nomination was something I expected to be a lot harder. The Cathedral before 2016 at least tried to appear to be fair… and if they had even kept up appearances 2016 wouldn’t have been close.

      They get down in the dumps because they listen to glownagger fedposting and blackpilling, also bitching by neets who somehow thought Trump was just going to give them money or something as if he wanted them to act like illegals and naggers (hence Yanggang).

      What always bothers me is how they don’t recognize shilling immediately. I’m a sperg and I can spot 99% of shills right away.

      We are winning this war and people are getting spooked because the enemy keeps running desperate kamikaze attacks.

      • Anonymous 2 says:


        bitching by neets who somehow thought Trump was just going to give them money or something as if he wanted them to act like illegals and naggers (hence Yanggang).

        Trump did strangle some of the money supply to the hundred-headed hydra of leftist organizations, but as far as I know he hasn’t tried to gov.fund any rightwing orgs or NGOs. If so, I consider that a major mistake. (And please don’t fund existing Republican poz; it won’t help.)

        The underlying problem of UBI is that whites currently pay but don’t get a lot out of it. Consider Obamacare: marginal whites get skyrocketing insurance costs, while the growing welfare Crowd of Color gets an even comfier deal.

        Support for Yang is probably just coping behavior, given that Trump has not been able to help that segment of his supporters in any significant way. (Which I consider worse, since unrestricted and even encouraged migrant flow will also destroy America in a couple of decades. Politically it might be sooner than that.)

        • The Cominator says:

          But as far as I know he hasn’t tried to gov.fund any rightwing orgs or NGOs

          They’d legally be required to become left wing progressives if he did that.

          Dubya was theoretically all for this remember with his “faith based” government aid. All the churches who took the money quickly became pozzed.

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            Just because GWB failed doesn’t mean it’s impossible you know.

            • The Cominator says:

              Dubya being the subversive idiot son of his evil Cathedral glownagger boss father probably intended for it to fail but it cannot succeed with anything like the current US government.

              Take the Cathedral’s money and you will preach the Cathedral’s religion.

            • Ron says:

              Can you give an example of this sort of thing working?

              • The Cominator says:

                Other then a few things the Reagan CIA did to churches and anticommunist organizations in South America (and thus outside of direct Federal supervision) to fight communism in the 1980s there are no examples since the 1960s.

                If you take Fedzilla/Cathedral money you come under their control and become pozzed. Trump was wise not to try to do this.

          • Jehu says:

            If you want to fund a right wing organization as a president, without hamstringing them, you get them to sue some agency of the federal government. They probably have lots of legitimate suits honestly. Then you order said agency to settle generously. You can also make policy that way via consent decrees.

            • The Cominator says:

              You need a very good reason as to why you have “standing” if you sue the feds.

      • jim says:

        Obamacare revealed that Obama had absolutely no intention of giving free healthcare, or any healthcare to white males, married men, or private sector employees, and I guarantee that Yang has absolutely no intention of giving free money to white males married men, or private sector employees.

    • vxxc says:

      ^ yes to this ^

  8. Concerned Crusader says:

    I’m sorry what? In what universe? Big tech is hiring dozens of executives from the Israeli NSA equivalent as we speak. I’m genuinely curious where these purges are happening outside of small spiraling left wing movements.

    • Not Tom says:

      Really? As we speak? And here I thought one of the common complaints from people seeking entry into tech companies is that they have convoluted application and interview processes and take weeks or months to make hiring decisions.

      But it turns out all you need to do in other to be hired in literal seconds is be part of the “Israeli NSA equivalent”. By the way, could you remind us who exactly they are, in case anyone wants to leverage this awesome shortcut?

      • shaman says:

        That dipshit means Unit 8200 of the IDF’s Military Intelligence Directorate, which is not actually the NSA’s Israeli equivalent, but it does resemble the DoD’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) – a slightly closer Israeli equivalent to the NSA would be its National Security Council, but that’s not very precise either.

        These shills are full of shit, and it’s simply beautiful — albeit it’s not in the least bit surprising — how good Jim is at triggering them into revealing themselves. Just say a few words about Israel that aren’t denunciatory enough, and they’ll twist themselves into knots expressing utter woe about Israel’s dastardly misdeeds.

        • EH says:

          A shill replying to a shill to bitch about “shills”., which the actual shills define as anybody daring to doubt their BS about jews being exiled from their rightful place as our elite.

          • shaman says:

            The actual shills are always those who push the FBI’s narrative about Jews using evil mind control rays to make young women misbehave, because young women are chaste and angelic, and are only corrupted by the wicked Jews’ slithery serpentine whispers.

            The actual shills are telling us that the Mann Act of 1910 was right and proper, and how dare some oppressive Jewish shitlords not prostrate themselves to its vast and profound wisdom – wow just wow, bigot.

            The actual shills are telling us that white men need to out-group each other because of sinister pixels, that white men deserve to be anally gang-raped in jail by burly niggers for offenses related to sinister pixels, because we all know that young whores are chaste and angelic – the Social Purity Movement said so, therefore it must be true.

            Your inflated budget won’t make into the latter half of this century.

            • The Cominator says:

              Shill entryists do not discuss the woman question ever in detail so do not mention the Mann act or any such thing, their scripts aren’t written for that.

              They just accuse you of being a jew for bringing up the woman question at all and insist all women problems are the fault of the jews and that the women dindu nuffin.

              Now as to your other point

              We should certainly role back the clock on the woman question, but some of the things you and Jim advocate (I disagree with some and not all) are what Spandrell would label a jihad complete problem not merely coup complete.

              Ie a jihad complete problem is something so taboo to modern sensibilities that even a dictator who tried to do it would be overthrown almost immediately.

              I would restore most of paterfamilias rights, beatings are allowed severe injury isn’t without specific extreme provocations

              I would declare that father’s have a right to arrange marriages for girls between 14 and 20. No marriage by abduction by that age, if a girl is deflowered the father has the option to shotgun marriage but the father does not have to shotgun marriage the girl.

              After 20 marriage by abduction becomes a thing, any honest single man has the right to claim any girl with one exception

              Women after 20 CAN become whores and they’ll have an indenture contract for their support for such time. A man can claim a whore but he needs to buyout her contract to do so.

              Divorce is banned with a VERY few exceptions like the man being exiled for crimes but not killed or one of the spouses being in a long term coma.

              I think such can be imposed with merely coup complete powers with some grumbling from white knights… going ANY further (at least without waiting a few years for people to get used to the new more patriarchal society) will be a jihad complete problem.

              • kawaii_kike says:

                What’s considered going further?

              • jim says:

                Consider the overnight change on sodomy, and tranny story hour, and sex changes for children a few years old.

                Going all the way back to old testament family law is not a much bigger change than going all the way back to 1950s law. Indeed, most people would find it hard to tell the difference, except for a handful still under the delusion that we still have 1950s family law.

                It will be like blowing through a shit test. Instead of the threatened drama, you get delightful absence of drama.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Jim is correct here. Sodomogamy is–I believe–completely unprecedented in human history, yet it went from unacceptable in liberal Massachusetts to mandatory nationwide in less than a decade.

                • Truth Teller says:

                  You’re a psychopath.

                • alf says:

                  Psychopathy is an anti-concept. Its really just a synonym for ‘asshole’, with pseud-scientific connotations.

                  When a woman calls you a psychopath, it’s a compliment and she’ll have sex with you.

                  When a man calls you a psychopath, he is outgrouping you. The pseudo-scientific definition of psychopathy is ‘one who lacks empathy’, which translated means ‘one who gets dehumanized’.

                  So, let us formalize your insult, and say you call Jim an asshole. Is Jim an asshole? At times, I”m sure. But I have a looming suspicion he is friendlier than one might suspect.

              • 2019 is boring says:

                Making male status higher than female status — i.e., the wife sacrifices herself for her husband, the husband does not sacrifice himself for his wife (like in chess: the Queen protects the King); men speak to women, women don’t speak to men unless and until spoken to by them; when a man and a woman go opposite each other, it is the woman, not the man, who steps out of the way — is the grand paradigm shift that must happen at some point after the restoration.

                As long as that is fixed in our minds, whether it will occur post coup or post Jihad is not really an issue. We must adopt social technology that works. Making male status higher than female status works. Gentlemanism, i.e. Courtly Love, does not work, and has been pozzed for the past millennium.

                No, the “warm and fuzzy” feelings that some people (white knights, including all Trad-Cons, and some Trad-Con entryists into Reaction) have for gentlemanism don’t matter in the slightest. East Asians have always known that the wife sacrifices herself for the husband, and this social technology is drastically more stable than gentlemanism. We tried gentlemanism and ended up with Puritanism-Feminism. Gas the Trad-Cons, Status War Now.

                • vxxc says:

                  Don’t worry.

                  No one would confuse you for Traditional.
                  My guess is Antifa got boring before “neoreaction” and soon enough migrate from East Asian fusion cuisine fad to maybe Islam or something….

                  But “Trad-Cons are infiltrating Reaction” is Hilarious.
                  Try: Prog raised soyboys who balk at chopping dick off have raised the Flag of NeoReaction, attracted by the flattery to their Intellect.

                  Well enough, we need some Jacobin viciousness on the Right. It works. It also appeals to the young – through ego and the newly rediscovered masculinity.

                  Franco, Pinochet, Mannerheim- those are actual Reactionaries. Tsar Nicholas I. None of them would have advocated gassing the Traditional Conservatives.

                  Even to get laid. A subject that takes up a depressing amount of time here, but any struggle is always a slog…

                • shaman says:

                  Look, someone with an IQ of 100 said something.

                • shaman says:

                  Okay, I’ll give that WOT-poster the nice debunking he deserves, which hopefully will serve as a warning to any other Tard-Cons (not a typo) here to be meek and humble in the presence of their cognitive and ideological superiors.

                  No one would confuse you for Traditional.

                  No one would confuse you for a Neo-Reactionary.

                  Someone whose pasts are 70% spam irrelevant to the discussion and 30% hardly intelligible sub-mental effluvium of “ORGANIZE! DO SOMETHING! TAKE ACTION NOW IMMEDIATELY! ACTION! ACTION! ACTION!” will never belong anywhere near a priesthood and anywhere near NRx. Remind me again what your contributions here are? That’s right – a big fat nothingburger. Boy, you’ve been squirting so much diarrhea here, it may as well be fed right back to you. Open your mouth!

                  Hey, this reminds me of something. You wrote on Spandrell’s blog:

                  None of you have actual jobs or work experience do you?

                  Maybe you should explain why you think that no one in NRx has jobs or work experience. Because it looks to me that if anyone here is a useless defective loser who can’t even string two coherent chains of thought together, that’s exactly you, Vxxcuck.

                  My guess is Antifa got boring before “neoreaction”

                  I was involved in NRx quite early on, actually. Again: What have you contributed during these past few years of incessant spamming? Do I really need to show everyone here that you’re partly responsible for the abominable catastrophe that happened at Xenosystems? Because I can do that easily, you know. Beep-bop tick-tock stick a plug in your anus and put a lock on your cock, because your excretions are distracting us from intelligent and interesting debate.

                  But “Trad-Cons are infiltrating Reaction” is Hilarious.

                  You are madly butthurt because it hits home and hits hard, right? Your “type” of commenter, the incorrigible abysmal-IQ spammer of “DO SOMETHING! x 1,000” just never seems to find the door out of NRx communities, where you stick out like sore, purulent thumbs. Someone really needs to show you where it’s at, entryist.

                  Try: Prog raised soyboys who balk at chopping dick off have raised the Flag of NeoReaction, attracted by the flattery to their Intellect.

                  Translation from the Universal Language of Tards, known as Drooled Retardese: “I don’t belong, I never contribute anything, I constantly spam the blog with irrelevant shit, I can’t write like a normal person, and I’m envious as fuck of everyone else’s intellect.” Do try to conceal your inferiority complex better when you’re twisting reality on its head, you Tard-Con-Artist.

                  None of them would have advocated gassing the Traditional Conservatives.

                  Poor, poor Vxxcuck: His fee-fees were offended by the suggestion that Tard-Con blue-pillers like himself need to be physically removed from NRx for being demonic white knight entryists. Oh dear, someone bring him a tissue! Better yet: Someone bring him a fake parachute and drop him “like a sack full of stones” off a jet.

                  Are you gonna cry now? Haha, fuck off.

                  Even to get laid.

                  You’ve admitted a number of times to being totally childless, haven’t you? And — to use an understatement — you’re not very young, now, are you, Mr. Grey-Haired Lardass Veteran? Lol. Perhaps you should stop telling fathers (as some of us, possibly even myself, are) about “getting laid” and so on – you are a failure at life and a complete wreck, and you should really be meek and humble around the good posters here, mkay?

                  Meek. And humble.

                  GTFO.

            • Not Tom says:

              You would think that they’d use their evil mind control rays to make everyone Jewish, but apparently the rays only have one setting: Mainline Protestant.

              Curious, that.

              Also curious how despite being infested with Jewish shills, restorationism has largely remained untainted by leftist memes, while the lunatic fringe of the alt-right, through the power of the mighty swastika, is now advocating for UBI, street thuggery, abortion, voting for Democrats, unilateral disarmament, anti-porn/anti-prostitution crackdowns, and wifing up whores.

              If only I could see the connection… think, man, think!

              • The Cominator says:

                To be fair we should support eugenic (early term) abortion.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  Abortion is still murder no matter how early. If we’re going to murder in the name of eugenics then we might as well just do it at any age. I certainly hope abortion is outlawed in the Restoration.

                • jim says:

                  If we make abortion the right of the woman’s husband or father to choose, we will select against adultery and immorality in women, and criminality in men, and will likely get far fewer abortions. The typical abortion is not the rape victim, it is the wife keeping her options open in case Jeremy Meeks gives her a booty call, and does not kick her out at two in the morning.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                restorationism has largely remained untainted by leftist memes, while the lunatic fringe of the alt-right … If only I could see the connection… think, man, think!

                It means … restorationism is even weaker and farther out of the spotlight than the lunatic fringe of the alt-right?

                Well, that’s probably a good thing at this point. Imagine how things would be if They got really interested in this blog, for instance.

                • jim says:

                  While we are untainted by alt right lefties, the alt right meme warriors are massively influenced by us. I am quite satisfied with our mass influence, which we exercise very indirectly, because trying to get mass influence directly would lead to us being corrupted and dumbed down, and quite satisfied with our elite friends in high places They are relatively powerless within the Trump administration, with hostile and disloyal Trump opponents above them in the administration, but I suspect that this might well change, and if even if it does not change, it is a toe in the door.

                  Things suck, and we are losing, in that the leftist holiness spiral daily reaches ever new heights of madness, but we have considerably more than zero traction. We have a lot more traction than I expected years ago.

                • Karl says:

                  Since demographics are at present against us, it is advantageous that the leftist holiness spiral reaches daily now heights. New heights of holiness are forcing things to a point. The present situation cannot last.

                  We still have the strenght to fight. So it is better, if ever new heights of holiness force confrontation sooner rather than later

                • The Cominator says:

                  Things suck, and we are losing, in that the leftist holiness spiral daily reaches ever new heights of madness, but we have considerably more than zero traction. We have a lot more traction than I expected years ago.

                  In 2014-2015 before the God-Emperor declared himself we were losing.

                  Now we are on the verge of total victory, its been a longer harder memetic war then most of us would have liked but we are winning and should continue to win because the enemy is increasingly stupid, insane and incompetent.

                  Their plans to regain institutional power will thus be insane stupid and incompetent. They’d be totally dead already if not for that traitor asshole Sessions, hes the only reason Trump even needs a second term to finish off the Cathedral for good.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It means … restorationism is even weaker and farther out of the spotlight than the lunatic fringe of the alt-right?

                  Either you’re saying that strength equals infiltration, which doesn’t make sense, or that the Cathedral/globohomo is so powerful that anything coming under its watchful gaze is immediately assimilated, which does make sense but doesn’t appear to be true, because we can see the failed attempts.

                  Cathedral failed utterly at disrupting/assimilating the chans, to the point where there were serious efforts to just shut it all down. NRx anti-infiltration techniques appear to me to have some lineage going back to the chans; they don’t really have a name, but clearly evolved to defend against cointelpro and similar top-down infiltration methods.

                  Mass influence is hard to measure and not strictly necessary at this point, but it seems to be happening anyway. Alt-right, neomasculinity, evopsych and academic heterodoxy, anarcho-fascism, and Trumpism itself in many ways – all derive important memes from the reaction memeplex. It’s analogous to the plethora of competing leftist ideologies that all essentially derive from Marxism.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Either you’re saying that strength equals infiltration, which doesn’t make sense, or that the Cathedral/globohomo is so powerful that anything coming under its watchful gaze is immediately assimilated, which does make sense but doesn’t appear to be true, because we can see the failed attempts.

                  It seems rather evident that, post-2016, the alt-right was infiltrated, divided, attacked, no-platformed, doxed and basically bullied into irrelevance. (Still some mopping up going on, I should add.)

                • Not Tom says:

                  It seems rather evident that, post-2016, the alt-right was infiltrated, divided, attacked, no-platformed, doxed and basically bullied into irrelevance. (Still some mopping up going on, I should add.)

                  Sure… and you extrapolated from that into reaction being weaker and less-relevant. That’s one possible explanation, but not the most likely one, for reasons just outlined.

                • Anonymous 2 says:


                  Sure… and you extrapolated from that into reaction being weaker and less-relevant. That’s one possible explanation, but not the most likely one

                  What I wrote was not quite that (“even weaker and farther out of the spotlight than the lunatic fringe of the alt-right”). I obviously interpret what’s going on somewhat differently, but I wouldn’t mind if you’re right.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  It means … restorationism is even weaker and farther out of the spotlight than the lunatic fringe of the alt-right?

                  No, it means that the alt-right, including the folks at the My Posting Career Forum, do not possess what Bryce Laliberte (back when his madness was still under control) defined as “memetic sovereignty,” i.e. an independent ideological framework that allows one to produce memes untainted by outside influences.

                  This is not surprising: alt-righters of mediocre intelligence are all on board 19th century Puritanism — the precursor of 20th century Feminism — and have even, in their never-ending quest to counter-signal Libertarianism, adopted many Marxist viewpoints. This is not a post-2016 problem. I came to the scene in 2012, and that’s what they were like back then too.

                  In 2017, it even looked like Reaction had been taken over by these people, but fortunately, we have managed to bullycide the malefactors one after the other, and will continue to bullycide such individuals mercilessly. Those who foolishly and uselessly stand in the way will be obliterated also.

                  The important thing is to maintain memetic sovereignty: we can and do shift the Overton Window, because our memeplex is independent of all other memeplexes. What the entryists and malefactors do is attempt to subjugate our memeplex to those of others, e.g. to alt-rightism. Not gonna happen: we are now able to accurately identify this behavior, and we now know where to draw the lines between our memeplex and other ones.

                  Our memetic sovereignty allows us to critically examine all the steaming piles of horsehit around us, and to adopt exclusively those memes that we deem to be beneficial to our purposes.

              • The Cominator says:

                Abortion is still murder no matter how early

                This is a stupid papist meme and lie straight from that awful shitlib pope john paul ii. Just because this idiocy has infected the right doesn’t mean I accept it or we should. Abortion under us will also be husband and father’s right to choose.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Indeed. When I mentioned abortion as being an indicator of infiltration, I was referring to the persistent alt-right meme that free, unrestricted female-choice abortion is good and great because it keeps black fertility down. Fertility part being somewhat true, but still ridiculous because of the explosive dysgenic effect of upper castes of all races aborting because expensive/hypergamy and lower castes birthing for gibs.

                  Male-choice abortion would be eugenic. I try not to have an opinion on the soul/murder question, but there eventually needs to be a self-consistent explanation for why killing in utero is OK but ex-utero is not. Children being the absolute property of their fathers until able to work is one such explanation, but that implies legal infanticide as well.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Spoken like a man with no children.

                  Abortion is murder and I spit on Catholics.

                  You can use theistic ontology to logically get where sensible intuition naturally takes you, two undeniable points: 1) mitigating consequences never creates a better entity 2) pre-born babies are unmistakably alive to your natural senses when you see/feel/hear their beating hearts.

                  It is rarely logical to let passion guide ideology, but I have become incapable of seeing both sides in this issue.

                  …it may be their tiny fingers. So blindly articulate. If one has no children, then they have no license to register an opinion on abortion.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  Husband-decided pre birth or post birth filicide for some categories of genetic mutants, or for the rotten fruits of extramarital affairs or rape (no practical difference in this context), should be legal. Likewise when the mother’s life is legitimately endangered by the pregnancy.

                  Jim’s position about bastardicide is a tough swallow, but I’m glad that at least someone has the testicular fortitude to voice it, if only to add spice to this boring 2019.

                • The Cominator says:

                  My position on abortion and murder is that its not really murder early because of lack of brain activity and definite lack of higher level brain activity.

                  Jim’s bastarcide position is not necessary and not something we should speak of the optics are horrible and it isn’t needed… given that Jim doesn’t like the Victorians it is rather strange. Bastards were generally far better off in the 18th century and before (when generally they got fostered by distant relatives or childless couples ala Moll Flanders, and btw male nobles in the middle ages mostly got fostered by distant relatives when they became teen because parental tenderness was held to be an impediment to the intense training required to become a knight) then in the 19th century (when they were treated more like Oliver Twist).

                  Eugenic early abortion and solving the woman question will make any mistreatment of bastards quite unnecessary. There will be so few actually born.

            • The Cominator says:

              The shills do not actually mention the women question in any detail other then to say that anyone who brings it up is a jew and that females dindu nuffin but if they did it was because of the jews.

              To be fair women are targetted with social engineering mind control rays, but its more a glownagger thing then a jewish thing.

            • The Cominator says:

              Actual shills rarely mention the woman question and certainly don’t discuss policy details like the Mann Act. They merely say that women dindu nuffin and if they did then it was evil jewish mind control rays.

              Now to be fair women are subject to evil social engineering mind control rays of which are more effective against them then they are with men, I think its more a glownagger thing then a jew thing.

              I’ve submitted a reply to this a couple time and I don’t even get the normal my comment is awaiting moderation what gives…

            • The Cominator says:

              Actual shills rarely mention the woman question and certainly don’t discuss policy details like the Mann Act. They merely say that women dindu nuffin and if they did then it was evil jewish mind control rays.

              Now to be fair women are subject to evil social engineering mind control rays of which are more effective against them then they are with men, I think its more a glownagger thing then a jew thing.

              replies to this shaman comment seem to keep getting auto rejected, trying on opera VPN browser now…

            • The Cominator says:

              My response to this comment keeps not getting processed… maybe this short statement will but your filter seems to be autospamming me here…

              • The Cominator says:

                Okay I tried to say in response to this comment by Shaman, I didn’t even get “awaiting moderation” it just didn’t post and this happened multiple times…

                The actual shills are always those who push the FBI’s narrative about Jews using evil mind control rays to make young women misbehave, because young women are chaste and angelic, and are only corrupted by the wicked Jews’ slithery serpentine whispers.

                That shills here generally refuse to discuss the women question, and if they do discuss it is to tell us we are jews for bringing it up. And that women dindu nuffin but if they did it was the result of jewish mind control rays.

                Then I said that there were media mind control rays but it probably has more to do more with glownagger social engineering then jews.

              • The Cominator says:

                Okay I tried to say in response to this comment by Shaman, I didn’t even get “awaiting moderation” it just didn’t post…

                The actual shills are always those who push the FBI’s narrative about Jews using evil mind control rays to make young women misbehave, because young women are chaste and angelic, and are only corrupted by the wicked Jews’ slithery serpentine whispers.

                That shills here generally refuse to discuss the women question, and if they do discuss it is to tell us we are jews for bringing it up. And that women dindu nuffin but if they did it was the result of jewish mind control rays.

                Then I said that there were media mind control rays but it probably has more to do more with glownagger social engineering then jews.

                • jim says:

                  Your comment was misidentified as spam, and the filter was so certain it was spam, it did not put it into the moderation queue, but the spam pile.

                  If you don’t get “waiting moderation” you have been auto spammed, and I will fail to notice.

                  I found six of your posts in the spam pile. Not sure what happened.

              • The Cominator says:

                I keep trying to respond to Shaman’s comment about FBI shills and women…

                It doesn’t say awaiting moderation it justs fails to post.

              • The Cominator says:

                And I even tried emailing it to myself copying from my phone and doing it and also posting it in response to other comments and its like it gets filtered out automatically…

              • jim says:

                Fixed – I was off in the boondocks with barely usable internet, which was why I was slow to fix it.

          • shaman says:

            One day hopefully Israel will no longer be the pozzed Puritan-Feminist hellhole it currently is, and on that day Kidon Unit’s Dancers (lol) will be oopsing and oh-noing Blue Knights out of windows and roofs all across the world, for vengeance and for fun. Memeing Israel into a Jimist country may be a worthwhile project, though it’ll take some time – 20 years? Someone should write a book, or something.

            • The Cominator says:

              The actual shills are always those who push the FBI’s narrative about Jews using evil mind control rays to make young women misbehave, because young women are chaste and angelic, and are only corrupted by the wicked Jews’ slithery serpentine whispers.

              I can’t seem to reply to the original post where you said this and have it go through.

              Left wing shills here seem to avoid the woman question other then to say that we are jews for bringing it up and that women dindu nuffin but if they did it was jewish mind control rays. They certainly don’t discuss details like the Mann act.

              Now women are subject to a lot of cultural and media mind control rays but as we don’t believe that the Elders of Zion control the media but rather believe that the Cathedral’s pozzed glownaggers control the media… so we don’t consider these mind control rays overly jewish in nature.

      • shaman says:

        Well, I’ll correct myself: Unit 8200 is somewhat similar to INSCOM’s various brigades, some of which do work for the NSA. Be that as it may, these geeky nerd virgins are far from the super-spies that our resident Concerned Comrades make of them. They’re just skilled techies whose IDF service granted them expertise that is in high demand in civilian life.

  9. shaman says:

    Yes, and the CIA. FBI, and NSA (who are paying you to write this) are extremely worried about that. It’s been all over their shillsites for a reason, like everything else Israel-related. Do try to conceal your hate-boner better.

    Alas, “big tech” is not in control. The priests are in control. Thus when you write:

    small spiraling left wing movements.

    You fail to recognize that these people are in power, not merchants and not warriors, not the Military-Industrial Complex.

    We are always ruled by warriors or priests, and currently we are ruled by memetically Puritan priests who support the Age of Consent legislation of 1900, support the abolition of coverture, support the criminalization of prostitution, and support the Mann Act of 1910, all in accordance with the Society for the Suppression of Vice and the Social Purity Movement of the 19th century.

    • Friendly Fred says:

      Hey, this is another topic connected by a very fragile filament to the one you address, but since my thought-groove of the hour is Rule by Non-Ideological (non “memetically Puritan”) Lawyers is Best, it occurred to me that the Mitnagdim vs. Hasidim strife might be understood as a struggle between Non-Ideological pettifogging lawyers and Ideological (Puritan-type) pettifogging lawyers. What do you think?

      • shaman says:

        the Mitnagdim vs. Hasidim strife might be understood as a struggle between Non-Ideological pettifogging lawyers and Ideological (Puritan-type) pettifogging lawyers.

        I’m inclined to agree.

        Mitnagdim take Phariseeism to its logical conclusion: full pettifogging rabbinic legalism all the time, and pretty much nothing else really matters. Love it or hate it, that’s standard Pharisaic Judaism.

        Hasidim, without discarding the legalistic tradition, have embraced some heretical mysticism to “enliven” the religion, and in the process made themselves much dumber and more superstitious.

        However, I wouldn’t say that Hasidic mysticism is memetically Puritan. It is memetically Gnostic.

        Ideally, the Nazis would have won WWII without committing a Holocaust, and right-wing Nazi-allied Zionists would have established an explicitly racialist German-speaking Ashkenazi Judeo-Christian Monarchy, retconned Ashkenazi history to be “We have always been white Judeo-Christians,” thus officially declaring Ashkenazim to be members of both the white race and Christendom, and consequently announced that non-Jewish whites should be perfectly eligible for aliyah, since they are racial blood brothers. Then Israel would be white Occidental, rather than brown Afro-Oriental; scientific and technological progress would be highly prioritized, rather than the appeasement of either black-bearded parasites or pozzed faggofeminists.

        Wouldn’t that be nice?

        • Friendly Fred says:

          I like Bokharans, though (they have a lot of shoe-repair and barber shops here) — they’re gentle and masculine at the same time. And aren’t the Yemenite girls very sexy?

          • 2019 is boring says:

            None of that matters. The advancement of high-quality civilization is at stake, and equalizing humans and sandniggers is detrimental thereto. Anyone who supports equalizing the civilized races and the hardly-civilized or non-civilized races is by definition a leftist.

            B was not able to admit that his dark cousins are his natural inferiors. With Eli, the situation was different – Eli openly accepted that North Africans and Yemenites and Central Asians and Ethiopians are his natural inferiors, because Eli is generally more grounded in reality than B; and the reality is that Ashkenazim as an ethnicity are capable of scientifically and technologically advancing civilization, while Mizrahim — at least the worse kinds of them — cannot, and are also uncivilized, to varying degrees depending on the specific sub-group, in their interpersonal behavior.

          • 2019 is boring says:

            Ultimately, the primary beef is with the North-African Mizrahi group. I don’t care how “tasty” their food is (typical leftist pro-Turd World argument); they behave like baboons, and those who don’t behave like baboons usually possess high levels of European-Jewish admixture. To tell an Ashkenazi Jew that he is of the same ethnicity as these Moroccan Monkeymen is a grave insult to the Ashkenazi, and will remain a grave insult regardless of any elucidation of the flaws of Ashkenazim.

            See, I don’t dispute that Bukharians and Gruzinim are skilled craftsmen, or that Yemenite chicks tend to be DTF; nor do I dispute that some other Mizrahi groups can behave relatively decently. These are simply not arguments for being considered as belonging to the same ethnicity as Ashkenazim, when the behavioral, temperamental, and cognitive differences are so striking.

          • Kofiko says:

            Look, B can close his eyes and fantasize about alternative realities all he wants, but the fact is that it’s Mizrahi Jews who are responsible for most of the crime in Israel. As even Rabbi Kahane admitted:

            The overwhelming majority of the criminals, prostitutes, drug pushers and drug addicts are Sephardic Jews.

            I.e. Mizrahi Jews. They make for Israel’s underclass and lower working class, and most of Israel’s prison population. Sure, they are abetted by Arabs, Slavs, and various shades of nigger, but the reality is that it’s they who commit the crime, not Ashkenazim. This is not intended to idealize the Ashkenazim, who possess their own set of flaws, but underclass bullshit (and general baboonery) ain’t one of ’em.

            • Eli says:

              I can’t speak much for B, but my impression of his views on the subject is more nuanced. He is not someone with love for plain ol’ Nigs, but will always be in solidarity with whoever is a Jew — esp, a religiously observant Jew. The passage from R. Kahane that you quoted seems to be quite of the same opinion. Everything there is being blamed on the secular European Jewry/socialists, which has been B’s point also.

              Likely, there is great truth to it. Maybe taking away their communal religion and ways was the trigger for criminality. On the other hand, modernity *in itself* brings about the kinds of pressure, temptations and freedom that had never been available to any Turd Worlder before.

              Tangentially, I have a problem with so many people (you and R. Kahane etc etc) wrapping up all so-called “Sephardim” into that term.

              Let’s be clear here: true Sephardim are white and civilized. The only true Sephardim come from some areas in N Africa/France, Turkey, and Netherlands.

              Everyone else should be bunched up together as “Mizrahi” — including most of the Moroccans. Mizrahi is not an ethnic, but rather a loose category, for those not interested in distinguishing between Teimanim, Moroccans, Persians, and Caucasians, Iraqi etc Jews.

              Moroccans are more interesting in that most of them are actually native Berbers that were Judaized. Some probably can trace their Judaization all the way to the era of Carthage (Kir’yat Khadashet — ie “New City” https://uhg.readthedocs.io/en/latest/gender_feminine.html).

              Be it as it may, Sephardic Jews ended up in Morocco after their expulsion from Sephard (Spain). Some of them intermixed with the local Berber Jews, but some were completely unaffected.

              Why I personally know some. One is a fully white guy who is studying to be a medical doctor (former math major). Another, a girl. She looks very white, but she told me that her father looks very Moroccan. So, probably, a mixture in the latter case.

              I also knew a bunch of Sephardim from Latin America (Venezuela). Not brilliant, but quite normal, above average guys. And look as white as any white guy. Certainly, not like regular Latinos.

              • Eli says:

                @Kofiko: sorry, I see that you mentioned that they’re Mizrahi.

                Jim, could you please approve my previous reply?

              • jim says:

                Obviously white Christians should have solidarity with black Christians, and we do, and Ashkenazi Jews should have solidarity with black Jews. But everyone knows, even though no one is allowed to say, that black Christians should attend church in black churches, and white Christians should attend church in white churches, and in practice, that is what we do. Mingling will do to the Jews what Hitler failed to do.

                It is a similar problem to the problem that Churches need to be both national and universal. The also need to be both ethnic and universal.

                Well if Christ can be both wholly man and wholly God, the church can be both ethnic and universal, and in practice we see totally segregated congregations, with the black congregation of the denomination nonetheless getting along fine with the complete separate white congregation of that denomination.

              • shaman says:

                Yeah, exactly. Historically there existed a group of European Jews, including Ashkenazim, Sepharadim, Italkim, Romaniotes, some French communities, etc., who were obviously civilized and human, and those of their descendants who didn’t inter-breed with darkies are still, to this very day, civilized and human. To dispel unnecessary ambiguities, it’s better to simply refer to them as “European Jews.”

                B, however, was asked: “What would happen to Israel if its demographics leaned way more heavily in the Moroccan and Ethiopian direction?” And he refused to actually answer, dismissing that as a silly counterfactual. It’s not silly: Some Jewish groups can’t properly integrate into advanced civilization, and — surprise, surprise — it’s precisely those who are descended from proselytized Berbers, Arabians, Caucasus Mountains folks, and East Africans. (Lord have mercy if the Pashtuns, Igbos, and Lembas are also introduced one day)

                Sure, like R. Kahane, B blames everything on the spiritual corruption emitted by Ashkenazim. This is no different than saying that African Americans misbehave solely because they are’t raised as pious Christians. Now, can strict old-school Christianity substantially civilize African Americans? Probably, yes. They would be better off going to Church. But fundamentally, at the end of the day, niggers will always be niggers, and don’t fit into human civilization, certainly not as the equals of humans.

                Despite being the largest or second largest ethnicity, Moroccans never seem to produce competent leaders of their own kin; both religiously and politically, they are invariably led by Ashkenazim, Iraqis, and Persians. As for the Ethiopians, they just had a massive chimp out after the fashion of Black Lives Matter; J wrote about it:

                America in full has arrived here. Blacks are protesting police violence. A White policeman has killed a Black youth and the Black community is burning down cars and shops all over the country. The Black was an Ethiopian “Jew”, 18 years old, imported six years ago, drop-out from school who was being entertained in a local violent youth club by two social workers. They went outside for a cigarette in the nearby park and they had a fight and stone-throwing. A policeman passed by and tried to separate them, feared for the children and then for his life and shot him.

                It was a big and irreparable mistake by the Iraqi Chief Rabbi to declare these Ethiopian highland natives – descendants of the Jewish tribe of Dan. Now they are here in mass and coming more, filling the special schools for retarded and occupying armies of social workers. Only the religious section of the Israeli population tries to avoid letting them into their schools and yeshives, silently subverting Israel’s liberal laws. Why the religious are able to recognize that the Ethiopians are not our people, while the secular religion-less majority is powerless and paralyzed? I lost my religion when scientific studies confirmed that praying has no effect on the outcome, it is just magical rituals, and the Talmud is a collection of ancient magical nonsense. Yet, yet, the believers are the only people here acting sanely. We the rest who think ourselves rational, are sick.

                Again, B and R. Kahane would say, “It’s because the Ashkenazim spiritually corrupted them.” Yes, and no. It’s true that Ashkenazi secularization has removed the Africans’ social technology, thus reduced them to total dysfunction. But it’s simply not possible to have Sub-Saharan Africans as equals in one’s civilization without there being regular chimp outs, both individual and collective. Religious piety can curb the worst excesses of their misbehavior, but they’re still going to be incompatible.

                Point being, all these groups cannot possibly be considered as members of the same ethnicity, because they evidently aren’t. European Jews (those who have not interbred) and proselytized Berbers are distinct – are not, and should not be, “equal.” Some measure of European Jewish supremacy vis-a-vis the baboon Jews is in order.

      • shaman says:

        Well, on the other hand, even modern Israel has its own splendid and spectacular “black market” of true dissidence against the Cathedral, the kind you just don’t find among American Trad-Cons (including those who now call themselves reactionaries) who adhere to the Social Purity Movement’s ideology. This is not necessarily unique to Israel, as testosteronic thought-crimes can be found virtually everywhere outside the morally-panicked Anglosphere, but Jews’ high-IQ makes the thought-crimes all the more potent. Israel should embrace Jimianity and NRx and pull off brilliant psyops against the Puritan-Feminist West; maybe one day that’ll happen.

        The Virgin PIA (Puritan Intelligence Agency) versus the Chad Jimossad it is, then.

  10. Wartime News says:

    Faiths now:

    1. Dalai Lama claims ‘Europe is for Europeans’ and migrants should be sent back

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7187235/Dalai-Lama-warns-Europe-Muslim-African-migrants-not-returned.html

    2. Pope Francis offered a scathing assessment of Donald Trump’s immigration policies, stating that he would tell the US President to his face that his southern border wall and family separation policies were ‘cruel.’

    https://www.irishcentral.com/news/politics/pope-francis-trump-immigration-policy

    3. Muslims Tell Europe: “One Day All This Will Be Ours”

    The Archbishop of Strasbourg Luc Ravel, nominated by Pope Francis in February, just declared that “Muslim believers know very well that their fertility is such today, that they call it… the Great Replacement. They tell you in a very calm, very positive way: One day all this, all this will be ours…”.

    https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10748/europe-muslims-demography

    • shaman says:

      Muslims Tell Europe: “One Day All This Will Be Ours”

      How’s that news?

      It would be real news if the Mohammedans said, “We should not be conquering Europe – let’s head back to our Asian and African homelands.”

  11. The paladin is the best of both warriors and priests.

    Being a priest, he tames the callousness of the warrior instinct and fights for what is right, not just his own benefit.

    Being a warrior, he reminds priests that holiness must be tempered by righteousness, and that men must face reality in order to overcome it.

    It is a right and just calling for any man of noble spirit to discipline both the spirit and the flesh, and to both fight an pray for his fellow man.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      Do you have any historical examples to sight that don’t include Magic: the Gathering references?

      • BC says:

        Aztec priest kings were pretty vile creatures. It’s not a good combo.

        When the first Sumerian kings overthrew the original priestly cast that created Sumerian civilization, the first they did was appoint families members to be high priest and high priestess, but they didn’t take the title of high priest for themselves.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Priest king is a terrible combination, but paladins/templars are useful as a bridge between priests and warriors. Think of Jim, if you want an example of a warrior priest. Unlike so many of the other priestly bloggers and commenters, he does not strike me as a man who needs to get stuffed in a locker. He can swing a big idea just as easily as he can swing a big sword, so he gets respect on both sides.

      • Frontier says:

        Warrior priests are a real thing. Worth studying.

        Besides being Warrior Priests, Templars became such powerful international merchants that the French king had to kill them off in a surprise decapitation strike to get out of debt to them and seize their assets.

        The Teutonic Knights carved out and ruled their own Monastic State from the Pagan Germans, ruling for centuries before their leader said fuck celibacy and became a Prot and had sons to pass his Duchy of Prussia on to. Not an accident that Prussia was the center to unite Germany.

        Buddhism has a lot of warrior monks. In the unification of Japan, the greatest challenge for the warlords wasn’t the other warlords, but the Buddhists, because Priests have greater cooperation across territory. Nobunaga tried using force and burning them alive in their temples.

        Tokugawa, who was the smarter and eventually came out on top, first fought his own Buddhists over his right to tax them, but soon found himself in a civil war against half his vassals. Realized he needed religion on his side to win, so made peace and brought them into the state with privileges in administering the census and collecting revenues.

        • vxxc says:

          Worth emulation and not just study.

          If the Junkers had been able to thwart Hitler [they were at the center of July 20th and other conspiracies] there might be an actual East Prussia today.

        • Ron says:

          Warrior priests are just priests looking for a fight

          Still priests. With all the same problems as the usual kind, maybe worse bc they will know they can kick ass and will be more inclined to show their holiness via bloodshed

          Jim nailed it. You need priests for asabiyah, that’s it. Putting them in power is asking for chaos

          This is why the King could not act as a priest, and the priests were forbidden to sit on the throne. There was a reason God wanted it that way.

          If you want an example of modern warrior priests I invite you to check out Soviet Commisars and their effect on the Russian war effort against the Finns. Specifically the way the Commisars would literally shoot anyone that advocated a strategy other than “march straight up into the Finns machine gun positions and die”

          • Friendly Fred says:

            Somewhere on this page, our host writes (in response to a query of mine regarding the meanings of “warrior” and “priest”):

            “A priest is a priest because he coordinates with other priests to obtain and use power through stories and ideas, and a warrior a warrior because he coordinates with other warriors to obtain and use power by hurting people and breaking their toys.”

            If I understand him correctly, then, he holds that priests and warriors have the same end in view: “power.” Only the means that they employ to obtain this end differ — priests use “stories and ideas” while warriors simply “kick ass,” as you put it.

            But if this is so, then as soon as a priest starts “kicking ass” he’s simply a warrior.

            If our host would modify his statement so as to allow that priests and warriors have somewhat different goals (a priest perhaps thinking of the power that he seeks as devoted to the realization of his favorite Big Idea, a warrior perhaps thinking of the power that he seeks as devoted to the well-being of his Team), then we might speak meaningfully of warrior-priests and priestly warriors.

          • jim says:

            Warrior priests are only disastrous when holiness spiraling

            Unfortunately, if priests on top, usually holiness spiraling

      • 2019 is boring says:

        Stalin had both priestly and warrior characteristics.

      • Zach says:

        My Paladin in Diablo 2 rekt face – and, I could tank anything. Does that count?

  12. vxxc says:

    Speaking of the enemy faith – Good Intel from Andrew The Apostate wanna be Sullivan. Two parts:

    1. Dems offer of national suicide via open borders isn’t a best seller.
    Andrew doesn’t like being called KKK.

    2. LTGBQ etc is rapidly losing support in its previous biggest cohort of teens.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “2. LTGBQ etc is rapidly losing support in its previous biggest cohort of teens.”

      Is this because more teens are minorities (and the brainwashing is less effective on stupid people), average IQ has dropped (ditto) or exposure to degeneracy leading to the appropriate response (virulent hatred).

      • vxxc says:

        Exposure to reality changes the callow mind.
        Any mind.

        As the campus marches into reality it’s meeting resistance [and revulsion].

        Be there with alternative.

      • Ron says:

        Maybe one of the factors are it’s bc all the people who more susceptible to that propaganda had fewer children than those who weren’t. Like a bacteria that develops resistance to a poison.

  13. vxxc says:

    Someone else is getting and spreading the red pill religion.

    https://amgreatness.com/2019/06/28/america-needs-a-true-family-first-movement/

    What’s interesting about this blog: it’s where Codevilla and others put the Flight 93 election. American Greatness came up in 2016. One of the writers is Michael Anton aka Publius Decius Mus-flight 93 election.

    • Vxxc says:

      Uh….Jim?
      Is this your Polish long lost sister?

      “Corporate America, said to be represented by Republicans, supports modern woman’s right to choose infanticide, to send the daughter they decide not to murder to day care from six weeks to six years old, at which point she is enrolled in public school where Planned Parenthood can begin explaining to her the intricacies of anal sex and the importance of sterilizing oneself for the sake of career. It’s the beauty of the free market, said the Koch brothers. Hooray! Capitalism crushed the patriarchy, said the libertarians.

      No more.

      A family-first political movement must begin by rejecting the losing stances of its Republican predecessors. This means rejecting the sexual and economic sides of the feminist proposition. Of course, we should raise daughters who regard Cardi B as unworthy of imitation. This is obvious enough. But in addition, if we care more about our families than we do about disposable income, we should raise our daughters to prioritize family, not finances.

      The nation needs virtuous wives and mothers, not wage slaves and managers. This probably means you rethink sending your daughters to college, where life is light on learning and heavy on hooking up. Or at least that you take more care in choosing one. She probably would be better served learning to read, write, and think on her own. This certainly means advising your daughters to avoid debt. Few things make women more unmarriageable than a lifetime of loan repayment.

      This absolutely means that your wife (not a Guatemalan nanny, a state employee, or a TV) raises your kids. Her absence hurts your children over the long run, even if her paycheck feels good in the short term.

      Above all, we must remind ourselves that degeneracy is not an inevitable way of life unless we are passive. We don’t have to be atomized or demoralized. Our daughters don’t have to be sterile. Our sons don’t have to be suicidal. We just need to recover our will to live.”

  14. vxxc says:

    The Family Business.
    That is the military is increasingly coming from the same families.

    The same pool often is Law Enforcement.

    Now this means something. History answers how this ends.

    https://www.rand.org/blog/rand-review/2018/10/an-inside-look-at-life-in-the-armys-junior-ranks.html

    “Overwhelmingly, researchers found that most young soldiers were influenced by their families to join…..But leaders have warned that the military is becoming a family business, with the vast majority of new accessions carrying on a family tradition.”

  15. Vxxc says:

    (Yes I’m posting a lot. Got Religion you see).

    And a political idea: Closed Borders.
    They won’t compromise?
    Open Borders is their platform?
    Then we run on Closed Borders.

    Interestingly I received an email from a GOP Senator Candidate that gave me the idea. I’m seldom such a dick, but it’s time.
    =======================================

    CLOSED BORDERS

    My point- we run on Closed Borders. Catchy and best answer.

    A dialogue with NJ Senatorial Candidate Hirsh.

    “I’m ready to help President Trump Drain the Swamp, but I need your help.
    Please contribute ANY AMOUNT to show the socialist left and FakeNews Media how quickly we’re gaining momentum before 11:59 PM on June 30th.
    Thank you,
    Hirsh Singh
    Republican for U.S. Senate
    For the People

    Me
    Hirsh,

    Go shit in another country’s streets.  I dislike Booker but he’s one of ours. 

    I’ll pay for your plane ticket to Calcutta.   Otherwise trouble me no more.  

    V/R 

    Him
    I’m Jersey born Mr._____We can do a lot more for Jersey replacing Booker.  So instead of a plane ticket to a foreign land could you just help me win. 
    Hirsh

    Me
    Balls. 
    But no. 

    Cheers. 

    Him
    When you change your mind – ask for a sign. 

    Have a great day.

    Me
    Hirsh

    $10 bucks for each testicle.
    $20 total. 

    Him
    I appreciate the extra 20 cents.  Your advice is noted – will evaluate.  

    Thank you.

    Hirsh

  16. Vxxc says:

    Closed Borders.

    They run on open, we demand CLOSED.

    It works.

  17. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Deleted, as usual, for telling me what I “really” think. No, that is not what I really think.

      Try telling us what you think about the Jewish problem, instead of telling us what I think about the Jewish problem.

    • alf says:

      CR what are you doing here man, go learn an instrument.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        No one on the internet:

        CR: …and so i am leaving forever. Goodbye.

        *posts again next day*

        • ten says:

          Which makes me think he is not a scriptbot on a payroll. Makes me think he is kkkrazy.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            >[*Deleted for evasiveness*]

            • jim says:

              So tell us: Is the Bible invalid as evidence that capitalism is ancient because it is Jewish?

              Or is that if I invoke the bible to show that capitalism is ancient this shows that I am Jewish?

              Or is it that all the rules on sex and sexual conduct that we had up to the early nineteenth century are Jewish? Perhaps because they are associated with that horribly Jewish old book?

              Or is it that you think that saying “Joo, Joo, Joo”, shows you are not a commie, but a reactionary?

              You are a commie.

              If “Joo, Joo, Joo” is a response to some argument I have made, tell us which argument it is that you are responding to.

              I allow ad hominems on this blog – but they have to relevant to some factual issue in dispute, and you have to actually state the factual issue in dispute and link it to the ad hominem.

              You can call me a Jew, or call old testament sexual morality Jewish, or call capitalism Jewish, but you have to actually respond to a specific actual argument that someone actually made. I am not going to allow floating ad hominems that fail to actually engage an argument.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                For once the host decided to simply pretend no comment was made, rather than make a big gay fuss about having deleted one, then go on to respond to his caricature of it.

                That’s progress, I guess.

                • jim says:

                  Rather, telling people that the same comment was made, and deleted yet again for the same reason, is a waste of reader bandwidth.

                  Further, I have not silently deleted any comments from you for quite a while that I can recall. Are you referring to a comment you made, or to a comment made by someone else on your same team working under your boss?

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Communist Revolutionary

                  Since you had a hard time answering essay-type RedPill questions on women, commentators on this thread have now provided multiple choice WRP questions. Perhaps these should be easier to answer!

                • jim says:

                  The problem with CR, and all the other shills (who may well be working from the same office, they seem to be aware of the contents of each other’s comments that got moderated before anyone saw them) is that they are unresponsive. CR will not take the test, because he would either fail it, or commit thought crime, and the same applies to a greater or lesser extent to anything that actually responds to anything that is actually said on this blog.

                  I keep nagging him to respond, but he simply never does.

                  I am silently deleting a huge amount of spam that consists of “responses” to reaction, reaction as imagined by transexualized transracialized soyboy social justice warriors, who spam without even bothering with CR’s “hail fellow white male heterosexual reactionary” cover story.

                  I am sparing you no end of spam, all of which says “Ïf you are not a transexualized transracialized socialist soyboy, you must be Jewish. Trump is Jewish. Nationalism is Jewish. Heterosexuality is Jewish. Capitalism is Jewish. Property is Jewish. Family is Jewish. God is Jewish.”, badly imitating antisemitism as progressives imagine it to be, which antisemitism bears no more resemblance to antisemitism than reaction as progressives imagine it to be resembles reaction, or the red pill as imagined by blue pillers resembles the red pill.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I am silently deleting a huge amount of spam that consists of “responses” to reaction

                  And we are eternally grateful for it. No community survives very long without a committed executive.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted for all the usual reasons*]

                • jim says:

                  If you cannot tell us your position on the red pill, let us see if you can tell us what the red pill is. If you cannot, you are answerable to social justice warriors supervising your entryism.

                  Explain to us why King Solomon’s good woman is not practicing capitalism, and why King Solomon is not commending capitalism. “Jewish” is not an answer. It obvious that you are not a genuine anti semite. You are pretending to be what social justice warriors imagine anti semites to be.

                  Anyone who uses the “Pedophilia” unironically is normalizing Drag Queen Story hour. Comments to the effect that I am a pervert, that I am jewish, that reactionaries are perverts, etc, will be silently deleted. Blue pillers support the sale of living babies much wanted by their fathers as baby meat. Blue pillers support the the transexualization of nine year old boys. Blue pillers support the destruction of families. Blue pillers rip children from their fathers. Blue pillers turn a blind eye to the murder of children. Any time someone uses the word “Pedophilia” unironically he endorses Drag Queen Story Hour. Blue pillers hate the family and destroy families. Blue pilllers reject God, reject Christ, and will burn in hell for their vile, disgusting, and abominable, crimes. You guys are vile disgusting filth and you project your foul and vile perversion onto us. Social Justice Warriors always project.

                  You are not a genuine anti semite, and you are some kind of disgusting sexual deviant, so I will not allow you pull the änti semite card to excuse your failure to respond on Biblical records of capitalism, nor projecting your own filth onto us to excuse your failure to respond on the women question.

                  And I am not going to allow you to drag the name of antisemitism through the mud with your very mangled attempts to pretend to be an anti semite.

                  Respond to the questions you have been asked on economics.

                  Respond to the questions you have been asked on economic history, the origins of capitalism.

                  Respond to the questions you have been asked on the red pill.

                  Respond to the questions you have been asked on the sale of baby meat.

                  Respond to the questions you have been asked on the nature of women. “Jewish”is not an answer to any of these questions. Whenever I ask you a question, your response is that answering the question would somehow contaminate you with Jewishness – which is not a response that would make sense to someone that actually was an anti semite.

                  And when did you last have sex with a fertile age living human female?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim I am getting autosp@mmed again…

                  Please delete all the comments where I merely complain about autosp@m I only need one to go through so you can fix the problem but after that there is no need for the comments section to be cluttered up with them.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You were asked to respond to some or all the following questions in a way that acknowledged our beliefs.

                  You spent several screens of effort posting which consisted of explaining why it was beneath your dignity to answer those questions, telling me those questions were Jewish, though the questions were in the style of my Aryan ancestors, and your rant was in the style of Marxism and Talmudic Judaism, and telling us what our beliefs are on those questions, which tale of what we believed has not the faintest resemblance to our frequently, forcefully, and plainly stated beliefs.

                  One of the many questions you talked about, but failed to reply to, was “when did you last have sex with a fertile age human female.” I am tired of being lectured about how strong empowered women are wise and virtuous by filthy disgusting transexualized soyboy sexual deviants who diddle children at Drag Queen Story hour and never work out.

                  Respond to the questions you have been asked on economics. “I don’t care about biblical Israel” is not an answer. We care, and you should care, about what economic systems have worked in the past. The Old Testament proves that Early Iron Age First Temple Israel was capitalist, and the New Testament proves that Rome and Second Temple Israel at the time of Jesus was capitalist. Answer: Was King Solomon’s Israel capitalist? If not, why not?
                  Respond to the questions you have been asked on economic history, the origins of capitalism. You spent two screenfuls of effort posting talking around the question and explaining why asking it or answering it was Jewish.

                  I notice you show a curious inability to use the words “Bible”, “Old Testament” and “New Testament” Are you frightened that the words might cause you to catch fire, as Angela Dorothea Merkel was frightened that the German flag might burn her with its patriotic radiation? Let us see if you can use those words.

                  Respond to the questions you have been asked on the red pill. You responded with three screenfuls of text telling us we believe. Supposedly we believe in blue pill account of women, but for some odd reason do stupid things that if, the blue pill was true, would be unlikely to result in sex or family, and supposedly we believe in blue pill morality, but we are just wicked people who fail sell baby meat or hand our children over to sexual deviants.

                  I am curious to see if speaking our catechism, or even mentioning our shibboleths, if only to tell us point by point where the catechism is false, will set you on fire, as Angela Merkel seemed to fear that the German flag might burn her.

                  Respond to the questions you have been asked on the sale of baby meat. “I am in favor of restricting all commerce” is an evasion not an answer. It does not matter, does not make a difference if the party planners assign baby meat to researchers who are in need of living human tissue that was part of a living body a few moments previously accordance with socialist goals, rather than Planned parenthood selling living just born babies for cash on the barrelhead to researchers who are in need of living human tissue that was part of a living body a few moments previously. I am sick of being lectured on morality by evil subhumans who are indignant that I fail to put my children and my women in their power.

                  It seems that anyone who uses the word “”pedophile” unironically not only supports drag queen story hour, he supports the dissection of living human babies wanted by their fathers.

                  Respond to the questions you have been asked on the nature of women. “Jewish”is not an answer to any of these questions. Whenever I ask you a question, your response is that answering the question would somehow contaminate you with Jewishness – which is not a response that would make sense to someone that actually was an anti semite. And though my questions are very much in the style of the works of my Scottish ancestors and their Aryan ancestors, and your replies are very much in the style of Marxism and the Jewish Talmud, you keep telling me that asking these questions proves that I am Jewish. Your writing is culturally Jewish, your evasiveness and chutzpah is biologically Jewish, and your anti semitism is transparently fake. You don’t know, or will not acknowledge, how real antisemites think and speak, instead emulating what social justice warriors think anti semitism is.

                  I won’t ask you for the Reactionary account of the Jewish Question, for we already have far too much talk about it, and it matters far less than capitalism, markets, marriage, property, family, and God, but it is obvious that if I were to ask, you would not be able to respond to that one either.

                  However, your inability to use the words “Bible”, “Old Testament”, “New Testament” leads me to ask you, in the confident expectation that you believe that answering would cause you to catch fire: “What is the reactionary position on the relationship between Gnon, the Logos, God as represented in the New Testament, and God as represented in the Old Testament?”

                  And when did you last have sex with a fertile age living human female?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive and repetitious.

                  If you want your comments to go through, answer one of the questions – and don’t tell us that we think and tell us that we think and say that has no resemblance to what we actually think and say.

                  If King Solomon’s Israel was not capitalist, what made it not capitalist? You keep telling me that the Enlightenment made property sacrosanct and all that, but that the story of Nathan’s vineyard was such a big deal in first temple Israel shows that the rights of capitalists to their property was, in the eyes of people of first Temple Israel, backed by God – in which case the enlightenment was an attack on capital. Revolutionary France murdered capitalists, confiscated the property of capitalists, and enslaved capitalists. That is your enlightenment right there. Discuss the evidence.

                  You endlessly repeat:

                  modern capitalism (the arrangement in which private property is sacrosanct and the law exists to preserve property rights, above and beyond any right of rulers to rule) dates from the Enlightenment.

                  But that is a lie. The enlightenment was and is a vicious, savage, and destructive attack on capitalism and on the God who ordained it, an attack that destroyed the economy of Revolutionary France and has since then destroyed economies over and over again. Respond to the evidence presented on the King Solomon, and on the French Maximum. Repeating this outrageous and absurd lie over and over and over and over is not an answer. Respond to evidence. The God of First Temple Israel was interpreted as commanding capitalism, the God of “Reason” interpreted as forbidding it.

                  What is Gnon, Christ, the logos, and the difference between the Old Testament and the New Testament? Can you even use the words without bursting into flames? It seems like you have a serious allergy to Christ, to Jesus as the incarnation of the Logos as wholly man. Prove you don’t have such an allergy. If you are not deeply influenced by Judaism despite your poorly emulated antisemitism, why the allergy?

                  You not only disagree with us, you cannot even talk about the matters on which you disagree, as if the thoughts might cause you to catch fire, and the words might cause lightning from heaven to strike you.

                  How do we depict the nature of women “All Women Are Like That”, and if women are not like that, what are they like?

                  What is your position on the selling (or planned socialist donation) of live babies wanted by their fathers and unwanted by their mothers to be taken apart for research purposes?

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  Hey. I’m really appreciating this (to me profound) concept of how there can be topics, keywords or subjects, that we can’t even talk about, can’t even acknowledge or repeat for argument’s sake, even to argue against, because we’re afraid that doing so might cause us to “catch fire.”

                  Even from behind the best sock-account skin-suit that money can buy.

                  It’s like a super-power for judging people.

                  (Rhetorical: “How does this apply to me?”)

                  And no, I haven’t had sex with a fertile-age female in forever, and I know that reveals very un-well things about me.

                  “And do you avoid sitting with this fact and consciously addressing it as a problem to be acted upon and solved? Because you’re afraid you’ll catch fire if you do?”

                  Shit how did you do that?

                  –SlowClass

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Yet another lengthy effort post deleted for being repetitious and unresponsive.

                  Answer the questions.

                  We replied to your previous claims. Respond to the evidence presented, rather than blandly continuing as if your claims were uncontroversial.

  18. vxxc says:

    O/T BUT: Our POTUS is straight up Gangster.
    Just walk into North Korea and make a Deal.

    The 7th floor must be leaping out the windows.

  19. […] on the coming holy war: The Faith. Alf calls it […]

  20. Friendly Fred says:

    Does the “Warriors” in “Warriors should rule” refer to people of a certain personality-type? If so, how can this personality-type be summed up?

    The same with “Priests” — if this word, in “Priests shouldn’t rule”, refers to people of a certain personality-type, how can this personality-type be summed up?

    (Plato’s contemplative vs. spirited [status-focused] vs. appetitive [fun-focused] scheme doesn’t help us to distinguish the warrior-personality from the priestly one if — as seems to be the case — Progressive pundits as well as business-lords mainly want status.)

    • Jim’s class system is a heuristic when it comes to personality type and rather more concrete when it comes to what these classes do and how they use power.

      It’s more useful to reason backwards from observed experience and notice that manly men who use violence for a living have a personality type and nerdy men who derive truth for a living have a personality type.

      “Priests shouldn’t rule” isn’t about assigning people a caste based on a test when they’re children and telling them “do this”, it’s saying that a class of men that acts in a certain way shouldn’t have influence in how violent men keep order in their lands. The fact that the elements of society that handle the truth attract an inborn personality type is almost incidental.

  21. Buford T Injustice says:

    Spot on regarding the rapid and downward delusional spiral of the other side. I think though that rebooting the Christianity of 1000 years ago or propagating Christianity of any kind in the future is just as delusional. We have evolved out of Christianity. Dragging it around in the future will only generate the very same problems we see today because the heart of Christianity is slavery, therefore humans will always cast it off. A famous person once said something about not being able to solve problems with the same thinking that created them. We are swimming in the consequences of Christianity. Why would anyone want to keep going down that road?

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      Islam is explicitly ‘submission to Allah’. No evidence of Muslims casting it off. People cast of Christianity as a power play but this is an inherent problem with any sort of social arrangement involving humans. There is no system of belief or social order that can solve that short of extermination of the human race by superior machine life.

      • Buford T Injustice says:

        Would disagree with your characterizing the casting off of Christianity as a “power play”. I would describe it as honesty.

  22. Franklin Fortinbras says:

    Great blog post. But a disappointing comments discussion.

    Sure, we’re all very smart, and we can see certain things:
    1) There are different subgroups of Jews, with somewhat different beliefs, interests, etc.
    2) Some progressives have dared to question Israel’s apartheid policies
    3) Increasing political power for POCs will, over time, be increasingly problematic for Jews with white skin

    But these three points are NOT evidence that:
    a) Jews are being purged from power
    b) AIPAC has no influence on Congress
    c) Jewish power is a non-issue

    Jewish power is one of the most salient aspects of American society. And it is still the great unmentionable. Mention the Jewishness of top American political donors, journalists, media moguls, financiers, etc., and risk your livelihood and social standing.

    Jews are the intellectual and financial core of anti-whiteness. The fact that they will ultimately suffer too from the POC resentment they have stoked does not change the basic facts or power dynamics.

    White Christians are the most maligned group these days, under siege from the law, the culture, the government, etc. This is what Jews craved, intended, planned, and executed.

    When Jews are openly criticized for from the highest bully pulpits of the culture, for the crime of NOT being Christians, then we can talk about how Jews have no power. Until then, claims that Jewish power is non-existent are premature at best, but more likely dishonest.

    Many of you posters are effectively suggesting that Jewish power disintegrated almost instantaneously. From so absolute that mentioning it was FORBIDDEN, to, suddenly, so insignificant the mentioning it is POINTLESS. That doesn’t pass the smell test.

    • The Cominator says:

      Jewish power isn’t truly Jewish.

      Cathedral Jews want open border for Israel, don’t have kids and don’t marry each other.

      Truly ethnocentric and religious Jews in the US generally support Trump (not out of love so much as they know Trump isn’t their enemy and that the left is their enemy). Double standard shill Jews like Ben Shapiro are odd exceptions.

      Nazi larpers are government shills and their position on the jewish issue is a government shill position and an albatross around the neck of the far right.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “Jews are the intellectual and financial core of anti-whiteness. ”

      That isn’t a sign of power. If Jews had power they wouldn’t pay a dime for anti-whiteness. Power means other people pay for things you desire.

      The problem with intellectual power is you could say the same thing about the USSR up until Stalin purged them all and it turned out Jewish power was a paper tiger.

      The best way to judge ‘who has power’ is to look at who women are going for.

      • Not Tom says:

        The best way to judge ‘who has power’ is to look at who women are going for.

        Well, hell. I don’t want to pour gasoline on this fire, but: http://www.unz.com/anepigone/the-40-year-old-incel/

        Only caveat is, Jews tend to be very small sample sizes in these stats (n=89).

      • 2019 is boring says:

        The best way to judge ‘who has power’ is to look at who women are going for.

        Rubbish. The male status hierarchy is very unlike the female status hierarchy. Women wet their pussies for musicians and bikers, which should not imply that musicians and bikers are in control of society.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          People want sex. If you don’t get women wet, this is usually because you can’t you don’t have the power to ignore the rules in ways to gets their interests.

          • 2019 is boring says:

            Professors and bureaucrats and scientists (among others) don’t usually get pussies wet.

            To conclude from this that professors and bureaucrats and scientists are powerless, or less powerful than musicians and bikers and tattoo artists, is utterly idiotic. Female status hierarchy corresponds to ape perception of power, not human male actual real-world power. Thus when you write:

            The best way to judge ‘who has power’ is to look at who women are going for.

            You ignore Jim’s often repeated point about Feynman, which really applies to any rich and famous (or otherwise successful) man who is high-status among men, who wields power over men, but who is evidently not high status-among women.

            CEOs can usually get laid, but when a lowlife drug-dealing gangster is around, they are shit out of luck. It’s not because lowlife drug-dealing gangsters have more power than CEOs.

            • CEOs can usually get laid, but when a lowlife drug-dealing gangster is around, they are shit out of luck. It’s not because lowlife drug-dealing gangsters have more power than CEOs.

              Do CEOs really have more power than gangsters? I am reminded of Nassim Taleb claiming that he could get into a fight with any CEO of a major company and this would be good for him (raise his profile as an author) and bad for the CEO (hurt his reputation). A gangster who punches out Jeff Bezos has little to use and much to gain, but if Bezos punches a guy, he has everything to lose.

              To be able to punch people with only good consequences, or mostly good consequences is probably a kind of power in of itself.

              • alf says:

                Despite Nassim’s boasting, he will mostly be ignored when picking a fight with any CEO of a major company, showing Nassim is not that important, hurting his reputation.

                As a more general rule, no one is completely antifragile, least of all Nassim, who for the sale of his books depends on the goodwill of the NY Times, thus has the necessary CRIMESTOP in place. A while ago there was a spat on twitter that exactly demonstrated Nassim’s CRIMESTOP, I think it involved Stevel Sailer and IQ.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  He still goes off about IQ.

                  I think it’s one quarter crimestop, one half wounded ethnic pride that his group isn’t shown as high IQ and one quarter him seeing an opportunity to raise his profile by saying what a bunch of people desperately want to hear – some kind of fancy sounding justification for why IQ is bunk instead of the screeching about cultural bias that no one really believes.

                • Nassim made himself look like an absolute fool with that tweetstorm. I cannot bring up his other, valid points, or even point out that he was right about IQ’s weak correlation to success without looking like I support a moron.

                • Anounder says:

                  Stop bringing up Taleb. He’s for all intents and purposes a progressive who hates on Whitey. Him being ashamed of his heritage enough to LARP as a Greco-Roman doesn’t change that.

              • Anounder says:

                You might as well say some ghetto rat has more power than George Soros from being low-IQ enough to chimpout and get shot.

        • Anounder says:

          It’s been known since the Mycenaean Greeks that a man’s skill, his brilliance, his light, isn’t determined by a woman. It was also known that indeed, wastrels and cowards could draw in a beautiful woman’s interest (see Paris and Helen).

          The notion that a woman’s attitude towards a man is the end all of a man’s place in society is really just feminist twaddle combined with “nerd culture.” Which considering how feminized modern society is makes that unsurprising.

          >go to every living statesman, military man, bussinesman, craftsman, or man of sciences and letters, and contemplate the opinions and values of all dead ones too, and if you find a single one who respects or ever respected “bad boys” call up the Guinness World Records because you’ve found something truly extraordinary that they’ll be interested in. The only types of people who have ever respected such characters are women, homosexuals…

          http://maleprivilege.net/viewtopic.php?t=169

    • Not Tom says:

      Some progressives have dared to question Israel’s apartheid policies

      Suspicious wording that sounds like a Progressive saying what he thinks a Nazi would probably say.

      Mention the Jewishness of top American political donors, journalists, media moguls, financiers, etc., and risk your livelihood and social standing.

      See above. Marxist frame.

      I’m still sort of new here, but I don’t recognize the name. Anyone else tell me if this is a regular contributor and I’m being overly paranoid, or if this is what I think it is?

      • alf says:

        If it talks like a shill, walks like a shill, smells like a shill…

      • jim says:

        Franklin Fortinbras. is a new guy, and obvious enemy infiltrator posing as “hail fellow nazi, our host is insufficiently nazi. Must be an agent of the Zionist Occupation Government”.

        But the reference to “Apartheid policies” reveals him to be commie, not a nazi. I love apartheid policies and totally support them. And so do real Nazis. They are the only way that racially different groups can live together peacefully. The alternative is Detroit at best, terror and mass murder at worst. Real Nazis think that Israel should have apartheid policies, and so should we.

    • jim says:

      You are unresponsive.

      These things are exactly evidence that Jews are losing power, that AIPAC is increasingly powerless and afraid, and you slide between admitting it and denying it, refusing to be pinned down.

  23. Franklin Fortinbras says:

    The heterogeneity of Jewish positions on various issues is not evidence of powerlessness.

    Jewish propagandists are masters of the Hegelian dialectic. And powerful people often have policy debates among them. Is Bibi Netanyahu powerful? Yes. Is George Soros powerful? Yes. Does their disagreement on some issues mean that White Christians are gaining power at Jewish expense. No. Are some of the BDS types Jewish? Yep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez herself has talked about her Jewish roots.

    Do various shills, government or otherwise, like to hang the albatross of anti-semitism around the necks of their Christian enemies? Of course. Because it’s the most powerful “hate speech” accusation one can make. Why? Because of Jewish power.

    Is noticing Jewish power evidence of Nazism? No. Is the desire to shush discussions of Jewish power evidence of Jewish power? Yes.

    • The Cominator says:

      You sound too much like a government type white nationalist shill but one generally more intelligent then most of them so lets put you through the usual challenge to prove you aren’t.

      Spit out some redpill truths about women, discuss the timeline of where women get wrong, discuss why the sex pill outranks the race pill.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        @Cominator

        Surprise, surprise! Franklin FortinFED fails to answer your RedPill test!

        It really has a 100% hit rate against fed entryists.

    • BC says:

      We’ve had this debate already. Jews are the Red Cape, the not the Matador. Go back to your paymasters and tell them you’ve failed, shill.

      • Franklin Fortinbras says:

        I am not a government shill nor a Jewish shill nor a liberal shill trying to discredit the alt right. I am just a guy, an unpaid guy, posting on a blog that I often read and enjoy. I am a White Christian who sees obvious evidence of Jewish power all around me. I swear to God that I have no paymasters and that I am no shill.

        I agree that Jewish power IS often discussed on this blog. I appreciate and enjoy the fact that Jim and many of his commenters ARE willing to break taboos and discuss Jewish power.

        As I mentioned above, I disagree with many of the comments to this blog post, which seem to suggest that Jewish power is a non-issue or a small issue or not worth discussing because there’s disagreement among Jews or because Jews too will be eaten by the progressive push they’ve played such a part in promoting.

        I’ve read this blog and the comments a lot. But I can’t say that I feel clear on how “we’ve had this debate already.” I for one am not sure what we’ve concluded.

        I don’t disagree with you that Jews may be the Red Cape and not the Matador. I think that’s very interesting and quite likely. As we’ve seen throughout history, Jews are often scapegoated, which is useful for the Matador.

        Who the Matador is, is for me the biggest question as I try to figure out the real power dynamics of this world. And I’m not clear, from this blog or anything else I read, who the Matador is and what evidence supports various theories of who the Matador is. If you can please direct me anywhere, I will happily go do some reading.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          The situation occurred in 1789

          French Revolution – Jewish Emancipation
          Jews proceed to screw over peasants
          Napoleon comes to power
          Issue brought up in Imperial Council
          Napoleon calls Grand Sanhedrin
          Effusive praise for liberator and protector of Jewish people; Jews promise to be good citizens of the Patre
          The next year Napoleon bans Jews from lending money and annuls all debts to Jews

          Jewish power is a coup complete problem. This doesn’t mean that a monarch will solve the issue (since monarchs have shown a willingness to screw over people for fun) but it does mean it isn’t a productive topic.

          The traditional method is Jews are considered a distinct community and required to police their members with collective punishment levied on the community if things get out of hand (ex- Jewish lightening leading to fines). It is the standard method of dealing with populations of non-hostile outsiders.

        • Grand Inquisitor Bob says:

          I am not a reactionary either. I am just a normal guy, a hired gun perhaps, trying to find out which side, prog/con or reactionary, will hold power when I come into my birthright. I will then hitch my car to that particular train and ride it gracefully to glory. I am inherently lazy, a natural beneficiary of progressivism, and have a tendency to side with progressives in their fight against those people above who are holding us down, for the Glory of Rome, the rebuilding of the Third Temple, la reconquista de las terras perdidas, under Gnon almighty, second-most-holy, who has seen fit, in his wisdom, that his successor, and usurper, and lord of all high places, shall finally walk this Earth.

          … posting on a blog that I often read and enjoy. I am a White Christian …

          You sound like an alt-righter, an infidel, Mr Fortinbras, and your thought crimes will be legion. Clearly you are on the wrong side of history. Surely you know that this blog is simply a net: a catch-all for people like yourself who stray too far from the path. Could you really be so simple as to think yourself safe?

          You know how this ends, Mr Fortinbras.

          • calov says:

            It ends with Fortinbras entering Denmark with an army, only to find that the Royal house of Denmark has already slaughtered itself.

        • jim says:

          > I am not a government shill nor a Jewish shill nor a liberal shill trying to discredit the alt right. I am just a guy, an unpaid guy, posting on a blog that I often read and enjoy. I am a White Christian

          If you were a white Christian, you would not refer to “Israeli Apartheid” as if that was a bad thing.

          If you were a white Christian, you would know what you believed, instead of being evasively impossible to pin down.

          Your evasiveness and shiftiness reveals that you are not genuinely presenting your true beliefs. If you actually believed X, you would tell us “X is true”. CR instead tells us that we believe that X is true (usually that we believe Marxism is true) without telling us what he believes is true, and you tell us … well it far from clear what you are telling us because you use Motte and Bailey arguments, and mix the language and frame of progressive antisemitism with the language and frame of right wing antisemitism. Your explanation of why Jews are bad is internally inconsistent and incoherent, mixing fragments of Trotskyist anti semitism with fragments of nazi anti semitism, without committing yourself to either one.

          If someone genuinely believed Jews are bad, he would have a clearer and more consistent idea as to why they were bad.

          • The Cominator says:

            I posted another question to this mr not a shill (though he seems to have a bit better script then the usual) challenging him that if he was not a shill to expound on the woman question a bit since we’ve found 100% that fed shills pulling a more anti-semitic then thou act cannot speak any redpill truths on women.

            It didn’t go through… but it did get “awaiting moderation” this time.

        • jim says:

          Mueller substantially caused 9/11, in that the FBI policy was to ignore Muslim terrorists even if the terrorists got right in their faces, and find white Christian terrorists regardless of whether they existed or not.

          To distract attention from this massive misconduct, resulting in massive disaster, the FBI and Mueller found the Dancing Israelis (who were not in fact dancing). In this incident, Mueller and FBI were the matador, and the Dancing Israelis the cape.

          Similarly when people blame the Jews for the forever war in Afghanistan. What do Jews care about Afghanistan?

        • simplyconnected says:

          Who the Matador is, is for me the biggest question as I try to figure out the real power dynamics of this world.

          That is an important question that I wish our host could address some time. He claims that it’s a holiness spiral, and there is certainly very strong evidence for it.
          He has also claimed that feminism was stopped in its tracks around WWII, suggesting power to change public perception very quickly.

          Moldbug claims that power ends at professors and journalists. Supposedly they are independent, and hold the power to change public opinion, surely, but with a long time delay (~1 generation). But this would be incompatible with stopping feminism in its tracks very quickly in time for WWII.

          I do often wonder if there is something else above a loosely coordinating, but reinforcing (and recently spiraling out of control), group of professors and journalists.
          Both Moldbug and Cochran claim there isn’t, if I understood them correctly.

          • Not Tom says:

            The question implies the answer: American elites planned for WWII ahead of time. This is consistent with the narrative of America provoking the Japanese. They were ready ahead of time.

            Separately, Moldbug asserts that the Harvard-NYT brahminate can exert control over even the various branches of government, given time, but doesn’t say that state and priesthood can’t already share common interests at certain times and act in concert. The US had already just fought a previous war, which increased both its economic and military strength as well as the cultural spread of progressivism. It’s possible that all of the actors involved all wanted the same thing and knew what had to be done to achieve it.

            Sending commoners off to war is usually an easy sell with priestly aristocracies.

          • jim says:

            > He claims that it’s a holiness spiral, and there is certainly very strong evidence for it.

            > He has also claimed that feminism was stopped in its tracks around WWII, suggesting power to change public perception very quickly.

            Reading the climategate files, we see both diffuse and concentrated power. On the one hand, there is widespread hostility to whiteness, industrial civilization, technological civilization, science, and the scientific method. On the other hand, Mann can issue commands and everyone snaps to and does it. He tells them “the story we are going to tell is X” and bang, they cook up evidence for X and anyone who finds evidence for not X loses tenure.

            Mann’s concentrated power is made possible by broad and diffuse support for the destruction of science, the scientific method, technology, industry, and Western civilization.

            Reading the Climategate files, we see both a priesthood and a pope. The pope can turn the priesthood on a dime, but only so long as he is following the general tendency of the priesthood.

            I conjecture that before 1933 there was a papal memo “Hey, we don’t want the white working class eating our lunch, so lets focus on women, slaves, and darkies”

            Then in 1933 there was a papal memo: “Hey, the commies and Nazis are eating our lunch, and we are going to need men and manliness for the coming war, so its time to end feminism and focus on socialism.

            Then, after the war, socialism had failed catastrophically, so there was in 1949 a papal memo that said “Darkies, not socialism”. Then they could not go any further on darkies, so the holiness spiral started going on women, whereupon a papal memo went out in 1963, “OK, feminism is restarting, so we had better put ourselves in front of it.”

            But whether a would be pope can get away with a papal memo depends on the way the wind blows.

            It is obvious that doctrine can turn on a dime, changing abruptly in 1933, 1949, and 1963 as suddenly as someone turning off a tap. But the Pope, in order to be a Pope, has to consult the Bishops. Mann could not have exercised the power he exercised if his fellows had not been generally on board with the destruction of science, the scientific method, technology, industry, and industrial civilization. The Climategate emails give us the inside look on how this works.

            That a priesthood coordinates its story implies that somewhere, sometime a memo is issued “Our Story is now X” and the entire priesthood of the America hegemony, including every tenured academic in the entire western world, uniformly and in lock step gets on board with X and forgets that yesterday they believed Y.

            That is what makes them a priesthood. But before the memo is issued, there needs to be a lot of consultation within the priesthood.

            If the process was entirely diffuse, if these abrupt U turn memos could not happen, then they would not constitute a priesthood.

            But if the process was entirely concentrated, if the Pope had total power, they would not be suffering from a holiness spiral.

            • simplyconnected says:

              But in that case, does it not beg the question of who (if anyone) has influence over the climate-change pope?.
              If such power to influence the climate-change pope existed, one would imagine it would’ve been seized. Perhaps through funding agencies, gifts?.

              Diffuse power seems, as Moldbug puts it, much harder to dislodge. Where as concentrated power would appear considerably simpler to influence. It’s hard to imagine a lack of groups interested in acquiring that power.

              I have no group in mind, I simply observe that diffuse power would seem to fit the holiness spiral hypothesis better. Whereas concentrated power would seem more likely to be externally influenced. Could some group not somehow acquire the power to compel Mann to issue a memo?

              I’ve had this question about, as you put it, diffuse and concentrated power, bouncing in my head for some time.

            • The Cominator says:

              Reading the Climategate files, we see both a priesthood and a pope. The pope can turn the priesthood on a dime, but only so long as he is following the general tendency of the priesthood.

              So in essence… no way to get rid of the priesthood without a lot of helicopter rides.

              whereupon a papal memo went out in 1963, “OK, feminism is restarting, so we had better put ourselves in front of it.”

              It did not spontaneously restart and then they rode it… THEY restarted it. All the early feminists second wave feminists were jewish female CIA agents. Betty Friedan was on the payroll before she wrote the Feminine Mystique not after.

              Its purpose was obviously to create a problem where none existed, from the wikipedia page on The Feminine Mystique… a Letter to Editor in McCall’s, one woman wrote “All this time I thought I was happy, and a nice person. Now I discover I’ve been miserable and some sort of monster in disguise—now out of disguise. How awful!”. That was exactly the point of the book and all its follow ups… it was quite a deliberate mindfuck.

              My theory is that most of the Right Wing CIA agents (Allen Dulles boys who also did Iran and Guatemala) were involved in the Bay of Pigs and they got purged afterwords and the leadership that was left over included a lot of commies leftover from WWII. With Dulles and the Right Wingers out of the way they decided to restart feminism.

            • simplyconnected says:

              Perhaps this is the key:

              The pope can turn the priesthood on a dime, but only so long as he is following the general tendency of the priesthood,

              So perhaps the climate change pope can decide on tactical questions, but not necessarily influence the general direction.

              I think it’s human nature to look for ultimate causes. When confronted with a large self-reinforcing holiness spiraling group, most people will ask themselves who is directing them. Arguing that no one is takes some work.

              • Not Tom says:

                Tactical vs. strategic is a good, if crude, first-order approximation.

                Imagine standing in hurricane winds, holding a big rubber ball. You can throw the ball in the same direction as the wind, and it will go in a perfectly straight line; or you can throw it at an oblique angle to the wind, and it will sort of go in the direction you intended, more or less, but curving away significantly. Or, you can try throwing it directly against the wind, and enjoy the sensation of having it come back and smack you in the face.

                Your throwing arm is your concentrated power; the wind is diffuse power.

                Hillary Clinton and George Soros and Michael Mann can use their concentrated power to move their empires leftward very quickly. They can do weird pivots like geoengineering or instigating World War III, with rather unpredictable consequences that somehow yield more leftism. But none of them could repeal the 19th or declare global warming a hoax, even if they wanted to. They’d only manage to destroy themselves. You can probably even imagine what would happen: same thing that happens with every apostate, starting with hit pieces, social media dogpiling, revoking security clearances and academic credentials, and eventually being barred from public life.

                • simplyconnected says:

                  Your throwing arm is your concentrated power; the wind is diffuse power.

                  If I understood you, the real power to set the direction lies ultimately in the general priesthood’s soft power (the wind).
                  And so what can at first appear to be a 180 degree turn, like stopping feminism in its tracks in time for WWII is, in a wider context, a change of tactics in the larger battle to destroy western civilization.

                • Not Tom says:

                  As I see it, yes. Feminism wasn’t reversed in WWII, only momentarily diverted toward other kinds of “progress” especially central planning and federalization. At no point did Cthulhu ever stop swimming left, he just did some zigzagging and bobbing up and down.

                  Ironically, as part of the “unpredictable yet invariably farther left” consequences, the temporary cessation of feminism in order to identify and send masculine men off to die in foreign wars, both during and after WWII, may have helped catalyze the massive decline in T levels and coincident rise of infantilized soy culture, gender-bending and retard-wave feminism.

                • Bob says:

                  >may have helped catalyze the massive decline in T levels

                  I’m not so sure about this, because Sweden and Norway didn’t suffer massive loses in either world wars, but (at least Sweden I guess) are very feminist. Russia did suffer massive loses, but is less feminist. Maybe I’m not grasping your argument.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’m not so sure about this, because Sweden and Norway didn’t suffer massive loses in either world wars

                  Sweden has been cuck country for a long time, though. The theory I’ve heard is that Swedish T levels entered a downward spiral all the way back when Vikings went out to conquer and didn’t come back. I don’t know about Norway, I’m not even sure if they have the same problem, but if so then it might simply be emigration and not war.

                  Of course these are just educated guesses. Scandinavia is a huge outlier in many ways, and has for a long time been a leading rather than lagging indicator of the progressive eschaton.

          • shaman says:

            Universities are the Matador. If one professor goes against the flow, it may be career suicide. But if all professors in tandem make a U-turn, culture abruptly switches. During the first half of the 20th century, the Intelligence and Defense establishments could substantially influence the professoriat. Today, the glowniggers have been reduced to trolling campaigns on the internet (FBI is having a blast), while there is no one above the professoriat able to order it to change memes. The top Brahmins have their own memetic sovereignty, and coordinate their memes among themselves.

            The internet has given us an opportunity to subvert the universities. But now, unsurprisingly, everyone is getting banned – the Cathedral fights back to maintain its memetic hegemony.

            • The Cominator says:

              How do they control the glownaggers and how do the glownaggers control the media? That is what I don’t know.

              • jim says:

                The New York Times controls the media, and the media controls the glownaggers.

                As to who controls the New York Times, we lack the equivalent of the ClimateGate files, but if we had them, pretty sure they would be full of friendly chats with a senior government employee and a senior Harvard employee.

                The ability to turn on a dime implies a far higher level of central command than is admitted, but at the same time, the central command has to issue central commands that are acceptable to synod, and continuously consults with a broader synod.

                We do, however, have the infamous “Dear Colleague” letter.

                The origins of the Dear Colleague letter were a campaign by low level feminists to invent a rape crisis in the Universities. After this campaign had been going on for some time, central authority issued a directive to all of academia to treat the rape crisis as real, and to find and punish an adequate number of affluent white male rapists, and academia fell into line overnight, every single academic everywhere, some however, such as the university of Virginia, with rather less enthusiasm than they ostensibly proclaimed.

                So with the rape crisis, we saw both dispersed bottom up agitation by the glownaggers, and abrupt central command, abruptly obeyed.

                Similarly with gays – diffuse agitation, followed by official command, followed by officially unofficial authorization for diffuse gays to beat the crap out of those lagging in obedience to central command.

                • The Cominator says:

                  So the command and control is a lot like the Soviet communist party prior to Stalin becoming dictator for real in 1937.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I do not disagree with what has been said thus far, but I do feel it is a bit… structural. As if someone is meticulously planning it all. In my experience, that is not the case. Rather, thought leaders use memetic transfer to inculcate an environment of passive indoctrination.

                  I’ve had the “benefit” of attending the, arguably, most woke University in NAmerica, which has served to turn me into a far more racist, antisemetic-by-default individual than I ever desired or thought possible. “Poz” is not an abstraction for me.

                  These two-bit commissars are the most inept, boring group of mostly-whites you would ever encounter. They have no plan. They have no script. They are unfettered priests, imbued with a level of righteous indignation coupled with a profound constructive blindness that boggles the mind. The 2016 Waterloo made manifest this situation for me. Blind rage is their oxygen. If they get a whiff of top-down organization they fall apart.

                  Point being: they are in their element when society is chaos. They thrive on midwit whites and woke muds. They have the power of suggestion. They build their syllabuses around confusion. Their lesson plans are a study in unrestrained emotionality. And they terrify the old guard. They need not formally Glow; they are 3rd stage cultural Marxism embodied.

                  More narrow point being: they do not need to be emailed. They are perfectly capable of destroying thought by default. This is not to say there isn’t some Mastermind trying to pull strings, rather the Academe is an unregulated entity fully capable of wrecking society with no top down guidance.

                • jim says:

                  > They have no plan. They have no script. They are unfettered priests, imbued with a level of righteous indignation coupled with a profound constructive blindness that boggles the mind.

                  If unfettered and unplanned, they could not turn on a dime in unison. Time after time, we see them turning on a dime in perfect unison over the entire USG hegemony.

                  A priest has to have a priesthood, and the priesthood has to have priestly discipline. They have priestly discipline, and have demonstrated it time after time after time. I first saw how the world really worked when every tenured academic everywhere changed their line on the Khmer Rouge a few days after New Years Day 1979 and every tenured academic everywhere, including supposed libertarian academics, supposed conservative academics, and supposed anarcho capitalist academics, forgot that their academy had previously espoused a radically different line. It was as abrupt, uniform, and absurd as the much ridiculed communist switches on Hitler.

                  Digging back through history, I found many such switches, the oldest that I detected being the Great Zimbabwe being abruptly reassigned to from ancient Hebrew goldminers to recent blacks in 1906, evidence for its recentness being “discovered” after the abrupt and uniform switch, but evidence for its ancient and middle eastern character being instantly and uniformly forgotten in 1906.

                • The Cominator says:

                  And the power to give orders is solely a matter of informal prestige? So the ultimate authority over the media is some department head at Harvard, Yale or Georgetown?

                • jim says:

                  The roots of the power to give orders is not informal prestige, but something rather hidden and centralized – this was very obvious in the “Dear Colleague” letter.

                  Similarly, when animal fats were deemed wicked, the guy deeming them wicked was not able to deem them wicked by having prestige, but rather gained immense prestige by demonstrating he had the power to give orders and have them obeyed. But why he was able to give orders and impose obedience is not apparent.

                  If it was informal prestige we would know where the line changes on the Khmer Rouge and on Lamarck came from. The new line on Lamarck just mysteriously and suddenly appeared in a textbook and everyone instantly fell into line, knowing that what was in textbooks is backed by power, just as what is in the New York Times is backed by power, but there no information as to where it came from before it was suddenly and mysteriously in a textbook. If informal prestige there would be citations of the prestigious person, who would gain prestige by being cited, and the new doctrine would rely on the authority of his prestige. How the new line on the Khmer Rouge was communicated to everyone remains unclear.

                • Not Tom says:

                  If unfettered and unplanned, they could not turn on a dime in unison. Time after time, we see them turning on a dime in perfect unison over the entire USG hegemony.

                  A priest has to have a priesthood, and the priesthood has to have priestly discipline.

                  Does this require central command, or only Schelling points?

                  For example, we see extremely obvious coordination of narratives in the mainstream media all the time: Trayvon Martin, the coining of “fake news”, the sudden re-emergence of Emmett Till stories, the abrupt pivot from “Russian collusion” to “Russian meddling” and “obstruction of justice”, and so on.

                  But these narratives can be explained without central command, for example:
                  – Access journalism; unnamed party officials who don’t have real power, but who act in their party’s interests by offering internal rumors and leaks in exchange for one-sided coverage.
                  – Rote plagiarism; journalists are useless and lazy and simply copy whatever they read in the New York Times or Washington Post. In some cases literally copy exact phrases.
                  – Acting in professional solidarity, as with screaming about “learn to code” tweets which was in their interest, but also as with CNN defending Andy Ngo and advocating (weakly) to unmask Antifa, which may not be entirely in their interests and appears to contradict CNN’s earlier positions.

                  I see obvious and clear coordination, like you do, but I’m not sure that there’s a hidden hand. I’m not sure that there isn’t a hidden hand, either, but Occam’s Razor leads me to believe in opportunistic and spontaneous coordination with a generous helping of voluntary obsequiousness (toadying, imitation, etc.).

                  I’d more readily believe that it is possible to impose centralized control, that once in a while somebody actually does so and that Trump could do so with a successful coup, but that most of what we see is not centrally-directed, even a lot of the stuff that might seem centrally-directed.

                • Friendly Fred says:

                  I want to understand your view of things — is it that

                  (1) there are hidden top message-originators who are motivated solely by raw power-lust but count as “priests” because they strive for power through the dissemination of “stories and ideas” … and

                  (2) there are ALSO true earnest believers, who are followers and servants (including all of the people who shop at the Food Coop and adjunct-teach Women’s Studies courses and so forth) who want to devote themselves to realizing the Big Idea?

                  So: cynical secret top guys devoid of conviction manipulate lower-level true believers by disseminating ever-changing Messages?

                  (I infer a denial that the top guys are themselves true believers from the assertion that the top guys keep altering the Message — true believers wouldn’t keep altering the Message.)

                • The Cominator says:

                  My thoughts exactly there is some secret executive authority that can give orders… but it doesn’t seem like anybody has any hard evidence on who it is but yet it seems to be able to enforce some level of obedience and is able to not merely control the media but is able to order that Disney ruin its Star Wars franchise and have Disney obey despite it costing Disney billions.

                • Not Tom says:

                  …able to enforce some level of obedience and is able to not merely control the media but is able to order that Disney ruin its Star Wars franchise and have Disney obey despite it costing Disney billions.

                  But if you look carefully, you can see the rot setting in gradually over a much longer period of time. Frozen is an overtly feminist movie. Arguably, so was Brave. John Carter was just bizarre. Going back even further, Chicken Little was highly suspicious given its timing. Hell, even The Little Mermaid was basically a paean to thottery, beta-orbiting and cucked fathers. With relatively few exceptions, from about the 1970s onward (maybe earlier?), Disney movies presented male heroes with strong beta attributes, and men with alpha attributes as villains, even if they didn’t outright demonize men.

                  More recently: Marvel, which Disney acquired, was already long on the social justice bandwagon, and we know the virus is contagious. Kathleen Kennedy and Rian Johnson are still getting work. The Force Awakens was released a year before the 2016 election, the time of “peak SJW” when progressives everywhere believed themselves to be on the verge of total victory, and movies with budgets that size take years to produce, so most of the script was probably written in 2012 or earlier.

                  This doesn’t look like secret instructions to me, it looks like a holiness spiral. A perfect storm of a company with moderate progressive leanings, hooking up with other companies already speaking in tongues, and cooking up products at the apex of cultural hysteria that actually sold pretty damn well at the time, with serious backlash only arriving after they’d put the propaganda pedal to the metal.

                  And now they’re in the position of “managing the decline”. The average executive at the average progressive-leaning company is terrified that any form of heresy whatsoever, such as Google sponsoring CPAC or Twitter banning a few Antifa accounts, will end their careers and possibly destroy their companies with negative headlines and mass boycotts. And they may not be wrong.

                  These actors are definitely not acting alone, but they report to dozens or hundreds of bosses, not one boss, and many are seriously afraid of their own employees.

                • jim says:

                  > This doesn’t look like secret instructions to me, it looks like a holiness spiral. A perfect storm of a company with moderate progressive leanings, hooking up with other companies already speaking in tongues, and cooking up products at the apex of cultural hysteria that actually sold pretty damn well at the time, with serious backlash only arriving after they’d put the propaganda pedal to the metal.

                  That does not show secret instructions. But what does show secret instructions is that Kathleen was not fired.

                  Lets consider Reagan’s famous bear commercial. To this day no one in academia can acknowledge that it said what is said, that it showed what it showed. They were outraged by it, and to this day are outraged by it, and to this day are unable to say what outraged them, attributing to it a message consistent with the official doctrine of the day that the Soviet Union was wealthy and successful.

                  They might believe that socialism was economically successful for political reasons. But they cannot remember anyone saying that communisms economic failure, not its success, made it dangerous, that communism could not produce, and therefore had to grab other people’s stuff through unlimited willingness to expend unlimited conscript cannon fodder.

                  That they cannot remember that the infamous Reagan bear commercial said what it said, that history got rewritten right in front of us and stays rewritten, shows terror and compulsion.

                  They might sincerely interpret communism as economically successful – but that they are unable to recollect Reagan saying it was not economically successful, that communism had to conquer or die, had to consume and destroy other people’s wealth, and had to recklessly expend the lives of its subjects in order to grab more of other people’s money, indicates crimestop – and crimestop indicates some rather more direct compulsion than merely being out of fashion and having eyes rolled at you.

                  They might sincerely believe Reagan to be wrong, but they cannot sincerely believe Reagan did not say said. It it is classic Orwellian doublethink and doublespeak. Not only can they not dissent, they cannot notice that Reagan dissented. Supposedly Reagan agreed that communism was doing great and everyone loved it, but he just hated it because he was hateful and wanted people to suffer.

                  And every single academic everywhere in the entire USG hegemony remembers that as Reagan’s position, and continues to remember Reagan that way today, and will not acknowledge anything Reagan ever said different. If you quote Reagan saying something different, you are relying on primary sources, and you should be relying on peer reviewed sources that tell us what Reagan said, rather than being such an ignorant prole as to you yourself quote Reagan without getting the quotes peer reviewed. We cannot rely on Reagan telling us what Reagan says, only on peer reviewed academics and people in the official press telling us what Reagan says. Because if you start quoting primary sources, you are apt to quote crimethoughts.

                • jim says:

                  The little mermaid made money. Frozen made money, and the feminism was not too bad, did not totally spoil the movie. But they just killed off star wars. You would think that losing billions would make them think.

                  Characters like James Bond were made impossible long ago. Characters like Indiana Jones and Han Solo became impossible more recently. Characters like that are worth money and they killed them off.

                  Even Vox Day is not willing to revive them. He can depict the confederate flag, he can depict hate speech law as oppressive, he can depict antifascism as fascism,

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  On the question of explicit coordination in the media: the JournoList scaldal. (Note the spelling, with an “o.”)

                  https://infogalactic.com/info/JournoList

                  Some quotes from this private discussion forum of journalists:

                  On the story of Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright, who said “God damn America”:

                  “…we all have to do what we can to kill ABC [for reporting that story] and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people”.

                  Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, stated “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists”.

                  Ackerman was also quoted as saying, “find a right winger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.”

                  And Tucker Carlson, who was involved in some of the reporting on JournoList, wrote:

                  “Again and again, we discovered members of Journolist working to coordinate talking points on behalf of Democratic politicians, principally Barack Obama.”

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  Another example is the the word “homophobe.” I remember when this suddenly becme a word, some time in the 1990s. I think it may have been during the Matthew Shepard story.

                  One day that word did not exist. The next day it was everywhere in the media. I mean literally, the next 24-hour period. It was obviously coordinated. It was like living in Orwell’s 1984. That was when I first realized there is significant explicit coordination in the media, that it’s not only the left’s natural herd-think at work.

                • alf says:

                  Spencer Ackerman of The Washington Independent, stated “If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they’ve put upon us. Instead, take one of them – Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares – and call them racists”.

                  Ackerman was also quoted as saying, “find a right winger’s [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear.”

                  Say what you want about journo-leftists, but these guys get it.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  Say what you want about journo-leftists, but these guys get it.

                  Yeah. They’re evil, obviously. It’s striking how clear-headed they are in the furtherance of evil.

                  They’re not “fundamentally nice people who just get carried away sometimes” or any crap like that.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “If unfettered and unplanned, they could not turn on a dime in unison”

                  Are you sure they’re not just doing this:

                  https://invidio.us/watch?v=8HylCXuVU9o

                • jim says:

                  > > “If unfettered and unplanned, they could not turn on a dime in unison”

                  > Are you sure they’re not just doing this

                  No resemblance.

                  The best examples were the U turn on Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and the U turn on Lamarck.

                  Difference is that the fish in the school of fish are not in uniform denial about turning. The fish are acting like humans who are hip with the latest fashion, who are apt to loudly announce that fashion has changed and is changing, and they are changing with it. Each fish is conspicuously turning, to announce to other fish that they should turn, as a human fashionista conspicuously reminds us that her clothes are new.

                  With fashionistas and a school of fish, we can see peer to peer coordination right in front of our eyes. When every single tenured academic in the entire western hegemony changes line in unison, any peer to peer coordination, if any happens, is completely concealed.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Good point Cloudswrest. Another analogy would be the way the entire audience quiets down very quickly and simultaneously just before the concert starts, even though nobody knows who initiated the quieting down. Once the quieting down begins, to speak up would be rude; and once the Cathedral consensus takes a new path, to dissent would be heretical and bring (non-centralized) punishment.

              • Not Tom says:

                On the question of explicit coordination in the media: the JournoList scaldal.

                That was a big one, indeed.

                I think most of us, maybe all of us, agree that there is coordination, often explicit. The part that some of us are skeptical of is centralized top-down coordination, e.g. some CIA or State Department office calling the shots. And my personal opinion is that even if such a thing exists, it’s a mistake to imagine its influence everywhere we see a coordinated narrative, as it sets us up for failure when we get control of that entity and realize it’s not as powerful as we thought.

                For a restoration to fully succeed, all progressives – or very nearly all – need to be either sincerely converted or frozen out of power and influence. That’s a whole lot of people.

                • The Cominator says:

                  For a restoration to fully succeed, all progressives – or very nearly all – need to be either sincerely converted or frozen out of power and influence. That’s a whole lot of people.

                  At least as far as male progressives go we should just kill them, every one with virtually no exceptions.

                  A restoration should include a real Final Solution to the Leftist Problem.

                • jim says:

                  > I think most of us, maybe all of us, agree that there is coordination, often explicit. The part that some of us are skeptical of is centralized top-down coordination, e.g. some CIA or State Department office calling the shots

                  ClimateGate revealed centralized top down coordination, though no CIA or State Department office was visibly calling the shots. “Dear Colleague” was centralized top down coordination, with a top civil servant very visibly calling the shots, and high academic administrators visibly recalcitrant but visibly terrorized.

                  Without centralized coordination, backed by centralized state funding and centralized state violence, how do you get ever single academic everywhere in the entire USG Hegemony saying one thing on Monday, and the opposite thing on Sunday? That sort of thing does not happen in China or Russia any more, and when it did happen, no one doubted centralized top down coordination.

                  Consider the debate on whether the Soviet Union was wealthy, successful, and peace loving, or poor, broke, getting broker, dangerous, threatening, weak and getting weaker, and aggressive. Outside of Academia, a lot of people, the entire right except for cuckservatives and rinos, were pushing the model that socialists steal other people’s money. Then the money runs out and they steal other people’s lives, hurling unlimited amounts of conscript cannon fodder into the machine guns in order that they conquer more people and steal more money, that the Soviet Union was dangerous and aggressive because it was weak and getting weaker. Ronald Reagan’s primary campaign was all about that meme. Without central coordination, you would expect to find one advocate for Reagan’s position in one university in one country of the Western Hegemony.

    • Not Tom says:

      masters of the Hegelian dialectic

      The problem with Hegelian dialectic isn’t Hegelian dialectic but the application of Hegelian dialectic outside the philosophy discipline, i.e. its application to history, i.e. the Marxist theory of history.

      Is noticing Jewish power evidence of Nazism? No.

      Which would be a valid point, if anyone here was actually making accusations of Nazism.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        The real problem with Hegelian dialectic is that nobody can remember — if in fact anyone ever knew, which is doubtful — what “dialectic” means.

        • Not Tom says:

          Yes, that’s true, and it’s mainly because of Marx.

          Dialectic is just the use of logical arguments – generally deductive ones that are both valid and sound – to reach a conclusion deemed true. Hegelian dialectic was (is) a specific form of a dialectic – thesis-antithesis-synthesis – that Hegel proposed for resolving contradictions between valid but contradictory arguments, for example because they reasoned from metaphysical claims or other incomplete/subjective premises. From what I understand, Hegel intended this as a simple tool, not a silver bullet or totalizing ideology.

          Marx’s “dialectical materialism” was the abomination that tried to rewrite the definition of dialectic and smuggle it into historical analysis as class struggle, thus releasing into mainstream academia the unstoppable memetic parasite that we all know and love.

          Hegelian dialectic does have a faint whiff of Talmudic legalism – what I believe Jim referred to earlier as deducing “ought” from some other “ought” taken as given and absolute, so I can sort of understand the tortured logic of our shill friend here. But unlike Talmudic legalism and unlike Marxism, Hegelian dialectic doesn’t have anything to say about which arguments to look at, and most elite Jews (and other progressive elites) don’t even practice anything like Hegelian dialectic, they infer in one direction and one direction only. In fact, the people most likely to be using some form of Hegelian dialectic are Buckley conservatives and “centrists”, who are more useless than harmful.

          I know I’m responding to a bantzy quip here with spergtastic exposition, and not sure how valuable it is to be discussing progressive or proto-progressive shibboleths here, but figured it was worth mentioning because this is the kind of crap they try to confuse you with.

          • Friendly Fred says:

            Thanks, ~Tom. In Plato-translations, the character Socrates uses the word a lot — he seems to mean something like “thinking things through.” So then in Hegel you get this World-Spirit guy thinking things through, and world-history is kind of a by-product of that thought-process. (?) In Plato, it’s assumed that you think things through with your friends — hence “dialogues” — but Hegel’s Mr. World-Spirit doesn’t have any friends so he just talks to himself. (?)

            • Not Tom says:

              So then in Hegel you get this World-Spirit guy thinking things through, and world-history is kind of a by-product of that thought-process. (?)

              The Weltgeist. Many different interpretations and translations. One thing is clear, though: he definitely meant something different from the Zeitgeist that figures so prominently in progressive historicism, because he referred to that separately.

              I believe that by Weltgeist he meant something analogous to our Gnon – not necessarily a physical or even spiritual entity, but an abstraction of the natural order. Though I can’t deny that it was used much later on to justify all manner of historicism and Mother Gaia baloney. If we’re very unlucky, the same thing could happen with Gnon, but I think the explicit memetic ties to the Old Testament God will help to prevent that.

              • calov says:

                My understanding is that Hegel was trying to present a philosophical version of Christianity and was part of a stream in German philosophy and theology after the enlightenment that tried to rescue Christianity for the post -enlightenment world. Other obvious examples of this tradition in Germany would be Kant and Schleiermacher. Hegel’s idea about “Spirit” coming to know itself in matter through the out working of history has certain parallels to the incarnation, even if they are heretical when judged by the standard of Nicene orthodoxy. And for Hegel this process of Spirit coming to self-knowledge in the material world has an end-point analogous to the Christian eschaton, return of Christ and paradise. So Marxism very much is a mutation of Christianity, as Moldbug recognized. But it is easy to argue that all ideologies in the modern West are Christian heresies.

          • 2019 is boring says:

            Insightful comment, thanks.

      • jim says:

        > Which would be a valid point, if anyone here was actually making accusations of Nazism.

        It appears to me that the shill is pretending to be a Nazi (“hail fellow Nazis, I am purer than you”), but obviously is not, because he keeps making left wing denunciations of Israel, rather than Nazi denunciations of the Jews.

        He wants us to denounce him as a Nazi, thereby demonstrating we are tools of the evil Zionist Occupation Government.

        Jews should have a Jewish Nation, and we should have an American nation. We are oppressed by “the Ïnternational Community”, and Jews are oppressed by “the International Community” Nazis did not murder Jews because of nationalism or racism, but, like the Soviets, because of socialism. The only thing wrong with Nazism is leftism, and we are exercising substantial influence over American Nazis, neoNazis, and ironic Nazis causing them to reject Nazi leftism.

        • Poochman says:

          Sorry for the stupid question but how did the Nazis murder Jews because of socialism instead of ethno-nationalism?

          • The Cominator says:

            They did it because of a combination but socialism was the driving force for the murders.

            The driving force for most Nazi mass murders (with the possible exception of the murder of all upper class men in Poland… while that sounds socialist it was more driven by Nazi Herrenvolk thinking) was that they couldn’t feed everyone.

            The reason they couldn’t feed everyone was because they socialized agriculture making the state the sole legal monopoly customer for farmers who they underpaid, and in the occupied territories non German farmers were screwed even worse. Slavic farmers also didn’t have secure property rights their lands could be confiscated at any time.

            So food production fell massively and decisions had to be made.

            In addition it was left wing Nazis like Goebbels, Ley and Bormann who were the most fanatically anti-semitic and who convinced Hitler that Anglo-American hostility to the Reich was solely the product of Jewish mind control rays.

            • Mike says:

              Eh, wasn’t it more so due to the most left-wing Nazis believing Jews were their capitalist oppressors, just like with Trostsky and the Kulaks? Unless it’s just due to my government hiding information from me, I recall 0 examples of mass famine in Nazi Germany, at least in Germany proper, not the occupied territories.

              In regards to Slavs, Poles and others, I’m more at a loss for the full explanation. My gut says it was just the inevitable result of the Nazi’s fundamentally priestly, utopian worldview.

              • jim says:

                There was hunger in Nazi Germany, and they responded by being selective about whom they fed. They starved the Greeks, who were as Nazi as they were. There was a serious shortage of food even for entirely Aryan Germans. Not exactly mass famine, but Venezuela is not exactly mass famine either. Peaceful and cooperative non German territories got starved. Regular Aryan Germans were hungry. Nazi Germany had the standard usual crisis of socialists running out of other people’s money.

                The Nazi crimes were the standard usual crimes of socialism, in response to the standard usual crisis of socialism, and it is a commie lie that they were crimes of nationalism.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Was this the case before the war? I don’t recall reading anything along these lines in peacetime Nazi Germany.

                • jim says:

                  It takes a while to run out of other people’s money, but peacetime Germany was already suffering the usual social shortages and disruptions of socialism. Though not yet suffering breadlines and all that, the writing was on the wall.

          • jim says:

            Same reasons as all socialists engage in mass murder.

    • jim says:

      > The heterogeneity of Jewish positions on various issues is not evidence of powerlessness.

      That Jews get brutally screwed over whenever Jewish interests are contrary to the Poz is evidence of powerlessness.

      That the Democrats piss all over AIPAC and smack AIPAC around with impunity is evidence of powerlessness.

      Jewish positions are not just “heterogeneous”. Jews that hope to get anywhere have to adopt position hostile to Jews and Jewish interests, for example supporting the genocide and ethnic cleansing of Jews.

  24. Doug Smythe says:

    Enough about joos already! They didn’t invent Liberalism, Feminism, the Cathedral system, or any of the other fonts of our misery. They saw that there was an opening and took advantage knowing they wouldn’t be stopped. That’s all.

  25. Doug Smythe says:

    Re: the serious items of discussion above: Can’t go back to non-modern warrior rule or Biblical patriarchy, and most here wouldn’t want to. Warrior rule/Biblical patriarchy= overwhelming predominance of agriculture and animal husbandry w/some pockets of severely hampered capitalist activity conducted by Vaisyas despised and held down by both Brahmin and Kshatriya, and as a result plotting to usurp power for themselves as soon as they are in a position to. No you’re not going into space anytime soon under this system. Buyer beware.

    All of this in any case is mere academic idling at a time when our people are in the process of being delivered into slavery and indeed stand in danger of outright extinction. Urgent existential imperative of our time is to save the State, which means seizing State apparatus, smashing the Left (by physical extermination, if need be), deleting Liberalism, and replacing Liberalism with new operating system that will be functionally equivalent (i.e. capable of running industrial capitalist society as we know it) but without the fatal defects. Functionally equivalent that means preserving most of existing legal system, absent which neither the State nor the economy would last into the new year- and yes this means there will still be Republican political forms, broad civic equality, democratic-type avenues of civic participation. Women will be subordinate, but for the most part this subordination will be informal, following voluntarily as a natural consequence of men and women being liberated to follow their respective natures once again. Don’t look forward to formal restoration at law of the full complement of patriarchal rights though, it’s not going to happen and can’t, since incompatible with sovereignty of modern State, and if it *could* happen- you wouldn’t like it. (To name just one thing: if your property is a true patrimony, you can’t just jet to market and sell it just like that). Restoration life will be pretty much what it is now, but without being ruled and constantly terrorized and existentially threatened by Leftists and Leftism.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      To get what we want (not be genocided, civilization not collapsing) the following policies have to occur

      -elimination of welfare
      -expulsion of hostile foreign populations
      -elimination of anti-discrimination laws
      -elimination of no-fault divorce
      -elimination of the college system

      I have no idea how you think that will be accomplished while simultaneously maintaining
      “Republican political forms, broad civic equality, democratic-type avenues of civic participation”.

    • shaman says:

      I ignored this till now. Perhaps I shouldn’t have?

      Can’t go back to non-modern warrior rule or Biblical patriarchy

      In a single sentence you’ve expressed explicit opposition to both Reaction 101 on Women and Reaction 101 on Warriors and Priests. Amazing.

      overwhelming predominance of agriculture and animal husbandry w/some pockets of severely hampered capitalist activity conducted by Vaisyas despised and held down by both Brahmin and Kshatriya, and as a result plotting to usurp power for themselves as soon as they are in a position to. No you’re not going into space anytime soon under this system. Buyer beware.

      Marxist history: The mercantile capitalists were the ones who abolished the Kings, and if the Kings ever return to power, the mercantile capitalists will always secretly plot to dethrone them. CR could not have said it better.

      Urgent existential imperative of our time is to save the State

      [How Do You Do Fellow Dissidents?]

      preserving most of existing legal system

      That’s as far from NRx as a position can be. Literally the 180 degrees opposite stance to everything we’ve been spending years upon years advocating for. Preserving the modern legal system? Oh my God, you really are on the FBI’s payroll, aren’t you?

      Republican political forms, broad civic equality, democratic-type avenues of civic participation.

      [How Do You Do Fellow Dissidents?]

      Women will be subordinate, but for the most part this subordination will be informal, following voluntarily as a natural consequence of men and women being liberated to follow their respective natures once again. Don’t look forward to formal restoration at law of the full complement of patriarchal rights though, it’s not going to happen and can’t, since incompatible with sovereignty of modern State, and if it *could* happen- you wouldn’t like it.

      There ya have it: The Blue Pilled tradcon program in a nutshell. You are selling us the same ol’ detestable 1950’s progressivism as if that’s the reactionary program, even though it has been repetitiously, tediously, and vehemently explained that this is pure cancer, that this is, as Jim would say, a “society smashing, civilization destroying” kind of poison. What ever made you think that we are pozzed leftist progressives here?

      People probably ignored this till now because your two long paragraphs read as a wall of text, especially the second paragraph. This should definitely have received greater attention, fed shill.

      • jim says:

        Doug Smythe:

        > > Can’t go back to non-modern warrior rule or Biblical patriarchy

        Shaman:

        > In a single sentence you’ve expressed explicit opposition to both Reaction 101 on Women and Reaction 101 on Warriors and Priests. Amazing.

        Return to Warrior rule is absolutely inevitable, because the history cycles between warriors and priests over and over. The time for Caesar or Napoleon fast approaches. If we are very lucky, a Cromwell, a Pinochet, or a Sulla.

        Return to Biblical patriarchy is absolutely inevitable, if only because people that fail to practice it go extinct. The future belongs to those that show up. We return to Biblical patrariarchy, or we vanish from history, replaced by those who have returned to Biblical patriarchy.

    • shaman says:

      (To name just one thing: if your property is a true patrimony, you can’t just jet to market and sell it just like that).

      Retarded beyond belief.

      Did property-owners in previous patriarchal societies never sell their property on the market? Oh, right: Being a leftist entryist shill, possibly posting from within the same office as CR, or from a similar office across the pond, and reading from a similar script, you think that capitalism is recent and markets are recent, thus, in your attempt to concern troll us, you are telling us: “You don’t want to return back to Biblical patriarchy, because then you won’t be able to sell stuff on the market.” Complete lunacy, and a very dumb lie, disproved by all of known human history.

      Tell them to provide you with a more sophisticated script, soy-tard.

    • >Warrior rule/Biblical patriarchy= overwhelming predominance of agriculture and animal husbandry

      I think you are confusing correlation with causation, Doug. The reason I really like Medieval Venice is that they effectively had a modern capitalist society without any of the modern ideologies having been invented. The Serenissima was ruled by warrior-trader nobiles and this was the role of women: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2857154

      Rather it is the other way around: most old societies tended towards warrior rule and strong patriarchy and capitalist ones simply produced so much wealth and with that leisure time to study, that an intellectual/priestly class could emerge and usurp power. Intellectuals/priests are always vulnerable to their finances, and the surplus a capitalist society produces ends up financing the very intellectuals who undermine it. So the sad thing is that capitalists tend to sell intellectuals rope to hang them and also the warriors with. This short-sighted tendency needs to be countered by ruling warriors. Ruling warriors do not in itself make capitalism dysfunctional, the reason you mostly see warriors ruling over backwards peasants is simply that in that kind of society nobody is really wealthy enough to sell intellectuals that kind of rope.

      Medieval Venice helps us compare the kinds of modern political stuff that came from modern, bad ideologies, vs. the kind of political stuff you need to run a sophisticated, rich urban capitalist society that is modern in that particular sense, that they aren’t peasants with dung on the boots.

  26. Doug Smythe says:

    For starters: revive idea of citizenship as understood by Founding Fathers: Voting citizen= somebody who can and will bear arms on behalf the Republic and does something to prove it. Warrior-citizen. Also pays taxes. No contribution of arms and money to the State=no say in its affairs.

    • Doug Smythe says:

      Elimination of college system: only thing stopping this from being done under existing system is failure of will induced by Liberal ideology.

    • Doug Smythe says:

      Also study and adopt practices of motorcycle clubs. Citizen has to go through a prospect period and is admitted to membership in the State only if the other members think he adds value. Can blackball at will.

    • Friendly Fred says:

      Yeah, but like Sam S says just above, that stuff’s only possible following (most pleasant scenario) some kind of coup.

      I agree with you about subordination of women having to be voluntary — in other words, they accept the new (old) deal. Nobody wants to make women do stuff they don’t want to do. It’s really unpleasant when women are mad at you.

      I envision employers and voting-supervision officials amiably chuckling when women apply for jobs or show up to vote — no need for new laws, just establish a new de facto state of affairs.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        Just stop enforcing anti-discrimination laws; everything will get sorted out very quickly. There would have to be a public announcement, I guess: “anti-discrimination laws will no longer be enforced.”

      • jim says:

        > I agree with you about subordination of women having to be voluntary

        Women don’t accept, and don’t like, voluntary subordination. The prefer involuntary subordination. This is demonstrated every time you pass a shit test.

        Example: I want to go some place and want my girl to accompany me.

        She refuses.

        I pick her up, toss her over my shoulders and carry her off against her will. She loves it.

        • Doug Smythe says:

          Yes, and that example superbly illustrates what I meant. It’s voluntary to the extent that they know very well what they’re trying to provoke with the shit test: dominance. They want to be subjugated against their will. And without Feminist ideology constantly hectoring them and trying to convince them they don’t want what they want, and trying to convince men that they don’t want to give it to them (and creating risks for those who do), everybody follows their nature, and everybody gets what they really want. Things fall into place without the State having to do all *that* much (of course there would still have to be laws against female defection e.g. prohibition of no-fault divorce and so on).

          • The Cominator says:

            Doug very well put. The state did not do too much in 18th century England because there wasn’t even a police force.

          • Bob says:

            I wonder if the end of coverture, or its lack of enforcement, was what started the society-wide s$^! tests that we call feminism. In other words, since women weren’t being dominated at home by their men, who were backed by the gov, the women started testing them, aiming to get dominated again, by asking for political power. But the fashion of the day indicated to men that they should humor the women, leading to their greater calls for dominance, ie more feminism.

            And here we are, our women staring expectantly at us, demanding the right to kill our children, the power to take our stuff and imprison us at a whim, etc. Seeing no reaction from us, they watch us hopefully as they invite men who certainly will dominate them.

            Am I off the mark?

        • Oak says:

          This is one thing that makes modern dating very difficult. Remote communication with smartphones (unavoidable) does not allow for the passing of these types of shit tests. For example, I think the hatred of voluntary subordination is often the the motive behind random and sudden ghosting, especially when she’s already been seeing the guy with no issues for a while. Of course she may be on the next shiny cock on the carousel, but in many cases I think her hindbrain wants the man to come and physically take her. Same with flaking at the last minute (‘come and get me, tee hee’). The flaking excuse is always either completely ridiculous or positively incendiary.

          Explicitly consenting to anything which may lead to sex is unnatural for a woman. But consenting remotely in writing just goes against any innate feminine ideal of courtship and the shit-tests they need to compensate for this are usually unpassable remotely, or require even greater risk to status and reputaion than in-person shit tests.

      • Neurotoxin says:

        It’s really unpleasant when women are mad at you.

        Oh, for fuck’s sake. Grow a spine, and a fucking pair.

        • Friendly Fred says:

          I usually leave the room when they’re mad at me, because it’s so unpleasant.

          • alf says:

            For me it was never so bad that I left the room, but I do know what you’re talking about.

            Nowadays, when women are mad at me, I feel my temperature dropping below zero and very quickly become an ice-cold asshole. This solves almost every situation with angry women.

  27. vxxc says:

    Attack on anti-christian movie themed by leftist collective Cinema America.

    “These kids can draw these huge crowds, get sponsors, charge nothing, and propagate leftist thinking under the radar. It has drawn the attention of the right wing in Italy, which is more than a wing now. It’s sort of the main building.”

    More the main bldg. Indeed.

    https://www.indiewire.com/2019/06/first-reformed-violence-italy-fascism-cinema-america-1202153554/

  28. vxxc says:

    NORK meet in context.

    Trump will make a deal with anyone who has power.

    Remember that.

    Now lets get it.

  29. John Travis says:

    Christians will always lose because they’re inherently unintelligent people who, as a result, will always be led by charismatic but incompetent leaders — or competent but non-religious sociopaths. And, as Christians descend into barbarism in order to retain power, secular society will grow and the outcasts will further destroy themselves.

    You can see this in the religious right currently, we are on the road to removing Christian ideology from society as a whole and the panic has been setting in from the right inwards for decades. Rather than adapt and exist, the extreme right, such as those in this comment section, are willingly outlasting themselves from general society and guaranteeing the destruction of their ideologies.

    • Not Tom says:

      Progressivism is Christianity 2.0. The leaders and follows of Christianity 1.0 are like the stubborn luddites who refuse to upgrade from Windows XP – sometimes for very good reasons like Windows 10 being a steaming pile of garbage that won’t run any of their important software – but nevertheless using a product that is obsolete, low-status and full of unpatched attack vectors.

      Reaction is aspiring to be Christianity 3.0, where we put back the features of Christianity 1.0 that everyone actually liked (e.g. patriarchy, monarchy, free association), give it Christianity 2.0’s cool new-age look and feel (Gnon, evopsych, bits and pieces of Enlightenment philosophy) while discarding its awful base code, and fixing all the bugs users reported (excessive meekness, holiness competition, entryism) and putting in actual tests so they don’t break again.

      It’s still Christianity at an essential level. We can’t go back to the old version and I think most of us wouldn’t want to, but we can put together a very solid upgrade and include little easter eggs for the nostalgic.

    • jim says:

      > Christians will always lose because they’re inherently unintelligent people

      Nuts.

      As Poz gets ever more insane, it is increasingly an indication of stupidity. As a result, people who adhere to old type Christian or Old Type Mormon beliefs tend to be markedly more intelligent than the pozzed.

      For example Dawkins is a tremendously smart guy. But as the poz became ever more severe, his books became ever more stupid, ignorant, and irritating.

      The poz is like the Khmer Rouge. The Khmer Rouge started off being socially and culturally dominated by PhDs from French universities, but towards the end, could not count, because anyone smart enough to count had been murdered.

      Look at Aaron Hillel Swartz, official genius. Pretty sure the patriarch of Duck Dynasty is smarter than Aaron Hillel Swartz.

      It used to be true, when Dawkins was young man, that his crowd was mighty smart. But as they have come to be required to believe ever dumber things, they have become ever dumber.

      • Zach says:

        …and Pinker.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        I would love to learn more (truth) about how the Khmer Rouge got started.

        • jim says:

          The Khmer Rouge was created as a puppet communist movement by the Vietnamese army after it had occupied a large part of Cambodia. After the Khmer Rouge took Phnom Penh, they cut their puppet strings, and announced that their communism was way purer than Vietnamese communism.

          The Vietnamese did not like that, but did not do anything about it until the Khmer Rouge self destructed in a holiness spiral.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Were the Vietnamese occupying lots of (western?) Cambodia in order to keep their Ho Chi Minh road going? Or were they there for some entirely different original reason?

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              I meant eastern Cambodia. The side bordering Vietnam. I’m also retarded.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                I’m directionally impaired as well lol.

                Generally yes. They were soft occupying it (mostly dense rainforest and undulating hills; very hard to formally occupy). SOP for commies is to identify and amplify and social justice movement to have a ally patchwork network. Contrary to common knowledge the US did not lose the Vietnam war; congress hamstrung the military and cut off the aid to the South, the North walked over them. When the North “won” the were ill prepared for what they were claiming to want to do. They had been receiving support from both Russia and China, but the Bear only cared about frustrating the Eagle and the Dragon had learned from the Shrimp how it could turn communist neighbors into de facto colonies. The Vietnamese were very aware of this and knew that China was the existential threat. While there are definitely Vietnamese commies, they were nationalists first. They very quickly went about setting their house in order. By the time they got their shit together enough to project, the Khmer Rouge was the first thing they went after. It is a sad turn of history IMO that the West supported these assholes against Vietnam largely because of sour grapes.

            • jim says:

              I assume for the Ho Chi Minh road. But that is just conjecture.

    • Friendly Fred says:

      Christianity’s freaking awesome — Song of Roland, Cathedrals, insanely intense Renaissance paintings, American hillbilly gospel …

      • Vxxc says:

        Christianity is losing because the Priests must be educated, and the seminaries are pozzed.

        Also Christians aren’t fighting, because their leaders are pozzed.

        Need some new leaders.
        Hint

        If tomorrow any catholic prelate deposed (and preferably beheaded) Francis and proclaimed DEUS VULT most of the worlds Catholics and all the ones that matter would follow.

        • Vxxc says:

          The problem is decent men became too civilized and law abiding
          When the laws betrayed them they had no compass to guide them.
          Truly all our leaders and elites top to middle betrayed us.

          The answer is to fight.

        • The Cominator says:

          Catholicism is absolutely terrible as a reactionary religion because it is international. The king needs to be able to have the high priest executed at any time.

  30. Grand Inquisitor Bob says:

    What is Vox Day doing?

    https://voxday.blogspot.com/2019/06/ben-shapiro-on-jesus-christ.html

    The inescapable historical fact is that Muslims have FAR more in common with Christians than Jews do.

    • alf says:

      I keep messing up thread responses…

      Ben Shapiro on Jesus:

      what do I think he was historically? I think he was a Jew who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his trouble. Just like a lot of other Jews at that time who tried to lead revolts against the Romans and got killed for their trouble.

      That’s interesting, seems like the exact opposite of Jim’s interpretation of Jesus, namely that Jews were looking for a thousand and one ways for a holy revolt against the Romans, while Jesus simply said ‘give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.’

    • jim says:

      The inescapable historical fact is that Jews are disinclined to fly airliners into tall buildings.

      Because of Vox Day’s great accomplishments in the war with social justice converged capital, I am disinclined to attack him publicly. But palling up with Muslims never works.

    • 2019 is boring says:

      What is Vox Day doing?

      Using his half-wit brain (or Mediocre Midwit Mind) to jump the shark and reach, as is incredibly typical among his caliber of thinkers, an overly simplistic conclusion: “Since Muslims accept Jesus and Jews don’t, it follows that we are closer to Muslims.”

      That otherwise Christianity and Judaism have so much more in common, theology-wise, goes unnoticed by Bald Beale’s Beta Butt-Boys and Gay Gamma Goons. Yeah, I’m being insultive, because the more I’m exposed to this individual, the more it’s obvious to me that his entire “thing” is weak sauce at best; as has been noted, all his good ideas are not original, and all his original ideas are not good.

      Yes, Jim is also right that in the war against SJWs, he has contributed his part. But would things be significantly different if he didn’t exist? The jury is still out on that hypothetical question, though in the meanwhile, he keeps saying and doing retarded things.

      • ten says:

        There is a certain breed of commenters, best caught young because the bad habit should grow away reasonably quickly, that will always pretend to be a neutral observer and judge to their own genius. They will latch onto little things they think to be incontrovertible proof of the superiority of their mind but miss huge things that puts their mind in the rough ballpark of others.

        Koanic, who I greatly like as a phenomenon but some of whos ideas are insane, is one such person, and vox is an ugly, uncharismatic, boring version.

        It is worth noting how preposterously insane this particular piece of mind vomit from vox is. He is not trustworthy, something is seriously wrong with him.

        • shaman says:

          VD is a chronic wanker noise-maker. Seldom noise is beneficial, but usually it’s just annoying. People like that should be on mute, until the moment — once every other year or so — that they do something interesting and worthy of attention. VD is also not red-pilled on women.

          Another person who fits the description of “latch onto little things they think to be incontrovertible proof of the superiority of their mind but miss huge things that puts their mind in the rough ballpark of others” would be Anonymous Conservative. His version of the r/K theory has some, albeit probably minimal, explanatory power; yet there he is, misapplying it to all situations imaginable, making it into a Grand Theory of Everything. (Jonathan Haidt has a somewhat better grasp of liberal vs. conservative respective psychologies, but it’s also far from perfect)

          There are a whole lot of such individuals on the fringe blogosphere, truly a perennial problem. It’s best to just respond with “Hmmm, interesting” to whatever they have to say, and then move on to more intellectually rigorous places.

          In this piece, titled “Ben Shapiro on Jesus Christ,” one would expect to find inflammatory statements, e.g. Tzoah Rotachat and so forth; instead, all Shapiro — and, to be clear, I have no sympathy for him or for “intellectuals” with similar agendas — says is that he Jesus was a revolutionary Jewish zealot… yeah, where’s the big shock in there? I did not, in fact, fall off my chair. Shapiro is wrong, but he did not say anything particularly outrageous. VD is whining like a little baby, as usual.

          • alf says:

            I admire Vox Day’s output. I think he gets disproportionate attention because he entered the spotlights, unlike most of us, and he does not get it because of his bravery, but because of his ego. But I don’t mind that so much. He has serious character flaws, as demonstrated by his hissy fit when Andrew Torba one-upped him by creating Gab. He is more of an entertainer than an intellectual, although he would probably be insulted by that characterization. One can see the similarities between Vox Day and Koanic.

            At the end of the day, I have no problems with Vox Day. I mean, I look at this cover and I think to myself: well yeah if that is how you unironically see yourself then obviously you are duping some people, including yourself. That picture just makes me smirk.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            “(Jonathan Haidt has a somewhat better grasp of liberal vs. conservative respective psychologies, but it’s also far from perfect)”

            Haidt was purged from his own organization; he no longer runs Heterodox Academy and the new guy (an Indian) proceed to retroactively eliminate the comment section.

            Say what you will about Anonymous Conservative but ‘liberals are a disease and the cure is suffering and/or death’ offers a degree of protection against such outcomes.

            • Not Tom says:

              Haidt was purged from his own organization; he no longer runs Heterodox Academy and the new guy (an Indian) proceed to retroactively eliminate the comment section.

              I hadn’t heard about that. Sad news. Do we know what precisely happened?

              Does this Indian show any signs of worthiness, or is he about what we’d expect?

              • Samuel Skinner says:

                I don’t know. I’m not the brightest bulb in the shed, so I was following it to see what academics thought, found they weren’t very illuminating, left and when I went back to their site a couple months later found Haidt and the comment section were gone.

                Looking at the website’s staff listing I got the ethnicity wrong (the editor is middle eastern, not Indian) or there has been turnover since I last checked (possible since all of the individuals who were in charge at the start are gone).

                I have no idea who is in charge; it has 3 directors (one male) and 1 executive director.

          • Zach says:

            I prefer VD on video, and I believe he comes across much better in that realm. I also believe VD has adopted a pseudo cult of personality to push his ventures on his blog.

            Even he can’t act like the person on his blog in front of the camera because most would feel foolish and silly. He is no exception. For VD getting in front of a camera is a kind of self censorship instead of the other way around. At least it seems that way in practice.

            heh – so yeah, I agree. I find him very irritating, but I quite like that he is around. And lulz at being a game designer of any value. Ya, suuuuuuure…

    • Not Tom says:

      To be fair, Ben Shapiro is an irritating and embarrassing sellout who won’t stop attacking everyone to his right, so I can completely understand why Vox finds him so infuriating, especially given their history.

      I’m far more worried about the “well, I’m certainly skeptical, but let’s hear him out anyway, wink wink” amplification of sentient alien moon-men coverup theories. I usually just chuckle and ignore the troofer stories but they seem to be increasing in both frequency and craziness. Sometimes I wonder if they’re actually elaborate point-deer-make-horse tests.

      It’s a love-hate relationship. On the one hand, excellent historical and economic analysis and unique achievements in the culture war; on the other hand, alien moon-men.

      • shaman says:

        One need not register at Metabunk or at the International Skeptics Forum to realize that UFOlogy of all shades and hues is moronic nonsense, and that those who insists that “the troof is out there” are either schizophrenics, con-artists, malicious trolls, or paid controlled opposition deceivers. UFOlogy is one of the most basic sanity tests: if one sincerely falls for that specific brand of hoax, one cannot be trusted to exercise judgement on any other issue.

        (Hey, I was fascinated with UFOlogy myself… at the age of 13, which doesn’t count)

        That VD is promoting the Ayy LMAO stuff, so stale that even the real shills shy away from bringing it up nowadays, only goes to show that his reality testing — while not as disastrous as that of some other deluded charlatans — has some major deficiencies. Either that, or an even less charitable interpretation.

        It’s all fun and games when you wear the red sponge of a clown for a nose, and your audience knows that comedy, and nothing else, is what you’re up to. But if you put on the airs of a serious intellectual, and your audience worships you as their guru, and then you come out with “We know the moon landing was fake, because ALIENS,” it’s kinda heartless, in a way – it’s deceiving the very people who most closely admire you. It’s absolutely fine for Anglin to occasionally promote weird and factually-dubious stuff, because he doesn’t pretend to be a serious thinker. VD, however, acts like he’s not joking at all, and that’s a problem.

        VD is a loose cannon firing in all directions, right or (as is increasingly often) wrong, and once he loses relevance completely, he’ll probably disgracefully try to bring down the entire alt-right with him. That’s why I advise to treat such people with the good old fashioned:

        “Hmm, cool, k bye.”

      • The Cominator says:

        Hating on the Nevertrumper controlled op manlet is one of Teddy Spaghetti’s good points.

  31. alf says:

    Ben Shapiro on Jesus:

    what do I think he was historically? I think he was a Jew who tried to lead a revolt against the Romans and got killed for his trouble. Just like a lot of other Jews at that time who tried to lead revolts against the Romans and got killed for their trouble.

    That’s interesting, seems like the exact opposite of Jim’s interpretation of Jesus, namely that Jews were looking for a thousand and one ways for a holy revolt against the Romans, while Jesus simply said ‘give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar.’

    • jim says:

      The social context of the Jesus’s admonition to “walk the extra mile”, was that Roman soldiers, whose packs were heavy, were apt to conscript a random civilian to carry their pack for a mile.

      Projecting their own disastrous choices onto their enemies is very Jewish.

  32. Friendly Fred says:

    On the question of what exactly being a priest or a warrior amounts to, perhaps —

    (1) A priestly person is someone who wants to play out a role defined by a picture of the world as governed by Purpose/s.
    (2) A lordly person is someone who wants high status within the world as it obviously is.
    (3) A combative person is someone who likes to fight.

    Someone can be priestly, lordly, and combative.

    We might use the word “warrior” on its own to refer to someone who is lordly and combative without being especially priestly. Someone who is all three might be called a “warrior-priest” or “priestly warrior”.

    • jim says:

      Not the way I am using these words.

      A priest is no priest without a priesthood, and a warrior no warrior without a band of brothers.

      A priest is a priest because he coordinates with other priests to obtain and use power through stories and ideas, and a warrior a warrior because he coordinates with other warriors to obtain and use power by hurting people and breaking their toys.

      A priest has doctrine, and a warrior has discipline and chain of command.

      Sometimes you get groups of people who use both methods, for example the warrior monks of the crusades, or the Icelandic Godar.

      A Paladin is a leading warrior who is also an advocate for a cause – thus he is using both methods. If his advocacy is subject to priestly discipline as his fighting is subject to military discipline, then he is a priest warrior. The Godar were defeated by Christianity because they lacked priestly discipline – indeed, towards the end, lacked discipline.

      • Friendly Fred says:

        Thanks. It might help others as well as me if you’d frequently include that third paragraph (“A priest is a priest because … and a warrior a warrior because ….”) in your essays, if only parenthetically or as a footnote.

        Regarding your last paragraph — you DON’T want rule by Paladins, just rule by basic warriors, with this rule being supported by priests through their stories, stories explaining why rule by basic warriors is good and other forms of rule are bad … is that correct?

        Suppose Trump started saying, “Look, the natural way for human beings to live is X, Y, Z, so that’s the way we’re going to start living.” (In other words, started advocating for Natural Law.) Would that make him a Paladin? Would that be good?

  33. R7 Rocket says:

    Cæsar Augustus was Coup-Complete. Constantine was Jihad-Complete.

    https://gab.com/r7booster/posts/UHRDUEhwMVMzZC9BT215STdHdkVWZz09

  34. BC says:

    Hey, how does the left control the press and why have all attempts to create a real right wing news network failed?

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      The press is urban and personal. It isn’t about neutral, anonymous information distribution like blogging. It’s about street intrigue and charisma, sensation and prestige. Technocrats need not apply.

      Cities are leftist because leftists love the population density for sexual reasons. It means more sexual opportunities. For anything else, and for people disgusted by this, there are subdivisions for conservatives far away from the mob and the VIP’s whose time is too valuable for commuting.

      Over time, the urban mob and VIP’s become the same class, that of neoliberal elites. The press is in principle the former talking to the latter, and distant commuter conservatives don’t matter.

    • jim says:

      News is a priestly function. Priests skew massively left. We are the only knowledge faction with memetic sovereignty, thus the only faction that could create a news network.

    • Bob says:

      Someone correct me if wrong.

      The Left has influenced the religion, or been the religion, for the US since before national newspapers were a thing around the turn of the century.

      Sometime a hundred years ago you have an institution form that influences public opinion on a national scale. Naturally, it attracts the leftist priests of the day, who are already coordinating to spread the same, leftist message.

      If we had a right-wing religion in the US, it was gone before JP Morgan’s newspapers got big, so the leftists had no competition spreading throughout any and all newspapers, then the radios, and then tv.

      I think Fox was started to appeal to baby-boomers, but even if it was meant to be hard right, the only journalists, reporters, talking heads, etc available were leftists. So now it is firmly left and leans a little to the right.

      A right wing news network would be constantly making statements that were heresy to the prevailing religion, so it would not have any sponsors for its ads. Its policies would probably be ruled by the HR department, so any right-wing executives would be fighting the federal gov on how to organize any personnel, making it impossible to get the personnel to spout heresy.

      I’m sure there’s many more reasons, but those are what I can think of now.

      • jim says:

        If HR concluded that James Damore’s memo was violence against women, pretty sure HR would conclude that actual right wing news would be violence against women.

    • Not Tom says:

      The official press isn’t controlled by the left, it controls the left and largely is the left. The New York Times doesn’t print articles, it issues marching orders, like “85% of the X business is white men. It’s time to change that” meaning “comrades, start firing up those protests and lawsuits!” Then the downstream, non-prestige media like Daily Beast and Yahoo News dumb it down further for the lumpenproles. It’s not strictly hierarchical and is clumsily coordinated, but nevertheless is coordinated as 98% of journos don’t have an original thought and simply copy the prestige media.

      As to why right-wing news fails:
      1. RW entrepreneurs are mostly conservative or libertarian, meaning they’ve absorbed most of the progressive memeplex, believe against interest that journalism should be objective fact-reporting and narrative-free, and are generally vulnerable to all sorts of entryism.
      2. Personnel is policy, and very few right-wingers are applying for journalism jobs. Worse when you consider the urban areas media companies are located in.
      3. Once established, they become subject to the same threat vectors as other businesses; can’t stray too far from the narrative or else they’ll be censored, boycotted, throttled, banned, delisted, de-banked, and generally crushed.

      I would imagine that a successful right-wing “news” network would have to be formalist in nature. Acknowledge its actual function as a memetic amplifier, have a hierarchical structure and respond to explicit commands. Sounds like a coup-complete problem; might be able to create it in secret, but paid advertising would be a no-go, and launching it publicly would require powerful backing.

      Then again, since progressivism has ruled since mass broadcasting technology was invented, maybe we just don’t know what a successful right-wing media would look like. Maybe it would be completely alien to western sensibilities. Maybe the “form” of progressive journalism is inherently incompatible with reactionary ideas. Maybe the RNN already exists and merely needs to be formalized and scaled up when the time comes.

      • The Cominator says:

        The official press isn’t controlled by the left, it controls the left and largely is the left.

        1. There is an ultimate level of authority above the press control likely a few “popes” in Harvard and Georgetown. Pravda told people what the Soviet Union party line was, but the decision as to what the partwasn’t made in the offices of Pravda.

        2. The prestige outlets (and some other less prestigious ones like CNN) are obviously under the direct control of some coordinating outfit… most likely some black budget off the books CIA office which it seems like Trump can’t get rid of.

        • Not Tom says:

          You may be right. This type of thing certainly isn’t beyond the USG’s capabilities, and USG is certainly not above doing it, as we saw with the Office of War Information.

          Nevertheless, it seems just a little too convenient. The right tends to project its understanding of power on the left, but left-wing power is different from right-wing power (mostly diffuse vs. mostly concentrated). I think it’s naive to believe that if Trump could only find this mysterious office and replace its personnel, everything would be fixed overnight; more likely, power flows from the Ivy League, the NGOs, wealthy donors and owners, and increasingly, woke corporations and advertisers, and of course the media itself.

          There may be government involvement – in fact I’m pretty sure that there is – but the entire system is a closed feedback loop. Injecting negative feedback into a single node (such as some part of the government that’s connected) could eventually transform the system, but it would have to be significant and continuous, and the process would be very slow. There may be faster ways of dealing with it, such as the Putin method.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        Incisive, as usual, in your analysis. I agree.

        On a related topic, i think i disagree, but not in a 0 sum way. Formalist News Network would be a coup-complete entity or a well kept secret. The News Network could just be a headline+hyperlink pushing app that sends hand picked and/or generated headlines of the most prevalent words in a series of articles, blog posts, transcripts, etc. I am not a bitherder, but i wonder how hard it would be to run up the algos for pouring over a fore mentioned material looking for programmed words + phrases then passes the results to another algo that tags them with a headline and finally off to a push service.

        The app would be a ghost; download through FDroid or have a mobile site on the shallow web that iCuck users can access through safari, installs then leaves no icon or anything to change settings, just the push message functionality. If the user clicks on the link their preferred browser would do the look up, maybe to a different server than the push one (i understand very little of this, which im sure is obvious).

        The idea would be that user gets a headline like: “S400 35% of all headlines/subtitles/loglines”

        They click the link and get a list of all the articles, blogposts, etc that are chatting up the S400, This is a very simple concept and would need complexity to get to a place where it is valuable. But i think there may be a nugget of worthwhile thought in the idea. Cut out humans from the process EXCEPT for the very important part teaching some aspect of The Machine what to look for + what to link together.

        Does any of this make sense, or should i go back to my books?

        • Friendly Fred says:

          What books? Just finished the Fagles translation of the Aeneid — wow, intense. Better than reading V for Vendetta stoned.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            I’ve been on a 20th century wave of late, leavened with my usual colonial fare:

            The Ethics of Redistribution by Bertrand de Jouvenel

            The Pattern of War by Lt.Gen. Sir Francis Tuker

            A Savage War of Peace by Alistair Horne

            Relentless Strike by Sean Naylor

            Blind Man’s Bluff by Sherri Sontag and Christopher Drew

            Three New Deals by Wolfgang Schivelbusch

            The Devil’s Chessboard by David Talbot

            ↑↑May and June↑↑

            Smart and Sexy by Roderick Kaine

            48 Laws of Power by Robert Greene

            The Bell Curve by Murray and Herrnstein

            Intellectuals and Race by Thomas Sowell

            Intellectuals and Society by Thomas Sowell

            Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell

            The Second World Wars by Victor Hanson

            The Allies Strike Back by James Holland

            Odd Man Out by Richard Thornton

            A Case for Rhodesia by ?????

            The Farmer at War by Trevor Grundy and Bernard Miller

            ↑↑December to May↑↑

            In addition, I’ve been going over Jim’s massive backlog and doing a half ass’d job of reading assigned class work trash. I also read a lot of white papers, grey papers, and news articles. I recommend everything here except Devil’s Chessboard. What a load of crap that book is.

            I was going to add a few sentences about each one because I know this is a huge claim, but I read a lot and this is already a wall of text. Nonetheless, I’d love to discuss any book on this list.

            …I know I should read more classics, I just don’t have the time.

            • jim says:

              Go ahead: Tell us a little bit about the each of the best on that list.

              As the world has become ever lefter, as democide, mass murder, and civil war approaches, things that seemed complex have become simpler. Perhaps you can explain what some of these books say in the new and terrible light that now shines.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Jouvenel is a fucking god. I bought two others of his but picked the smallest thinking i could handle it. I was wrong. Should be required reading. There are portions of this book that are very amenable to cutting and analyzing for the express purpose of dismantling socialist moral crusaders. Finished but needs a reread.

                Tuker is a gem i found thanks to Holland who i will discuss later ITP. basically, he was the guy that was right that everyone ignored during the Africa campaign. There is some pie in the sky peacenick shit, but that is present in almost evry man’s work that had to send boys off to die in WWII. Highly recommend. He ties in very well with a PDF i found called Modern Warfare. The author escapes me ATM.

                Horne is a funny one, because he is mentioned in Holland and Hanson briefly (early proto-SAS lad) but he gained his name solely on the Algerian conflagration. IMO he is the definitive analyst of the Algerian civil war. I read him piecemeal for 3 different classes over the last 4 semesters. Highly recommend.

                Naylor’s relentless strike reads more like an amalgam of blurbs than a complete tome, but by looking at JSOC as a holistic entity (event, even), he sheds light on what SoF actually is and what it means. Two things to look for in the book and study elsewhere: the Army of Northern Virginia and the way JSOC interacted with the glowy jews. Among many other topics, those two enticed me the most in regards to wanting to dig deeper. Also, he inadvertently debunks a lot of conspiracy theory surrounding SoF, like mis-attributing the CIA as being the malefactors behind psyops (look up the PS3 + missle gudance chip saga… a completely fabricated meme).

                Bilind Man’s Bluff is pure pleasure for those who find engineering, maritime effort, and spycraft intereesting. From diesel sub mischief to Glomar to cable taps, just a solid, blue collar read on What Actually Happened. Highly recommend for water flavored bros.

                Three New Deals should be required reading. It is, at the same time, massively informative in terms of epochal frame (dehistorization is the buzzword in modern higher Ed) as well as just damn informative interms of how the eschaton can be both an actual thing and a mirage used to motivate society. It is a bit dry, but i really enjoyed it. The introduction is a sort of standalone piece and available online IIRC.

                Devils Chessboard is shit. I quit out on my read through and just used the index to look up interesting stories. If you want to see the Completely Wrong interpretation of events, this is the book for you. Spoiler alert; Dulles (Allen, not John F.) wasn’t a fan of jews.

                Smart and Sexy was above my pay grade. Ata tries to dumb it down for science normies like me, but he fails. Genetics cant be dumbed down. Nonetheless, i recommend you but it even if biology is not your thing. Supporting allies is a good thing and for all his autistic tendencies, Atavisionary is a good man and OG as fuck.

                48 Laws is also a technical “haven’t finished” but that is because i am jumping around due to its piecemeal construction. It is a bookshelf must-have. So elegant in its construction.

                Bell Curve is almost a meme at this point. If you watch some of the available vids on YouTube of Murray talking, he calls out people like me (those ill equipped to understand the fundamentals of what he and Herrnstein were trying to say). The takeaway for me was their thoughts on the divisive nature of higher ed being a mill for the upper class. The race reality layered in is always a plus, but i don’t need brainy bois using highfalutin math to explain that the world needs ditch diggers just as much as it needs luminaries. Another bookshelf must-have. (according to the author(s), there are three way to read this book; i picked option 2 and after i graduate and get a job i will do option 3.)

                Sowell is just a good writer. I get what Lord C is saying about his never Trumpism being a stain on his reputation, but i don’t care. The man’s use of sources combined with his (stealing this) abusive dependent clauses makes him a titan of thought. His biggest crime was being born too early. If he were half his age he would be here posting with us. Maybe i have too many stars in my eyes, but Sowell is a gem.

                I was over playing my hand; im only a portion of the way through Intellectuals and Society. But it is very good and i can’t wait until i have the time to finish.

                BRaWL is a collection of essays edited to be a book. It is the best redpill i have found for converting intelligent scholars into the “differential diagnoses” camp. Well sourced, well written, easy to digest, easy to extend. This book turns conservicucks and libretariatards into thinking men. It was the first book i read by him after i watched a bunch of archival youtube footage of him and i reread it this winter/spring because i wanted to crawl his citations. Definite must read + bookshelf must-have.

                This was my first VDH outside of youtube and i was not disappointed at all. What a titan this man is. He isn’t perfect, but his cold, analytical style is unparalleled in terms of WWII history. He blends theme and fact seamlessly, and backs his shit up with table data. If you think you know WWII, read this book and see how your perspective stacks up. I am looking forward to taking the 10 part free online course based on this book.

                I found Holland through a comment on HN. His first in the series, The Rise of Germany 1939-1941 hooked me immediately. He uses a very modern style of personal account + archival data to paint a picture of WWII that is unique IMO. I recommend you read his books + VDH + Ambrose at the same time.

                Odd Man Out is hard to review. It is excellent, readable, and timeless. It has some pretty drastic implications for this blogspace in particular, so if you want to hear my perspective, read it then ask me. It is an absolute must read. It will make CR infinitely more interesting ( i suggest you also dive into George Kennan, maybe start with Hawk & Dove).

                A case for Rhodesia is a PDF i “found.” It is a barebones breakdown of what was at stake in that brief dream of a state. If you can’t find it i can email it to you.

                The Farmer at War is another must read. It is narrow in scope and enslaved to its era in terms of prose and point, but the ramifications of its message are timeless, particularly in times of rising tides. Though it may be brash, i think shamman and Vxxc need to read this one, relating to prior conversations. Also, hidden in the subtext is the recipe for the perfect wife. Have fun finding it. 😉

                I found some of these books by trawling Moldbug, some from this blog, some from HN comments, and some from university classes. They represent (mostly) my tax return expenditure as well as the cheaper options on my Amazon wishlist (which currently stands at ~1200$ worth of books). I bought ~25 books with my tax return and have gotten through a few of them, so hopefully by the end of this year i will have read more.

                …and to actually answer My Lord’s question, if you want to read for expediency:

                >Farmer at War
                >Relentless Strike
                >Odd Man Out
                >Bell Curve
                >48 Laws
                >Savage War
                >Pattern of War

                • BC says:

                  Guess the script writers have decided to be overly verbose based on Moldbug’s example. I wonder if they’ve realized why Moldbug wrote in that manner. Probably not.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  I’m having a hard time parsing your response. It feels like you’re calling me a shill.

                  Are you calling me a shill?

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                Jim, also, i gotta say, you are a blogger in my experience, but reading your writing on Chomsky… holy shit. Well done. I’m genuinely sorry the academe missed out on you. really stellar scholarship. I’m not trying to blow smoke; there is this palpable sense of academic frustration that i find very engaging.

              • The Cominator says:

                FA has his flaws as do we all but I’ve never once thought he was a shill. The usual script here is “How do we fellow hate group members, I’ve noticed that you followers of (((Moldbug))) don’t hate jews enough and want to continue “jewish” capitalism”.

            • The Cominator says:

              I was very disappointed that Sowell signed the Nevertrump letter I thought he was an extremely “based black man” before that.

        • Not Tom says:

          I don’t think it’s possible to install an iPhone or Android app that’s not discoverable – that would basically be a virus. But I understand the general idea of what you’re going for. It’s Twitter hashtags for the open web.

          Personally, I’m interested in memetic machine learning – identification of memes in different types of content, and classification according to some scheme, possibly “right” vs. “left” for starters. There are all kinds of crude techniques humans already use, that we already use in this comment section, e.g. recognition of Russell conjugates and other identifying markers to perceive a Progressive or Reactionary frame. ML is at or near the point of being able to do this in some fashion. Woke corporations are using it to identify “toxic comments” – poorly – but I believe that is because their training data sucks, because leaving their own echo chamber is traumatizing, so they test on retarded disposable YouTube comments instead of the Daily Stormer and 8chan.

          Anyway, I still don’t think this constitutes a “news network”, but for the application you’re talking about, meme-granularity would be far superior to exact-phrase extraction. The latter is too easy to game and abuse, as we see happening all the time on Twitter.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            So… let’s do it. Just an app that sends push notifications about trends in Media (your explanations sounded way smarter). And, as to the virus parallel… why not? Is it that bad if it is a virus you tacitly invite? Could be an interesting way to get functionality on your iDevice while maintaining plausible deniability.

            What are the important moving parts? A global crawler (coding and testing), a central server for the collection and composition of the crawlers raw data (Jim? feel like hosting a weird science experiment?), a push system (complete underpants gnome logic, i know, but Resources has been running since 2015 so…), and a beta test group (this blogfam). Is it really that far fetched + what else are we doing anyways?

            • Not Tom says:

              Not really a question of “why not” make a virus but the fact that it’s extremely hard to break the device’s security, especially in a way that’s not going to get patched. I also don’t really see the point of trying to hide the app from the very person who installed it. Even if you could “ghost” the app, the code is still somewhere and would still be recoverable in a forensic analysis.

              I wouldn’t say it’s far-fetched, but I would say that it’s either a full-time job for one person or a significant crowdsourced effort. The ML is obviously the hardest part, as it requires a ton of computing resources and is stretching the limits of what the tech can currently do. But crawling large parts of the internet is no trivial task either. The database/push system/app are really the only easy parts.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                If this is too tedious an ask, please tell me. What about we just kind of walk through it on paper, as it were, kind of how Conway et al did with Game of Life on graph paper before they ever actually built a compute program?

                For the purposes of the exercise, and in no way asserting that these components are optimal or even necessary, here is what we are trying to build:

                > Web crawler
                • limited territory for it to crawl specifically (looking at all content)
                •• handful of MSM
                •• handful of Twitter feeds
                •• handful of blogs
                • limited territory for it to crawl generally (looking at some content for patterns)
                •• Chan boards
                •• subreddits
                •• comment sections

                > Meme Learning Machine
                (Totally out of my depth here)
                • start with some simple rules for sorting Left from Right
                • progress to subcategorization

                > Storage Database
                • maybe the TPB model of multiple redundant mirrors?

                > Push system
                • human administered at first; a trustworthy bro(s) looks at the output of the MLM and selects juicy bits

                > App
                • minimalist
                • feature light to reduce maintenance and bugs
                • well named to seem like a fitness tracker or something inconspicuous

                • jim says:

                  Yacy is an open source distributed search engine for publishing, but the hard problem is the sybil attack, the problem that Google refers to a a link farm – a bunch of fake sites that link to each other to give each other fake reputation. Not clear how Yacy addresses the sybil attack.

                  Similarly, systems for giving people reputation for supplying goods are subject to sybil attack with fake customers. Big problem with Dark Web sites that attempt to do an ebay on Tor. Distributed systems tend to be subject to sybil attacks.

                  Resolving the sybil attack is a problem of partitioning the graph to see if a group of nodes well connected to each other are, considered as a single node, well connected to rest of the network. Page rank and analogous measures are a measure of connection to the graph as a whole, and the sybil attack is faking good connection to the graph as a whole by creating a seemingly large subgraph that is well connected to itself.

                  Considering the sybil attack as a graph theory problem, we have some ranking criterion that is in some sense or some part a measure of connection to the graph as a whole, and we want to exclude relatively isolated large subgraphs from having inappropriately high rank.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I thought maybe this was getting off-topic and didn’t want to annoy Jim, but since he’s replied, I’ll take it as a temporary endorsement.

                  Database is trivial. You’ve got Mongo, Cassandra, Ignite, Cockroach, neo, all kinds of open-source solutions that scale. Push is also trivial – use the corresponding APIs on various devices.

                  Crawling is a solved problem in theory, though actual implementations can be challenging and prone to abuse. That piece isn’t terribly difficult to build; however, it requires constant maintenance, anti-abuse, bug-fixes, etc.

                  I have to emphasize that “meme NLP” is an entirely unsolved problem; unsolved even in theory. My assumption is that it’s solvable, but I’m not even aware of white papers on it, and even though I have pretty good general knowledge about these things, it would probably take me weeks or months just to understand the white paper even if one existed. It’s one of those problem spaces that requires not only high intelligence but also a lot of experience. That’s why it’s currently more of a wild idea than an actual goal I’m working toward right now.

                  It’s not just picking out key words and phrases. If you want that, get yourself an RSS reader and add some filters. Or follow people on Gab or Twitter. Memes are different. “Women ruin everything” is a meme, “repeal the 19th” is a different but related meme, “women’s suffrage was a mistake” is basically the same as previous meme while sharing none of the exact words, and “women are innocent victims” is a totally unrelated and opposite meme that does have a word in common. The machine doesn’t actually understand the meaning behind any of these sentences, and has to try to tie them together based on other signals like who is posting, who is replying and whether or not they appear to agree (the latter – sentiment analysis – is itself a difficult problem). If it scanned shaman’s posts, it would have to understand that several of the memes are actually opposite memes that are being ridiculed and are similar but not identical to memes used in progressive discourse. Etc. Difficult problem even when the data is high quality and does not have noise intentionally injected by enemies.

                  If you just want a glorified search engine with a trending section, that’s probably not very hard to build. It’s just also, in my opinion, not that interesting. It took me 20 minutes to download an RSS reader and add a couple dozen interesting blogs, and that’s probably giving me higher-quality results than any keyword-extraction system would.

                  Don’t mistake any of this for saying you’re wrong to ask the question. You should ask. Nothing’s more annoying than someone with a million ideas and no drive or ambition. But I think I may have underplayed this and made it sound simpler or more obvious than it really is. You’d need a team of very smart researchers and engineers and a decent amount of powerful hardware – all while flying under globohomo’s radar. It’s totally possible, but perhaps not within the means of a single working schlub or even several of them working in their spare time, unless you’re willing to wait years.

      • The Cominator says:

        To avoid entryism Reactionary News would have to be honest and explicit about its political agenda (at least to a point) and have for lack of a better word commissars dedicated to enforcing that agenda.

        Above all the network should be open that it endorses redpill and reactionary policies on women since this seems to screen out all entryists.

        • jim says:

          Notice that the red pill on women is absolutely effective, but left entryists keep using our position on capitalism and Jews to pass as one of us and converge us to Marxism, communism, cultural Marxism, and progressivism.

          Convergence totally worked on Christianity, and is somewhat effective on Islam. They point to a hostile outgroup, for example Randians and explain that communism is a purer form of reaction that your form of reaction and say:

          “you are swallowing the Randian position on property rights, by your insufficiently reactionary position in that you fail to endorse confiscating everything at gunpoint, forcing everyone to work for the state at gunpoint, and rounding everyone up to live in giant Soviet style Le Corbusier housing projects”

          To converge Christians, they explain that if you doubt that women attending spending their fertile years on booty calls is God calling those women to a season of singleness, and anyone who doubts that this is a good idea is a pedophile rapist wife beating child abuser. Obviously women are virtuous, and anyone who doubts that the women are the stronger vessel, wiser and more virtuous than men, supports rape and wife beating.

          And, of course, they are absolutely right. I do support rape and wife beating, and regularly point out that the female attitude to rape and wife beating is … complicated. We have to coerce them, because if we fail to coerce them, they will find men who are man enough to coerce them.

          But because we have the hard core Old Testament position on women, and identify Gnon with the God of the Old Testament, rather than the progressive community organizer Jesus, or the gnostic satan, there is no outgroup the left can invoke to converge us. Just as they could not converge Randians by talking about property, but could converge Randians by talking about the right to adultery and sodomy, they can converge us by talking about property, conscription, and taxes, but cannot converge us by talking about women.

          The only way to claim to be a reactionary on women would be to actually say reactionary things about women, while they can, and routinely do, say slippery ambiguous Motte and Bailey commie things about Jews, Israel, land, property, welfare, taxes, wars, and giant terrifying brutalist housing projects and say that what they are saying is actually reactionary.

          But if speaking on women, no way to sound reactionary without actually saying reactionary things, just as if speaking on property rights, no way to sound Randian without actually saying randian things. We are harder core than the PUAs, for the PUAs advocate men individually acting as if women are what they are and unicorns do not exist, while we advocate a state, church, and social order that acts as if women are what they are and unicorns do not exist.

          • The Cominator says:

            I don’t quite have the old testament position I’m happy with the 18th century English position or pre ww2 japanese position.

            • kawaii_kike says:

              I mostly like the Old Testament position, part of me thinks the 18th century English position would be too soft on modern women. But on the other hand, I think fathers should have enough time to arrange a marriage for their daughters without having them abducted.

            • jim says:

              Lets debate the Old Testament first Temple position:

              Death penalty for adultery, where adultery means sex with with a married or betrothed women, not a married man. Offended husband gives effect to the death penalty and can remit it, but is disgraced by remitting it.

              Realistically, state and society is unlikely to discover adultery unless there are some dead bodies an offended husband wishes to explain. If state and society is the primary complainant, something suspicious is going on and official reality is likely discrepant with observable reality.

              Wife stealing of an unmarried, unbetrothed woman is fine, or a very minor offense. Death penalty for letting her go afterwards. Death penalty if you steal her while not really being in a position to make her your wife.

              Death penalty for female sexual choice. She has to ask her father or guardian to arrange a husband for her, but he is obligated to do so, and likely to take her preferences into consideration. Obviously she is likely to conspire with her abductor, and such conspiracy is retroactively legitimized by marriage, but if no marriage, death.

              Social obligation for the patriarch to ensure sexual gratification and reproductive sex for all women in his care – either he marries them off, or sleeps with them himself.

              Marriage, including marriage by abduction, of women of any age however young is permissible, but if your very young wife is not yet showing secondary sexual characteristics, you are not supposed to live together or spend time together – effectively the same as betrothed, except that betrothed is taken care of by a member of her family, normally her father, while an unreasonably young wife is taken care of by a member of your family living apart.

              Death penalty for disobedient children, but this requires both parents and the judge to agree the child is stubbornly disobedient.

              What is wrong with any of this?

              Are there some other features of Old Testament First Temple family law that you do not like?

              • The Cominator says:

                I don’t think there is any need for it to warrant death while modern women massively piss me off you don’t need to kill a bad wife or slutty teen girl you just need to hit her, beatings and public whippings and humiliation should be enough. We’re not semites and death penalty for such things is going to be massively unpopular and likely lead to quick abolition of the whole system. I also prefer arranged marriage to marriage by abduction, abduction should be after a certain age if the father fails to arrange a marriage.

                More pre feminist European and prewar Japanese way, not the semite way with the proviso that any advocacy for emancipating women or egalitarianism stated in public means death or at least exile.

                • BC says:

                  Cheating wives were regually killed by husbands in the US until the 70s. Husbands would typically plead not guilty by reason of insanity and generally let go.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Do you have statistics on this? Temporary insanity acquittals have to my knowledge generally been rare, its considered a very difficult defense strategy now, was it different then under such circumstances?

                  I could endorse death for a girl trying to pass off a bastard adultery spawn as her husbands child but not merely for adultery.

                • jim says:

                  > I don’t think there is any need for it to warrant death.

                  I find your position personally life threatening, since your position implies a society in which I might have to furtively dispose of dead bodies without anyone being able to find them. For a man to allow a man who slept with his life to live will destroy that man.

                  Just as the prog position on women attacks my ability to have sex, wife, family and children, the Cominator position threatens me with imprisonment or execution.

                  These are visceral and deeply personal matters. Death for sexual misconduct can never be the state butting in, for if the state butts in it will fail horribly in its purported objective. It should be the state butting out of matters that are none of its damned business.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I wouldn’t have the state butt in unless you actually killed anyone or if you asked that your wife be humiliated and whipped in public for severe misconduct.

                  You could not generally legally kill your wife in 18th century England unless she tried to kill you.

                • jim says:

                  If they actually enforced that law, which I doubt, they were terribly wrong to do so and deserve death for doing so.

                  If I open my bedroom door, and someone is in bed with my wife, someone will die and it does not matter what the law says. What should the state do then?

                  The state needs to think very carefully about laws that are apt to be difficult to enforce, likely to face deadly resistance, and have debatable social value.

                  Discussions of how the state should treat adultery seem to presuppose the husband is going to say “Yes dear, I guess I should put the sheets in the washing.

                • alf says:

                  If I can’t kill my wife, she was never my property in the first place.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  The state shouldn’t be regulating how a man disciplines his adulterous wife. Forbidding the death penalty for adultery violates the principle of Freehold. I think in some circumstances we should go beyond 18th century England and go to the Old Testament.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  The idea of lawful marriage by abduction in any general sense (except perhaps for untouchables that nobody wants to/is allowed to marry anyways) is one that is *absolutely* inconsistent with civilized patriarchy. Look into the actual practice of this sort of thing and what you you’ll find isn’t a civil law permitting it, but something more like informal laws and customs of war regulating the extent to which the owner of the stolen property can respond by waging war in response to the act of war- namely in the form of a feud between rival and Kingless Islamic goatfuckers in the hills. Any civilized people has no choice to but to proscribe the practice altogether.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Also the patriarchal rights of private individuals are best secured not in a Monarchy but in a Republic (not the totalitarian Cathedral-dominated pseudo-Republic we live in). Since a Republic is a relatively egalitarian union of patriarchs, if properly set up the public power has no more business meddling in the private affairs of a citizen than your business partners do in yours. Whereas a King is liable to conclude that everyone in the realm is under his patriarchal protection and to over-rule your patriarchal rights accordingly, because he can.

                • BC says:

                  >The idea of lawful marriage by abduction in any general sense (except perhaps for untouchables that nobody wants to/is allowed to marry anyways) is one that is *absolutely* inconsistent with civilized patriarchy.

                  Seven Brides for Seven Brothers was made in 1954, which involved kidnapping women for wives and was a big hit.

                • BC says:

                  >Do you have statistics on this? Temporary insanity acquittals have to my knowledge generally been rare, its considered a very difficult defense strategy now, was it different then under such circumstances?

                  Popular culture said they were common, which means they we either common, or women thought they were so seldom cheated and thus were seldom shot. Getting actual numbers after the progressives have “fixed” them is almost impossible.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >Seven Brides for Seven Brothers was made in 1954, which involved kidnapping women for wives and was a big hit.

                  In which (recalling from very fuzzy distant memory) a warband was formed to execute a death sentence on the brothers, w/a last-minute settlement being reached when the fathers agreed that their honour would be satisfied if they could force the brothers to legally marry the girls at gunpoint. Although fictitious, good example of what I was talking about when I said that bridal abduction is regulated by informal laws and customs of war which inform the treaty that concludes the war.

                • ten says:

                  If a woman is abducted and bedded by a man, goatfucker or otherwise, and you attempt to regulate this with the power of the state you will run into problems. If the daughters bedlife is under her father’s authority, any bedding without the fathers explicit approval makes up such an abduction, and they will occur quite frequently.

                  If a daughter and a boyfriend necessarily want to circumvent a dissapproving father, an arranged abduction makes it possible, disallowing the father to kill the abductor as long as he does right by the daughter.

                  Perhaps not a default perspective here. There will always be a lot of partner matching outside of strictly patriarchal control unless genders are sharia style separated, and controlling this by allowing it as long as it results in marriage and death if it does not should lead to less bullshit overall than trying to enforce the fathers authority in all occasions.

                • The Cominator says:

                  If they actually enforced that law, which I doubt, they were terribly wrong to do so and deserve death for doing so.

                  If I open my bedroom door, and someone is in bed with my wife, someone will die and it does not matter what the law says. What should the state do then?

                  I don’t think you are quite thinking through the implications of this.

                  With the exception of Old Testament Israeli its only been Arab societies, Sicilians and various other clannish livestock fucker societies that have de jure allowed this (no it wasn’t legal in 18th century England) and such societies are plagued with blood feuds and mafiosi for reasons that should be obvious. You openly kill your wife because of such her family isn’t going to be happy if denied any chance of justice they are going to want revenge. This can and WILL escalate to the blood feud if you allow such things de jure…

                  Now killing some guy fucking your wife in your OWN bed… yeah I could allow an exception there since its a kind of home invasion.

                • jim says:

                  > (no it wasn’t legal in 18th century England)

                  Pretty sure it was de facto legal in 1950s USA.

                  I think you massively under estimate the extent of private law enforcement. I live, much of the time, in an exurban semi rural whiteopia, which is very civilized. I leave my doors unlocked. One of the reasons it is very civilized is that wrongdoers are apt to disappear, and no one inquires where they went.

                  Eighteenth century English law enforcement was primarily private. You are projecting 21st century meddlesome policing onto them.

                  In adultery cases, it seems to have been fairly common for the wife to be hauled off to some place where the husband paid for her to privately imprisoned indefinitely, and of course far more common for the husband to privately imprison the wife within his own house.

                  Since this stuff was legal, or at least courts hearing cases of adultery showed no inclination to object, well then, though it was indeed illegal to kill adulterers, one one wonders how vigorously that law was enforced.

                  It is true that civilized societies did not impose the death penalty for adultery, and privately imposing it was illegal – but within living memory they did not try very hard to actually prevent private imposition of the death penalty.

                  Today we see an obvious relationship between actually suppressing “domestic violence” and social collapse.

                  Looks to me that suppressing “domestic violence” is not a requirement of civilization, but a failure mode, leading to social decay and social collapse. That is certainly what has been happening in recent decades. Need to make the ultimate form of domestic violence legal.

                  Yes, suppressing private killing of adulterers has ancient roots, but recent events show that suppressing “domestic violence” grotesquely undermines civilization.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Also the patriarchal rights of private individuals are best secured not in a Monarchy but in a Republic

                  Republics politicize the whole population the franchise expands and they collapse way too quickly. They are in general plagued with an exceptionally high level of social entropy.

                  Yes they can work for a time in small homogeneous states but history has generally been dominated by societies ruled by one man for a reason. Rome and America rose to great power status as Republics true but they did not last long as Republics once great power status was achieved.

                • Not Tom says:

                  If a woman is abducted and bedded by a man, goatfucker or otherwise, and you attempt to regulate this with the power of the state you will run into problems

                  My understanding is that Jim is calling for a sort of deregulation: if this ends in a shotgun wedding, fine, no one needs to die. However, the abductor did steal the father’s very valuable property and if the father does not approve, he is entitled to justice without state white-knighting.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I explicitly plan to allow domestic violence, I just have some defined extreme limits to them. I would also allow dueling by consent and there should be great social disgrace to an adulterer who does not come to duel he is called out.

                  But I would not allow things that history and experience prove will provoke blood feuds and furthermore that Europeans have generally not allowed in their history de jure (now de facto you could often get away with killing a man who took your wife in adultery under your own roof and maybe that should be allowed, if not under your own roof generally you could not).

                  The Romans of the Republic did allow it de jure but it quickly came to be prohitbited de facto (along with ANY ability whatsoever for husbands to discipline their wives) because the wife’s family would consider any such actions an insult to their family honor and such. If the Paterfamilias laws had perhaps only allowed for reasonable discipline maybe this would not have developed.

                  I only plan to disallow murder and extreme obvious abuse (but in cases of extreme misconduct you can apply for public floggings that would go beyond what was allowed in a normal beating and humiliation). I really think this should be enough.

                  It would certainly give men far far more rights then they have now and have in centuries. I wouldn’t take my reservations about going full Old Testament personally.

                • jim says:

                  > But I would not allow things that history and experience prove will provoke blood feuds

                  Not seeing wars or blood feuds provoked by killing adulterers. Do you have some examples?

                  What I see is a widespread disinclination to acknowledge or notice the killing of adulterers. No one has an incentive to make a fuss about the matter or admit or remember that anything happened. The adulterers vanish and the adultery unhappens
                  .
                  A war or feud around a killing of adulterers would lead to everyone recollecting and recounting the events leading to the troubles over and over again – which never happens.
                  Ever.

                  It is like a soap opera where the actor is fired, and but onscreen nothing happens to his character. His character simply never appears nor is mentioned ever again, and none of the other characters notice the absence or remember the character.

                  Adultery is undeniably apt to lead to dead bodies. It seems to me that past societies dealt with this by sweeping the bodies under the rug, rather than by vigorously protecting the rights of adulterer to commit adultery, though of course, hard to produce evidence of what is under rugs one way or the other way.

                  This, however, runs contrary to formalism. Deviating from formalism leads to various forms of corruption and the not-getting-the-joke problem, when the next generation mistakes pretense for reality.

                  Inevitably there is always going to be a lot of killing of adulterers.

                  If killing adulterers is a problem that needs to be suppressed, we should expect to see lots of cases of conflict resulting from failure to suppress killing of adulterers, and lots of famous trials where people who killed adulterers were punished.

                  If, however, killing adulterers is a good solution, and the application of this solution tends to be quietly and politely ignored and forgotten, we should expect to see neither punishments for killing adulterers, not troubles resulting from unpunished killings of adulterers.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Unsure. Preventing blood feuds is good. However, appeasement is not. Making it priority #1 to prevent blood feuds means that families have incentive to threaten blood feuds in order to get their way. The least civilized win by default. There may be better ways to prevent blood feuds than abrogating property rights.

                  And that’s what this looks like to me – confusion over women as agents (albeit irrational ones) vs. women as property. If a man mutilates your cow, then he must be punished, even if you also destroy the cow. If he burns down your home, and cannot afford to make you whole again, then either debt or death. If he deflowers your daughter or adulterates your wife – an irreplaceable possession, now decimated in value and possibly needing to be destroyed like the cow – then he cannot possibly ever make you whole again, so death or slavery, unless both parties agree retroactively that it was actually an exchange of property and not vandalism.

                  Of course there does need to be a sharp line between kidnapping/adultery and fornication. If said father or husband can be shown to have been persistently negligent in protecting his property, then the daughter/wife can be considered feral. Similar to how Castle doctrine does not apply to invited guests, and nor can you kill squatters for occupying land you abandoned 10 years ago. Punishment only for those men who clearly knew that the property belonged to someone else, and stole it anyway.

                  This probably diverges from Jim’s position on marriage by abduction, though. I think there does have to be some age where women can no longer be considered property of their fathers, and are simply unclaimed property; a 47-year old daughter being “kidnapped” makes no sense whatsoever. But also abducting a 4-year-old as future wife doesn’t make any more sense to me than stealing the father’s cow and promising to take good care of it afterward and calling that squaresies.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Realistically you could:

                  -Revive defense of provocation. If you catch your faithless wife and her lover in the act in your home and kill one or both on the spot, you can enter this as defense at your trial and if you’re successful either go scot-free or serve a few years convicted of a lesser degree of criminal homicide.

                  -Domestic chastisement: Principle of don’t ask don’t tell/if nobody sees it nobody gets in trouble. Slaps and spankings administered behind closed doors and that leave no mark or injury OK; if domestic row spills out into public view to the point of disturbing peace, or creates social scandal due to wife going out w/black eyes, then cops might have to intervene. For a long time (until ca. 1980s) this is exactly how it was done.

                  -Vengeance: You can challenge the guy you think cucked you to single combat but he’s under no obligation to take you up on it, and if he refuses and you attack him anyways then that’s assault or homicide depending on outcome. Otherwise you have no recourse except to press charges and/or sue him civilly.

                • shaman says:

                  This really brings us back to the public database idea. It should be possible to know the ownership status of any given woman, as well as her ownership history. Thus it won’t be possible for a married woman to trick innocent men into her bedroom – needs to be an App they can check that where it would say “Married.”

                  I see no point in kidnapping girls younger than 7; that’s the age that the mythical Helen of Troy was said to be when Theseus abducted her, according to Hellanicus of Lesbos.

                  (Needless to say, Theseus was a Jewish pedophile, and was running child sex trafficking rings right inside the basements of various plakous parlors in ancient Athens. It is rumored that Jeffrey Epstein is a descendant of his, but I need to consult with Bigfoot to verify this one – let’s not spread spurious allegations, shall we? At any rate, we’ve ascertained that the CIA dates to before Jesus Christ, so #PlakousGate must ipso facto be legit)

                  Cominator’s position makes sense if you have an abundance mentality, like if the sex ratio were 1:4 or 1:10. Would I be pissed off if one of the ten females (“wives,” “concubines,” same-same) in my harem cucked me? Meh, only slightly so. Things are obviously very different under scarcity mentality, when the sex ratio is 1:1. Changing the sex ratio from 1:1 to something more favorable to our penises will go a long way toward obsoleting lethal fury against adulterers. But as things stand, Jim’s position makes more sense.

                  Women are apt to elope since age 14 or so, so there should be an incentive for fathers to marry their daughters off around that time (or earlier). I suggest financial sanctions.

                • Vxxc says:

                  Jim is right about rural America still leaves doors unlocked, and why this is safe.

                  I support the police but they’re in the way.

                  Shotgun marriages; Fathers assert your natural fierceness and all will improve, much will be well.
                  More and more all will be well.

                  Of course we men have a lot of backlogged heavy lifting to do.

                • Dave says:

                  “One of the reasons [my semi rural whiteopia] is very civilized is that wrongdoers are apt to disappear, and no one inquires where they went.”

                  I was going to comment on a different blog about how easy it is to dispose of bodies in rural areas, but what about cars and cellphones that constantly report their GPS coordinates to satellites and cellphone towers? If they show that Jeremy Meeks stopped at your house for two hours shortly before he mysteriously disappeared, what will you say to the cops? And what did you do with his car?

                • jim says:

                  You have a hard enough time getting cops to get off their asses when you are complaining about a crime. Cops prefer donuts to solving crimes. Once again, I remind you of the story of the Green River killer.

                • Dave says:

                  The cops didn’t have a GPS track ending at Gary Ridgeway’s house; they had to chase down leads, which is hard, thankless work.

                  If you’re a racist white redneck and the missing are SJWs or persons of color, putting you in prison becomes a national priority. You’re as likely as James Fields to get a fair trial, so shoot, shovel, and shut up.

                  Then don a hoodie to hide your white face and leave their car in a bad neighborhood where, if it isn’t stolen and chopped, the cops will assume the disappearance was gang-related. Their cellphones should be taken to a non-incriminating location, dropped into a foil bag, taken somewhere else, and tossed in a dumpster.

          • alf says:

            You know you’re onto something good if looking under the bed for entryists is as easy as shooting ducks in a barrel, and lately it has been a bit like shooting ducks in a barrel.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            Just as they could not converge Randians by talking about property, but could converge Randians by talking about the right to adultery and sodomy

            Not too hard to do when Rand put paeans to adultery in all of her novels.

  35. Frederick Algernon says:

    Maybe we should adopt a policy of non-response to newcomers until they answer the WRP question. This means we would all have to wait to respond which is no small ask, but i hate seeing these possible shills get called out by Comminator and Rocket but never answering. A non-answer is an answer, but i think we all might enjoy watching fedposters attempt to Hail.

    • The Cominator says:

      The male feminist is immunized against all dangers, one may call him a commie, faggot, shill, bugman, it all runs of him like water off a raincoat. But call him a feminist and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: ‘I’ve been found out.

    • Vxxc says:

      Happy Independence Day.

      On this Day I wish to Proclaim my Independence from acronyms unless I am being paid to suffer them.

      Can someone tell me the WRP question so I can answer?
      I will answer honestly I assure you.

      Thank you, and Gnon Bless America.

  36. Grand Inquisitor Bob says:

    The chemical weapons genie is out of the bottle.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-01/antifa-plots-acid-attack-dc-free-speech-rally

    A left-wing agitator using the artwork and a pseudonym associated with a Rolling Stone and Playboy journalist has made serious threats to use muriatic acid for attacks conservatives at the upcoming Demand Free Speech rally on July 6 in Washington DC, according to Big League Politics.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-01/gofundme-journalist-beaten-portland-antifa-hits-300-goal-less-24-hours

    Ngo, a journalist and editor at Quillette, was covering a Portland Antifa rally when he was beaten and soaked in liquids which police believe contained quick-drying cement.

    https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-01/facebook-employees-possibly-exposed-highly-toxic-sarin-work

    Though earlier reports identified the substance as liquid Sarin, the spokesman said it hadn’t been identified.

    SJWs always project.

  37. Wartime News says:

    Report: 35,000 MORE Africans on way to US via South America

    A report from the Center for Immigration Studies indicates another 35,000 African migrants are on their way to the United States.

    “They have some level of understanding of what a sanctuary city is. ‘If we can get to one of those they won’t mess with us; They won’t get us out,’”

    “A lot of these guys obviously do not qualify for asylum,” Holton says. “When they talk to me, they don’t have a problem telling me it’s for economic benefits, to get a better job, to have a better life.”

    The report comes on the heels of waves of Africans coming to the US via Mexico.

    http://www.theamericanmirror.com/report-35000-more-africans-on-way-to-us-via-south-america/

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Christian Leaders Say Deportations Would Jeopardize Their Churches

    “[Whether in] Catholicism, evangelicalism, mainline denominations, if you’re a follower of Christ, you want to embrace the immigrants.”

    “Mass deportation of current immigrants would do nothing less than cripple American Christianity for generations to come,” says Samuel Rodriguez, who prayed at President Trump’s inauguration. “If you deport the immigrants, you are deporting the future of Christianity.”

    https://www.npr.org/2018/02/13/585398237/some-christian-leaders-say-deportations-would-jeopardize-their-churches

  38. Wartime News says:

    Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is back to his commitment for more immigration and amnesty for whatever number of illegal immigrants are unlawfully present.

    The estimated illegal alien population ranges from 11 to 30 million.

    Graham has teamed up with one of the most hardcore amnesty proponents and his one-time ally, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL)…

    https://www.theburningplatform.com/2019/07/02/amnesty-addicted-graham-up-to-his-old-tricks-with-gang-of-eight-pal-durbin/

    +++++++++++++++

    SUPPORT for white South African farmers has arrived from unexpected quarters after Zulu King Goodwill Zwelithini rejected President Cyril Ramaphosa’s plans to expropriate land without compensation.

    Saying he wished to form a partnership with AfriForum, the Pretoria-based organisation fighting to save farming land and draw attention to the murder of white farmers, King Zwelithini said the Zulu nation needed food security.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/10/zulu_king_backs_south_african_white_farmers_against_land_seizures.html

  39. Davilan says:

    You claim the alleged shills are leftists pretending to be Nazis because they attack Jews for socialist reasons (because they’re rich), rather than nationalist reasons, as a real Nazi supposedly would. Yet you also claim that the actual Nazis kilked the Jews for socialist reasons. What gives?

    Leftists think Nazis are on the right. I find it hard to believe that a leftist would imitate a Nazi by attacking the Jews for socialist rather than nationalist reasons. It seems more likely that they are actual Nazis if what you say about the original Nazis hating the Jews for their wealth is true.

    • 2019 is boring says:

      Limited hangout shills tell you what they believe you want to hear, in order to misdirect from issues that they would rather you not touch.

      Thus, in order to prevent you from noticing that young women have dripping wet pussies and are desperately cruising for rape by alpha males in the middle of the night, that women go into porn and prostitution because they are feral and not because of hook-nosed villains, that legislation punishing men for female misbehavior is wrong today and was wrong in 1890 when they raised the AoC from 10-12 to 16-18, that indeed a 12-year-old slut who goes out drinking and clubbing at night wearing panties and bra and nothing else totally deserves to be married-by-abduction, that female sexuality sets in at disturbingly young ages, that paying women for sex is normal male behavior, that being sexually interested in women with secondary sexual characteristics and keeping their nudes is normal male behavior, that every man would bang every single fertile female if he could minus immediate family and only cucks and cat-ladies would whine about it, that “sex trafficking” of all kinds is female misbehavior rather than male misbehavior, that Puritan-Feminists introduced the Mann Act of 1910 since “Women misbehave because sinful men make them misbehave” (which has since transformed to “Women misbehave because Shlomo Shekelberg makes them misbehave”), and so forth, they tell you that you need to spend 80% of your time talking about the JQ directly, and the other 20% of your time talking about the JQ indirectly.

      If you blame Cultural Marxism on Jews, you have a point. If you blame the WQ on the JQ, you don’t have a point – you are a shill of this or that USG department, who wants to agitate the public to support the FBI’s war against men and male sexuality, you are being funded by suspicious sources, your friends are Flat Earthers and Nazi-Vegan-Pagans and 9/11 Troofers, and your girlfriend is a ball-busting dominatrix who doesn’t allow you to inspect other women’s boobs and puts you in a chastity belt while having sex with other men in front of you.

      “Pedophilia” is an anticoncept. Gay sex is a problem regardless of age, it’s a problem whether it is between “two consenting adults” or when older faggots rape a 10-year-old boy. Sodomy should be punished by death, and age has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

      Whereas, aside from thirsty loli-fans on 4chan, men are not interested in prepubescent girls, it is indeed a sick aberration. Prepubescent girls are interested in men. Men are, however, interested in females who exhibit secondary sexual characteristics, and pursuing them (with money or otherwise), and keeping their nudes, is perfectly normal. Ideally, the pursuit should result in marriage, and fathers should arrange marriages. But abductions are sometimes indispensable.

      The police murdered Corey Walgren and ruined the lives of countless other white men, e.g. Dalton Kieran, Timothy Temple, Morgan Hunt, and recently Cody Wilson and various YouTube stars, but White Nationalists don’t care about all these white men, because “JEWS OWN THE PORN STUDIOS! YES, JEWS OWN THE PORN STUDIOS! I’LL REPEAT MYSELF ONCE AGAIN: JEWS OWN THE PORN STUDIOS! MUH PIZZAGATE SATANIC CHILD SEX TRAFFICKING! HOW DARE YOU KEEP A VIDEO OF YOUR 17-YEAR-OLD GIRLFRIEND GIVING YOU A BLOWJOB, YOU F**KING JEWISH PEDOPHILE?! JEWS OWN THE PORN STUDIOS!!! THE JEWS ARE NORMALIZING PEDOPHILIA AND THEIR PLAN IS TO LEGALIZE IT! WE MUST SUPPORT THE FBI’S WAR AGAINST TEENAGE SEXUALITY AND PROSTITUTION – YAY, HURRAH! HEY EVERYONE, NOW THAT I’M WRITING IN ALL CAPS, LET’S TALK ABOUT P-P-P-P-P-P-P-P-PEDO-PEDO-PEDO-PEDO-PEDO-PEDO-PEDO-PEDOPHILIA! JEWS OWN THE PORN STUDIOS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHITE MEN DESERVE TO BE MURDERED FOR KEEPING NUDES OF THEIR GIRLFRIENDS! DEATH TO WHITE MALES! DEATH TO WHITE MALES! DEATH TO WHITE MALES! I’M A CUCK FAGGOT BITCH BOY!” and so on and so forth.

      Anyway… what were you saying?

      • yewotm8 says:

        You vastly underestimate the effects of propaganda. I place full blame on white men for failing on feminism, immigration, socialism, and everything else that “nazis” blame jews for. You can go to any internet community that’s wise to the JQ and see the same viewpoint: jews cannot be to blame for convincing us to harm ourselves, ultimately we are responsible.

        However we’d be doing a lot better without cultural Marxist propaganda (which although you say yourself should be blamed on jews, I wouldn’t agree 100%) and a media controlled by a hostile, parasitic group who have a vested interest in feminizing their host’s population. Even if not responsible for feminism, jews still benefit from a sexual polarity reversal among whites, have the means to encourage it, and take full advantage of those means. A white man who is convinced he is doing good for mankind by letting his daughter be “liberated” is not nearly as morally flawed as the cultural Marxist who tells him to do so while knowing full well that he weakens the civilization.

        The argument should not be “are jews to blame” but instead “would we be better off without them”. Anybody paying attention, especially to the jews’ degenerate proclivities, hypocritical tendencies, and urge to paint themselves as victims to garner sympathy is going to say yes to the latter question.

        I also don’t understand where you are getting the idea that such blue-pilled ideas on sexual relations and faggotry can be ascribed to “nazis” either. You can stroll over to the Daily Stormer right now and hear Anglin talk about how we should be putting women in cages because they are incapable of making their own decisions. Economics and the competence of Trump are basically the only differences between this site and that one. Every “real nazi” is going to more or less agree with the reactionary viewpoint on the sexes.

        • The Cominator says:

          We would be generally better off if Jews could not have state or quasi state jobs (although God-Emperor Trump should obviously sign a decree of dispensation for Stephen Miller that allows him to have any such job including Imperial Chancellor), but it generally hasn’t gone that well in history for countries that have expelled or killed all their jews. Bad things happen when you get rid of talented market dominant minorities. You just need to keep their talents within their proper channels.

        • alf says:

          Every “real nazi” is going to more or less agree with the reactionary viewpoint on the sexes.

          Anglin roleplays a nazi because he likes attention. Real nazism is dead, has been dead since 1945.

        • Not Tom says:

          You vastly underestimate the effects of propaganda.

          Oh yes, Jim and his commentariat and the reactionary movement in general are all extremely well-known for their dismissiveness of propaganda. Doesn’t exist! Memes? What are those?

          Seriously, did you do any research at all, or did Mechanical Turk just send you a deep-link to this exact thread?

          …and a media controlled by a hostile, parasitic group who have a vested interest in feminizing their host’s population. Even if not responsible for feminism, jews still benefit from a sexual polarity reversal among whites…

          You casually throw this claim in as if it requires no evidence, or is even an already agreed-upon premise. Aside from Jews being over-represented in the media (the motte), where is your evidence for any of the rest of this nonsense (the bailey)?

          cultural Marxist who tells him to do so while knowing full well that he weakens the civilization

          Virtually nobody does anything he does “knowing that he weakens the civilization”. Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, all believed they would be ushering in a glorious new age. Also curious how this sentence does not identify any specific actor, yet clearly blames only the males of whichever group is implied.

          I also don’t understand where you are getting the idea that such blue-pilled ideas on sexual relations and faggotry can be ascribed to “nazis” either.

          Ignoring what was actually said (that it comes from Marxists pretending to be Nazis) and substituting what you wish we had said (that it comes from Actual Nazis).

          Even the Jewish posters here are considerably more sympathetic to Actual Nazis than Marxist fake-Nazis.

        • shaman says:

          a hostile, parasitic group who have a vested interest in feminizing their host’s population. Even if not responsible for feminism, jews still benefit from a sexual polarity reversal among whites, have the means to encourage it, and take full advantage of those means.

          [citation needed]

          A white man who is convinced he is doing good for mankind by letting his daughter be “liberated” is not nearly as morally flawed as the cultural Marxist who tells him to do so while knowing full well that he weakens the civilization.

          Hmmm, whites are unthinking idiots who do whatever some Jewish talking head on television tells them. Gotcha.

          Hey yewotm8, why don’t you explain how 19th Puritanism created the situation we are in? If you’re as redpilled about the WQ as you claim, let’s see your account of how Puritanism-derived Feminism sprung to the scene.

          The argument should not be “are jews to blame” but instead “would we be better off without them”. Anybody paying attention, especially to the jews’ degenerate proclivities, hypocritical tendencies, and urge to paint themselves as victims to garner sympathy is going to say yes to the latter question.

          I.e., argument from false consensus.

          It is not the consensus that society would be better off without Jews. It is an argument that you can make if you’re so inclined, and then you’ll have to address the counter-arguments; but it’s not something that everyone agrees about.

          I also don’t understand where you are getting the idea that such blue-pilled ideas on sexual relations and faggotry can be ascribed to “nazis” either.

          The comment you are responding to has not used the word “Nazis” even once. Consider not using strawman arguments. More to the point, all White Nationalists (0.1 and 0.2 alike), as near to all of them as makes no difference, are bluepilled about the WQ. Not one of them subscribes to Reaction 101 on Women.

      • Zach says:

        I’m aware that one is assumed fagged if one is attracted to little boys. But might it be conceivable some (rare) people might not be gay who are attracted to any pair of hands on their junk they can get away with? For example, what if a straight male is so hard up for poon, he dangles it around young kids in hopes to get a few feels. No anal. No blow. But harm could follow for the little guys. Or is your position (the position?) that no harm will follow?

        I don’t know jack on this topic but I always found it very odd that Men seem to turn gay in prison. Or at least act as if they were gay, thus my example above. Anybody that knows fuck all in this area give me a run down.

        • 2019 is boring says:

          Not really comparable to prison homosexuality. I mean, maybe if you were locked for years in a facility with nothing but prepubescent girls in it, you would become a temporary “straight pedophile,” but that is not a real situation now, is it? As it is, men don’t dig prepubescent girls – the girls dig men, because sometimes their sex drive sets in shortly after adrenarche at 8 or so.

          People who go after prepubescent boys are invariably gays, and should be thoroughly eliminated on the biological level – not because the boys are prepubescent, but because all faggotry, “consenting adults” or otherwise, is a serious social problem. Incels don’t magically become gay, just as incels don’t magically become necrophiles; it never happens, as near to never as makes no difference.

          No straight man would ever go after boys, whether pre-pubescent or post-pubescent. Actual kiddie-diddler are gay, and even have a distinct physiognomy (high or steepled palate, left-handed, attached earlobes, misshapen ears). It’s a Gay Problem.

        • 2019 is boring says:

          What I’m saying is, the guy who gets prepubescent boys to give him a handjob (not even going for anything more serious) is definitely a distinct biological type – as part of my journeys in the weird and wonderful place called the internet, I’ve encountered some of these gaydophile entities who claim to not even desire any anal with boys, they literally just want to caress and hug them, in a creepy, almost-platonic way. Think about the memes with Joe Biden, except it’s not a meme.

          Of course, you would naturally assume, “This is just a cynical lie, they are really looking for anal penetrative sex,” and while that is sometimes the case indeed, that’s not always so – some of them sincerely prefer diddling for diddling’s sake, as is evidenced e.g. by the kind of behavior they were busted for by the police. Michael Jackson, for instance, could easily have sodomized all of those boys in his mansion, but he actually preferred playing Uncle Touchy, and mostly contented himself just with mutual handjobs.

          Anyway, no heterosexual man on Earth is like that. They are effeminate gays with a not uncommon predilection. They are indistinguishable from the regular Gay Problem, and there is no point differentiating them from the “adult-oriented” gays.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “Yet you also claim that the actual Nazis kilked the Jews for socialist reasons. What gives? ”

      The killings are in 1941; there were 7 years prior where the Nazis acted differently.

      “I find it hard to believe that a leftist would imitate a Nazi by attacking the Jews for socialist rather than nationalist reasons.”

      Leftists have power and so don’t bother themselves with learning conservative arguments, much less those further to the right. It requires explicit recitation of thought crime which they shy away from (since learning about thought crime gets other leftists to purge you).

    • Not Tom says:

      “Greetings Fellow Reactionaries, and might I mention that your true enemies are not Progressive and Marxist academics but actually evil Nazis and White Supremacists!”

      Subtext: Hmm, it seems our Jew-baiting has failed. It must be because there are too many Jews already. I know! Let’s try Nazi-baiting! It works on the other Jews!

      Remind me of incompetent tinkerers, desperately trying to fix complicated gadgets that they don’t really understand. What if I tighten this screw? Nope, nothing. What if I loosen that bolt? Dang, now it just makes a weird grinding sound. How about if I whack it with a hammer? Oops, now it’s causing nearby dogs to howl in pain and spraying some kind of corrosive liquid. Weeellllp, looks like my work here is done!

      • alf says:

        It looks incompetent here because most of the variables are controlled, so a deviation from the variables sticks out like a sore thumb. But of course, give it a few centuries and/or a less controlled environment, and suddenly entryism does not seem so incompetent.

        • Not Tom says:

          There’s no denying the success of entryism – though Whig liberalism was almost tailor-made to be co-opted, and nearly every political faction today descends from Whig liberalism.

          We’ll see if the claims about memetic sovereignty hold true. The entry attempts are way more embarrassing here than e.g. Unz Review, which is now about 80% communist.

  40. Vxxc says:

    Can someone tell me the WRP question so I can answer?
    I will answer honestly I assure you.

    Thank you, and Gnon Bless America.

    • shaman says:

      Instead of asking you a WRP question as we do to suspected entryists, you should answer the following easy quiz.

      1. Your 12-year-old daughter goes out at night to dance and drink with older men, wearing a bra, bikini, and absolutely nothing else.

      A) It is her body and therefore it is her choice, douchebag.

      B) This is female misbehavior, not male misbehavior. She needs to be beaten with a stick, and promptly married off to someone willing and able to take care of her.

      C) Horrible, horrible child abuse. I’m personally going to beat the shit out of all the Jewish pedophiles who dare to lay their filthy hands on my innocent, blameless princess.

      D) Horrible, horrible child abuse. I’m going to call the cops, so they will catch those dangerous predators she’s drinking and dancing with, and put them in jail, where they surely belong.

      2. Your son is an autistic incel perma-virgin. He arranged a meeting with a young-looking whore to finally lose his virginity and feel like a real man.

      A) OMG! OMG! OMG! This is sex trafficking, and possibly child sex trafficking. Pizzagate is real. I’m contacting the FBI, right now!

      B) Ummm, hello? Shitlord much? They are not “whores,” they are poor and oppressed sex workers, and Orange Cheeto Man Bligrod Blormf is not doing nearly enough to make their lives easier, because he’s a misogynist and a sexist.

      C) A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do. This should be as legal as buying milk at the grocery store. None of the state’s business.

      D) Why would he need to do that? A guy just needs to be nice, respectful, compliant, agreeable, and a good listener, and then all chicks everywhere will instantly flock to him.

      3. TFR has collapsed.

      A) It collapsed because during the 19th century, a worldview best described as Puritanism-Feminism gained prominence throughout the Anglo-American sphere, and proceeded to destroy marriage, reproduction, and sex. We need to bring back coverture.

      B) It’s because of Jewish pornography. Do you know who owns the porn studios? If only we gas these crass Heebs, our TFR will immediately skyrocket from 1.8 to 8.1. By the way, I just reported Jim, who is a Jewish pedophile, to the FBI, for possessing Child Abuse Images of 15-year-olds giving their boyfriends blowjobs.

      C) Fuck you, bigoted racist Christian breeder. Sterility and infertility are good things, because the world is overpopulated and this is causing Global Warming. Gaia weeps! Rather, we need to accept more immigrants and refugees from the Third World, who will all work in the Hi-Tech sector and so on. Diversity = Strength.

      D) My IQ is low, so I don’t even know what TFR is. You guys should stop using such complex terminology, so that those of us who aren’t 180 IQ geniuses will also be able to participate. Also, I’m gay.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        You know, if you tailor the answer options to be free of sarcasm, add a few misdirecting
        questions as well as a diagnostic battery, you got yourself a legit survey here.

        I might play around with it. If you feel like it, I’d appreciate more legit questions; I can build the misdirects and answers.

        • jim says:

          That would have great entertainment value, and in some circumstances actual use. Tune it so that entryists delusively think that the wrong answer will pass.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        This is the God of WRP questions!

      • Doug Smythe says:

        1 (b) is obviously the best answer, but no human male with intact patriarchal instincts who has thought about it is going to seriously disagree with 1 (D) except over point of contention concerning who gets to do the enforcement as per discussion of private vengeance above.

        2 (c) is obvious best answer but should have stopped at “a man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do”. People tend to like absolutely decriminalized hooking a lot less when the hooker is tramping up and down the street in *their* neighbourhood, leaving needles and used condoms on sidewalk, bringing with along with her the gangsters who pimp her and the johns who inevitably proposition respectably owned women in the area, etc.

        • 2019 is boring says:

          no human male with intact patriarchal instincts who has thought about it is going to seriously disagree with 1 (D)

          Nuts.

          1 (D) is the worst option. Calling the cops on men because your scantily-clad slut daughter misbehaves shows both extreme blue-pilledness and utter disloyalty to whatever mannerbund you may be a part of. If you fail to control your daughter, e.g. by beating her with a stick, then she is ruined exactly because you lack patriarchal instincts and/or lack patriarchal authority.

          These men whom she seduced did not spoil your appropriately guarded property, because your property was not appropriately guarded, nor would calling the cops to imprison them fix or alleviate the problem in any way. It is Puritanism-Feminism that spoiled your property by depriving you of patriarchal authority, and the men whom she seduced are merely an inevitable consequence of that, not a cause.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            !!!!

            If you correct her, and she sneaks out the window anyways, or does so as consequence of not being corrected, whatever the case may be in the eyes of the men who seduce her, all other men, and your own, you=cuck and either have to respond with private enforcement or, where the Sovereign power won’t allow that, call the cops. The idea that unguarded property of any type is up for grabs is just ridiculous.

            • Doug Smythe says:

              >utter disloyalty to whatever mannerbund you may be a part of.

              In most any Maennerbund, violating another member’s women esp. children automatically triggers expulsion with or without severe beating/execution limited only by their ability to get away with it. Consult policies of Mafia and motorcycle clubs which are characteristic in this respect.

              • 2019 is boring says:

                You are using words in a non-reactionary way: “the men who seduce her,” “violating another’s children.”

                When you say that a scantily clad 12-year-old thot who goes at night to parties with older men is being seduced and violated, rather than being a seductress, you are repeating the Blue Pill on women.

                The problem is that the man who deflowered her let her go. Should not have let her go. But, since that happened, the solution is beating her up for her sexual misbehavior, promptly followed by marrying her off to whoever is willing to take her.

                In a reactionary state, the police won’t be white-knighting on behalf of thots, so 1 (D) will not be possible.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  To be clear, what’s being violated is the honour of the household, and its male head. A more precise use of language might be to say molesting somebody’s women (and thereby violating the family honour) and is what I plant to say in the future.

                  Second, unless the girl crept on top of the guy in his sleep and rode him like a pony w/out him waking up, then he had to do actively do something out of his own volition- and since the natural order of seduction is that the man initiates and the woman yields that’s exactly what the law is going to assume (and does assume) happened. Another thing about the law is that it won’t (and doesn’t) excuse any sort of crime on grounds the offender was somehow obliged to do something just because the opportunity presented itself- and if he has that little self-control he belongs in jail or a rubber-room anyways.

                • shaman says:

                  The current law is insane and blue pilled, presupposing a whole lot of damned lies to be self-evidently true, for example that women misbehave because men make them misbehave.

                  A woman who goes to parties at night dancing and drinking is going to get fucked, is cruising for alpha male dick, and is apt to find it. And women are the gatekeepers of sex, not men, therefore the problem would naturally be (and in fact is) female misbehavior, not male misbehavior.

                  If men were the gatekeepers of sex, or if the sexes were equally likely to sexually misbehave, you could blame badly behaved men for seducing 12-year-olds thots at parties. Since the sexes are not equally like to sexually misbehave, and it’s women who are the gatekeepers of sex, the problem is female misbehavior, and the solution is restraining females.

                  Modern sex-crime legislation is straight out of Satan’s fire-breathing mouth, and the people defending it are wittingly or unwittingly doing the Devil’s work. Come the restoration, sex-crime legislation will be diametrically reverse to the current one.

              • jim says:

                Nuts.

                I don’t know who that chicks father was.’

                This talk of Maennerbund presupposes women under control, chaste women, women who are never in the presence of any man who is not connected to their father somehow, part of their father’s Maennerbund. Such are as rare as unicorns. You cannot stop teen chicks from wandering off unless you have authority to chain them to the wall and beat them like a rug. The kind of relationships you conceive of cannot exist without a whole lot drastic coercion against women.

                Women are only chaste when under the authority of a husband they perceive as alpha. Or when restrained by continual supervision backed by immediate physical coercion.

            • 2019 is boring says:

              An unbetrothed virgin who goes around seducing various men should either be married off to the man who deflowered her (classic shotgun marriage), or to anyone else willing to take her. The man who deflowered her should not have let her go, letting her go being the crime, not the deflowerment.

              That she seduced those men shows that her father could not, or would not, control her. It is indeed mighty hard to control sexually misbehaving women, which necessitates either extreme coercion or very young marriage. Someone’s gonna be fucking her come what may, so it better be a husband, or a soon-to-be husband.

              An unbetrothed non-virgin is indeed up for grabs.

              Calling the cops on men due to your own daughter’s sexual misbehavior marks you as a blue-pilled traitor. Boomerconism is a disease of the mind.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                The deflowering is an open-and-shut case of a crime, criminal in itself and on the face of it.The man who deflowered her should have asked Dad for permission to marry her, married her, and then deflowered her, in that order. He most certainly had no right to do it in the reverse order and without asking Dad, any more than he has a right to come uninvited into somebody’s home and help himself to the contents of the liquor cabinet- even though the front door was unlocked and he left behind a check for the amount of the sticker price. Maybe Dad already promised her to somebody else, wanted to save her for somebody better, or planned to have her take vows of some sort; whatever the case may be, it’s his property, he owns it, and he and he alone has the right to dispose of it. Only exception I can think of is if he formally disavows the girl first (in which case she really is up for grabs, just like trash on the curb, and for the same reason).

                Also calling the cops on somebody is a reasonable and just thing to do when you’ve been wronged and have no other recourse. You should of course never call the cops on a brother in your Maennerbund, but that’s why the Bund has internal procedures for dealing with this sort of thing and is severely defective (and doomed to disintegrate) if it doesn’t.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  The man who deflowered her should have asked Dad for permission to marry her, married her, and then deflowered her, in that order.

                  Nuts.

                  It is unreasonable to expect men under the circumstances described to behave that way. What you suggest applies to daughters firmly and tightly under control. Does not apply to thots who run away at night and go to parties with alcohol.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  For that matter just to be clear you should never go to the cops even if the offender is a member of a rival Maennerbund that is entitled to respect, but in that case you go to war.

                • 2019 is boring says:

                  When a man and a fertile age woman are together in the same room with a horizontal surface for more than half a minute, pull out the shotgun.

                  Don’t call the cops, and come the restoration, the cops won’t respond to such a call.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I am one who advocates the property-centric view of women, but you ask too much. It’s the equivalent of saying a man should be able to leave his cherry-red Aston Martin on the side of the road, with the doors unlocked and keys in the ignition, in a dusky or lower-class part of town, and be entitled to invoke the might of the state against the first random joyrider who was unlucky enough to get caught.

                  Sure, a 12-year-old daughter is a difficult thing to control. But if instead of slutting it up with 20-year-olds, she goes out and gets a tattoo, or goes out and shoots up heroin, do you blame the tattoo artist or the drug dealer? That’s just stupid. What you’ve just learned is that your 12-year-old is a slave to her desires, completely incapable of making rational or even sane decisions, and needs to be either physically restrained or transferred to a new owner who’s willing and able to satisfy her appetite and keep her under control.

                  Men (and women) who own female cats and dogs, and don’t specifically intend to breed more of them, will generally spay them, because if they don’t, there is a very real risk of them having to dispose of several kittens or puppies. Obviously, we want our own progeny to reproduce, but the biological rules remain the same: you can’t blame random males for the behavior of a female in heat.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >It’s the equivalent of saying a man should be able to leave his cherry-red Aston Martin on the side of the road, with the doors unlocked and keys in the ignition, in a dusky or lower-class part of town, and be entitled to invoke the might of the state against the first random joyrider who was unlucky enough to get caught.

                  However, he *is* in fact entitled to do so, and as a corollary of the State’s prohibition on private prosecution. At best the cops could refuse to spend a lot of time on the case, but if they do catch him it goes before a judge and if he’s found guilty/pleads guilty the most the judge can do is take the circumstances into account in the sentencing where there’s judicial discretion in this area.

                • jim says:

                  > It’s the equivalent of saying a man should be able to leave his cherry-red Aston Martin on the side of the road, with the doors unlocked and keys in the ignition

                  Not the equivalent, because the car does not cruise parties with its keys hanging half way out of its top.

                  Not the equivalent, because I am allowed to lock up my car.

                  If a chicken gets loose, and hangs out in the forest, is the whole world supposed to keep that chicken safe?

                • shaman says:

                  Women, like cars, lack moral agency.

                  Women, unlike cars, can run away at night and commit sexual immorality. Doug’s solution is making the whole country safe for scantily clad 12-year-old thots, since “men should have self control.” It is insane, demonic, unreasonable, and indicative of a total lack of familiarity with drunken private party life as it actually transpires, and, even more generally, lack of familiarity with seduction as it actually transpires.

                  It is not the random guy at the party who is violating the family’s honor. It is the sexually misbehaving slutty uncontrollable daughter who runs away at night wearing a bra, a bikini, and absolutely nothing else, who is violating her family’s honor. Any female with substantially developed secondary sexual characteristic is apt to score. Fertile females will always score. Thus it’s they who need to be restrained.

                • Not Tom says:

                  However, he *is* in fact entitled to [invoke state violence against a random joyrider of the Aston Martin he left unlocked with the keys in the ignition on Monroe St in Baltimore], and as a corollary of the State’s prohibition on private prosecution.

                  First of all, you’re factually wrong; after 2-3 days in most states it would be considered an abandoned vehicle, which means the former owner could actually be charged. Joyriding is already no more than a misdemeanor, and many states require “intent to deprive the owner of the use of” the vehicle even for that, which would be impossible to prove with an abandoned vehicle. Finally, if it was left on private property, many (most?) states even have a process to gain legal title to the vehicle after a time. You’re wrong on nearly every count here.

                  But even if right, it would still be grotesque legalism. The owner was clearly negligent, and possibly even trying to deliberately attract and provoke the nearby talent. You are promoting the idea that the letter of the law is also the spirit of the law and therefore should dictate public morality, which is nonsense backward boomercon thinking.

                  This isn’t a forum for lawyers where we’re discussing what your current legal options are to solve some problem; we’re discussing how society should be structured based on the laws of nature. And “finders keepers” is one of the most basic laws of nature. If you abandon your property, others can take it. If you leave your personal property on public land, conspicuously, making no attempt to secure it and indeed even going out of your way to leave it unsecured and all but posted up a big “FREE” sign, then you’ve abandoned that property.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Not the equivalent, because I am allowed to lock up my car.

                  Fair enough, but we agree (I think?) that in a sane civilization you’d also be allowed to lock up your daughter.

                  Both are acts of abandonment, but in Puritan world you are forced to commit one of them.

                  We seem to be vacillating between what is and what should be. If we’re dealing with what is, then these questions get a lot more complicated because the state explicitly forbids the correct response to any of the original questions.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  In all ages and races of Man family honour is deemed to have been violated, and in an especially grave way, when a male engages in sexual activity with a female of the family without specific formal authorization to do so by the head of household. *Both* parties involved are usually held to account when this happens. The involvement of the male will be taken as an act of war in the strong sense (the involvement of the female, as a form of petty treason in her collaboration), and the head of household *has* to respond in order to avoid being branded as a coward and losing his honour, which has social consequences at least roughly equivalent to those of being doxxed for crimethink now.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >we’re discussing how society should be structured based on the laws of nature.

                  Any such discussion is limited to what is objectively possible based on empirical knowledge. No matter the ifs and or buts it’s a matter of stubborn fact anywhere you go on this planet at any time (including clown world) if you have unauthorized sex with an owned female you do so at the risk of having to explain yourself to male relatives armed with baseball bats or guns, or cops and courts acting on their behalf, all of them unikely to find the answer that it was their fault for having let her run loose to be very convincing. Yes this raises legal questions that go far beyond the law office, since they are questions of the most fundamental sort. Is there such a thing as an unowned woman? If so, how do you tell? Can the head of household punish trespass personally, or does he have to appeal to public authority?

                • jim says:

                  > it’s a matter of stubborn fact anywhere you go on this planet at any time (including clown world) if you have unauthorized sex with an owned female

                  Nuts

                  Its a matter of stubborn fact that keeping women under control has always been a huge problem, and it has very seldom been the case that a society has managed to keep one hundred percent of them under control.

                  And when it did keep one hundred percent of them under control, it was through allowing, or at least quietly tolerating, marriage by abduction, or the authorities shotgun marrying unowned women on sight, or some mixture of both of these remedies.

                  Women are going to cruise for dick. There is no stopping them. Female sexuality is like a volcanic eruption. The best we can do is make it so that if they find some dick, it is then difficult for them to keep on cruising for an upgrade. We can also put pressure on fathers that if their daughters get caught cruising for dick, the father is in trouble, but if he shotgun marries his daughter at an early age, not in trouble.

                  There is also the huge “but I am in love” problem. Daughter gets the hots for someone wildly unsuitable, typically a random stony broke thug, or a not very successful musician, also stony broke and nearly homeless with a drug problem and a huge supply of groupies. Dad hastily marries her off to someone who is able and willing to take care of her and her children. But she is still “in love” – meaning she still perceives the musician as more alpha than her husband. To fix this problem, we have to have social rules that create the appearance to women that men who are high status in the male hierarchy are high status in female eyes. Thus it has to be as dangerous for the stony broke musician to insult or disrespect the man who is high status in the male hierarchy, and as safe for the man who is high status in the male hierarchy to insult or disrespect the musician, as today it is dangerous for a white man to insult or disrespect a black man or an illegal immigrant, or a Christian a Muslim, and as it is today as safe for a black man to insult or disrespect a white man, or a Muslim a Christian. Notice how many women had the hots for Beau Brummel, the Marquis de Sade, or Lord Byron when they were fleeing their creditors.

                  Men who are unsuitable to be husbands have to be publicly treated in ways that lower their status in female eyes.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Is love an anticoncept, lumping together two unlike emotions to imply a symmetry between the sexes that does not exist?

                  Love is an old word, and I am unaware of any languages (though my knowledge is very limited) which have different words for male and female love. Am I being paranoid, or is the bluepill ancient and pernicious?

                • shaman says:

                  Rollo Tomassi’s oft-repeated dictum, “Men are the true romantics,” used in the context of women being intrinsically unable to appreciate and reciprocate men’s romantic sacrifices, since “Hypergamy doesn’t care,” suggests that men’s love corresponds to the Japanese ai, while women’s love corresponds to the Japanese koi.

                  Sadly, then, you are correct: love is an anticoncept.

                • shaman says:

                  If the femosolipsism hypothesis has any merit, it may invalidate the notion that women are capable of the kind of self-sacrificial “love” that men do. Then again, and speaking of the Japs, their women were not unacquainted with self-sacrifice unto death, so perhaps things aren’t as grim as they appear. But grim they are.

                • Friendly Fred says:

                  Eternal Anglo — yes, it seems to me to be a sad fact that women simply can’t love us in the way that at least the weak-willed among us would like to be loved … I’m at first inclined to think that among women an appreciating-his-unique-existence kind of attitude can be found only in the mother-son relationship — but then I reflect that even mothers seem devoid of the sort of heart-melting delight in their sons’ personal being that fathers feel when contemplating their daughters’ personal being.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, but a man who loves his son is not going to find his keys, wash him in the shower, and make him coffee the way he likes it.

                  Women, all women, are much better than men in some ways, and much worse than men in other ways. Don’t blame a saw for not being a hammer. Women were shaped on a different anvil for a different purpose.

                • Not Tom says:

                  If the femosolipsism hypothesis has any merit, it may invalidate the notion that women are capable of the kind of self-sacrificial “love” that men do.

                  Heartiste liked to point out that women do sacrifice themselves this way, but only for men they perceive as truly alpha, which mostly does not include husbands. The behavior almost resembles a soldier sacrificing for his king, although the emotional cocktail is surely totally different.

                  [Doug Smythe]: The man who deflowered her should have asked Dad for permission to marry her, married her, and then deflowered her, in that order.

                  Again you erase responsibility for the woman and project it onto the man. If daughter thinks that father might approve of her choice, she should bring up the subject herself and he could then arrange a marriage.

                  But we are presuming father disapproves. This is therefore the male hierarchy asserting itself. If Mr. super stud can get into daughter’s pants despite the best efforts of father to prevent it, then super stud is more alpha than the father. This isn’t theft of property, it’s right of conquest. Father may not like it, but it’s his fault for not using a bigger stick.

                  It’s only theft to me if she’s an infant or toddler kidnapped from under her father’s roof. If deflowered by a father’s friend who promised to keep her out of trouble, that’s a different sort of infraction, a breach of trust or breach of contract. I don’t know if the state should be involved, because it stands to reason that no one would ever deal with or trust that man again, so there’s no incentive for a man to do such a thing, nor do there appear to be a lot of historical instances of men doing such things (though I’m sure it happened sometimes).

                  You want Victorian-era sexual prudishness, where men are all supposed to act like betas until after marriage. That’s not sustainable – it clearly wasn’t sustainable because it didn’t last very long. Old Testament law, on the other hand, lasted thousands of years.

                • Friendly Fred says:

                  “Yes, but a man who loves his son is not going to find his keys, wash him in the shower, and make him coffee the way he likes it” (host).

                  Heh heh — well, it’s been years since I’ve washed my son in the shower, but I still frequently find his keys and fix up his meals in fairly minute detail for him. And I think that I used to find his mom’s keys too, and also my first wife’s keys.

            • 2019 is boring says:

              A sovereign who is a warrior among warriors, not a priest among priests, has no interest in having his warriors and tax payers imprisoned, maimed, or killed because of thots’ sexual misbehavior. He has an interest in preventing thotery, and the solution to thotery would make the Taliban blush.

              The sovereign would support shotgun marrying the sexually misbehaving daughter and the man who deflowered her – and he would not support any depredation against any other men.

            • jim says:

              Who owns the fish in the sea, the deer in the woods, or the twelve year old cruising for alpha?

              If a woman is acting unowned, she is unowned. If she is cruising for alpha, unowned. The solution is to ensure that unowned women wind up owned by someone, rather than cruising for someone even more alpha till their youth and fertility run out.

              • Doug Smythe says:

                If we’re to ever restore full legal ownership, we’re going to need a more stringent legal test than “if she acts unowned she is unowned”. I can’t see how in practice the test could be anything other than what the relevant legal registry shows. (In fact, in a Restored order it should be legally impossible for a woman to be unowned).

                I was going to propose that someone accused of trespass against ownership rights over a female could invoke a defense of indiscipline (or whatever one would call it) in order to qualify for diminished responsibility inasmuch as the defense could show that it was because of negligence on the part of the owner that the girl was able to run loose and get some guy in trouble. However, this would be hard to square away with Restored patriarchy in that it would require the State to give itself the power to second-guess parental/marital discipline in the home, much as social-services does now.

                • jim says:

                  If we’re to ever restore full legal ownership, we’re going to need a more stringent legal test than “if she acts unowned she is unowned”.

                  No we are not.

                  A more stringent test would be a database linking female ID to patriarchal ID. And what are we going to do with such a database?

                  An unescorted woman, under circumstances where being unescorted is suspicious, is going to be carded by security, the barkeep, the hotel front desk or police. And, if carded, the man responsible for her is going to learn she has been carded. And if he is unhappy that she is in that place at that hour, she is going to be hauled home on a leash by a cop, or she will be detained by hotel security, possibly chained to a pole in the lost and found room, until he comes to pick her up.

                  We are not going to use the database to throw me in jail because a twelve year old girl at my party mislaid her clothes while I was drunk. “More stringent” is only going to work if it is more stringent on women.

                  “More stringent” presupposes that you can readily find out what male is responsible for a female’s conduct, and that there is always some male who is exercising firm and effective control over that conduct, control backed by family, church, society and state.

                  And, frequently, there is not going to be any male exercising that authority, even if church, society, and state are willing to back that male. For example, who is going to supervise fatherless demonspawn?

                  In which case the female (possibly twelve years old and drunk very late at night at a party where the host is even drunker and asleep) needs to be acquired by an alpha male able and willing to keep her in line. The crime was not banging her like a drum. The crime was allowing her to leave afterwards.

                • Not Tom says:

                  If we’re to ever restore full legal ownership, we’re going to need a more stringent legal test than “if she acts unowned she is unowned”.

                  Why? All sorts of laws today are based on the “reasonable person test”, and they work reasonably well. We can apply the same criteria here: would a reasonable person assume she is abandoned or unowned? If she’s 4 years old and in her father’s living room, definitely not. If she’s wearing a tube top, miniskirt and lipstick, is unaccompanied and grinding her ass against the pelvises of men she met six minutes ago, definitely yes.

                  I do like the idea of a register, perhaps backed by biometrics and crypto for the modern age. It would make the system run much more smoothly, but it is not essential.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  What about internet access? Will it be necessary to prevent daughters or wives from communicating secretly with alphas by smartphone, sending them nudes and so on? If so, how will a patriarch do this?

                • jim says:

                  Today’s social media offers attention whoring thots male validation that they are way higher status and more valuable than any male likely to stick around with them, but will not show you that Warmists have been predicting catastrophe in ten years time for thirty years. Your facebook and twitter accounts get banned or shadowbanned.

                  So, attention whoring on facebook and twitter gets banned or shadowbanned, validating attention whores gets banned or shadowbanned.

                  Today, you need a google account, it is almost an Internet driving license, and it is very hard to get a google account that is not linked to your job, from which google can get you fired.

                  (The loophole is that you can buy a bunch of sim cards in some country that allows sim cards to be purchased without proof of ID, then a phone with no google account (new phone) or the google account deleted, factory reset the phone, create a new google account under a new phone number, use it for a bit to create profile that is mysteriously unlinked to any other profile that has substantial connection to yourself, disconnect the phone from the internet, delete the google account from the phone, power the phone down, factory reset the phone, install a new sim card, create another google account, rinse and repeat)

                  After we win, google search on global warming will show the true history of the scare campaign, you will not get shadowbanned for linking to it, but chicks will not be able to get social media accounts except through the social media account of the male in authority over them, and he will be able to see their feed – and turn it off.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  I think that in the old times a reasonable person could assume that a prostitute turning tricks on the street is for all practical purposes unowned, I suppose on grounds that she was widowed/orphaned, had been disavowed (not sure if I’m using this term right; to be clear I mean kicked out her family and thus released from obligations towards it), or that her family was shameless and thus has no honour to defend, or so on.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  >And, frequently, there is not going to be any male exercising that authority, even if church, society, and state are willing to back that male. For example, who is going to supervise fatherless demonspawn?

                  Now that I think of it, prostitution serves as a natural sociological solution to many of these problems. The fatherless hellspawn, or the one that is incorrigible and disgraces the family again and again until they finally tell her GTFO, becomes a prostitute with no social status (=unowned). She can behave as badly as she wants, and guys can take advantage, all without violating anyone’s honour, and without any fear of reprisal. Everybody wins.

                • jim says:

                  > prostitution serves as a natural sociological solution to many of these problems

                  No. The man the whore could have married had she not been ruined loses.

                  Plus, she demonstrates the possibility of a free and empowered woman, living a glamorous lifestyle. Likely she is an actress, and a role model for eight year old girls as someone who gets amazing amounts of attention, and is therefore high status in the female lizard brain. All actresses, as near to all of them as makes no difference, are whores – just that some of them are very expensive whores.

                  Plus, a lucrative career option for women should their marriage go south, encouraging them to behave in ways likely to result in their marriage going south. Plus, a whole lot of whoring is chicks from intact upper class families engaged in an endless search for someone more alpha than their current pimp, usually meaning someone more brutal, stupid, criminal, and violent than their current pimp. Most whores are in it for the pimps, rather than the cash.

                  Late eighteenth century Australia was one hundred percent successful in turning thots – all of them, every single one – into good wives with chaste bourgeous middle class wife values. We should emulate their example. We will continue to produce movies with female characters, but the character will, like Lucy in “I love Lucy”, be played by a wife with her husband present on the set, and any scenes requiring physical affection will be with a character played by her husband, or will be faked under her husband’s supervision.

                • Doug Smythe says:

                  Not to pre-judge this Jim, but the 100% success rate seems impressive enough to be suspicious. Could it be possible (not saying certain) that some John Howard or Elizabeth Fry-type figure pre-selected only THOTS they thought reformable for the brides-for-settlers programme? Because the moral reformers of the time unlike today were often careful to make the distinction between offenders capable of being reformed and the refractory or incorrigible.

                • jim says:

                  Initially, when women arrived on the shores of Port Jackson, it was spring break in Cancun, and the authorities were paralyzed, disoriented, and confused.

                  And then they cracked down hard, marrying or assigning every female who arrived, often within hours of the ship reaching the shore. This simply worked. The women massively shit tested the authorities, obstreperously resisting, but when the authorities manned up and passed the shit test, no further problems. Until in the early nineteenth century, the Victorians started worrying about women being sexually exploited by predatory males. Then whoring resumed.

                  Before crackdown, spring break in Cancun. After they started worrying about women being sexually exploited, whoring. But when the crackdown was in effect, zero whoring, no recorded incidents of wives or concubines shacking up with a male other than the one to which she was assigned, no recorded incidents of prostitution. Maybe there were unrecorded incidents, or incidents recorded in a way that obscures embarrassing facts, but these guys kept records of enforcement and punishment, and female immorality disappears from the records when they had a policy of swiftly making sure every female was answerable to one male, usually married to that male, and backing that male’s authority. Faced with strong and unbending male authority, women appear to have internalized the values commanded.

                • The Cominator says:

                  No. The man the whore could have married had she not been ruined loses.

                  We will have a slight excess of women at all times because the Jeremy Meeks and male leftists of the world be either exiled to penal colonies or executed.

                  Plus, she demonstrates the possibility of a free and empowered woman, living a glamorous lifestyle. Likely she is an actress, and a role model for eight year old girls as someone who gets amazing amounts of attention, and is therefore high status in the female lizard brain. All actresses, as near to all of them as makes no difference, are whores – just that some of them are very expensive whores.

                  We will not allow street prostitution we will allow brothels. I don’t think non-prostitutes will generally be in the business of entering brothels and in most cases their supervising males probably wouldn’t allow them to. So their influence on women will be rather slight because while respectable women will know of them vaguely (and know that they have competition for their husbands attention) they will not see them.

                • jim says:

                  Sure we will allow brothels – but we will create a massive shortage of staff. Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap. Therefore female sexuality needs to be subject to strong social control, male sexuality does not.

                • Not Tom says:

                  We will not allow street prostitution we will allow brothels.

                  Makes sense to me. Doug says “a prostitute turning tricks on the street is for all practical purposes unowned”. I say that all prostitutes would be owned, and in fact still are owned, either by a brothel (past) or by a pimp or the state itself (present). For without a male owner to threaten violence, what is the incentive for any john to actually pay? Whomever enforces payment is the de facto owner.

                  It should be possible for prostitution to exist, but be a very unpleasant and low-status profession. It has been that way in the distant past, and it’s almost like a kind of orphanage, a place for women with no husbands and no families and who are too messed up for anyone else to want to take in. Female prostitutes can have the same status as male Uber drivers. Wives will remain faithful just to avoid that fate.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Women innately hate prostitution (it was women voters who banned it remember) and prostitutes (unless its them doing it) so you won’t have to worry about it being high status with women.

                  The only thing that makes it high status is occasionally you will get a rich and powerful man who marries one (barring an Augustan style law forbidding such which for various reasons I would not be inclined to issue such a law).

                • jim says:

                  > Women innately hate prostitution

                  No they do not.

                  Women’s attitude to prostitution is complex. It is a shit test. Women tend to grant prostitutes high status. Men innately view prostitutes as low status and dirty. Sex with a whore is one step above jerking off to porn, and not a very large step. Women tend to view pimps as high status and attractive. Men view them as defeated and humiliated.

                  We need to impose male perceptions of prostitution on women, which can be done by showing whores and pimps mistreated with impunity in the media.

                • The Cominator says:

                  It WAS women voters that banned it. And that was a pattern that reoccurred elsewhere in the world so why do you think otherwise?

                • jim says:

                  You cannot take anything women do or say related to sex at face value.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Of course not but I’m talking about something they did, when they got the vote prostitution was quickly banned in nearly every country (Germany being a notable exception) whereas before it was legal almost everywhere.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It WAS women voters that banned [prostitution].

                  But they didn’t ban it – not really. They banned men from soliciting prostitution, in effect banning formalized prostitution, making themselves the informal gatekeepers of the profession and transferring the public stigma of prostitution from the [female] prostitutes to the [male] johns.

                  They turned prostitution into another shit test; it’s absolutely still there if you know where to look, but you have to break the law in order to access it.

              • BC says:

                >Of course not but I’m talking about something they did, when they got the vote prostitution was quickly banned in nearly every country (Germany being a notable exception) whereas before it was legal almost everywhere.

                It was banned when the Cathedral decided to ban it, just as they decided to ban booze in the 20s. Women make great sheep for progressive causes.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Without women’s suffrage they never had the strength to get it through. This doesn’t detract from your sheep argument but lets say that the Cathedral was never able to convince men (other then extreme puritans ala Mass Bay colony and the Rule of the Major Generals period under Cromwell) to outlaw it.

        • jim says:

          > human male with intact patriarchal instincts who has thought about it is going to seriously disagree with 1 (D)

          Nuts.

          I threw a party some time ago, I do not have full control of who turns up. A twelve or eleven year old girl shows up presumably because somehow connected to a friend of a friend. My girlfriend sort of knows who she is. I am unaware that her father is not present. I don’t know if she has a father. I get drunk and go to sleep. In the morning she was still there, wearing substantially fewer clothes. You want to arrest me and beat me up? I was drunk. Everyone was having a good time. I kind of assumed that someone else was keeping her in line, and was cutting her some slack.

          I am guilty because some underage girl at my party stays late and keeps mislaying items of clothing? I did not even notice her until I sobered up in the morning. There were a lot of people there. It is not my job to police what clothes she wears on what occasion. It is her family’s job.

          If she does not really have a family, maybe she should be auctioned off. Am I supposed to kick her out of the party? Where to? Who is responsible for getting her home on time? Where is her home? Does she have a home? Not my job, and by the time she should have gone home I was drunk and asleep. This is like PETA telling the chicken farmer he has to let his chickens roam free, and also that the entire world has to be made safe for roaming chickens.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            Obviously you did nothing wrong but would you have been taken by surprise if you had to explain all that to angry and skeptical dad/cops?

            • jim says:

              I would assume the cops are being forced to answer to evil and insane people who in a just society would be executed for theological innovation and apostacy from the state religion – forced to answer to people engaged in holiness spiraling.

              • The Cominator says:

                On a note unrelated to this I know Jim that you’ve complained that the mating dance has never been portrayed all that realistically in movies…

                Have you ever seen The Big Easy? Its a movie where (realistically) the whole New Orleans Police Department is crooked, but there is a faction which is unacceptably crooked that is running heroin and murdering people. Ellen Barkin is sent there as an investigating DA, Dennis Quaid (in the less crooked but still crooked faction of the NOPD) literally kidnaps her under false color of authority and drags her to a bbq where his fellow cops treat his as the most alpha man in the world and she falls into line.

                I think you would like it.

          • Ron says:

            “This is like PETA telling the chicken farmer he has to let his chickens roam free, and also that the entire world has to be made safe for roaming chickens.”

            1. The obligation is impossible to fulfill

            2. The very act of attempting to fulfill it makes it worse, ie the chickens will act even crazier bc they are being set free of consequences for bad chicken behavior, thus making it even harder to make the world safe for crazy roaming chickens

            Much like the graphite tipped rods of the Chernobyl reactor accelerated the core reaction, the attempt to deal with the problem exacerbated the problem, because there is a lack of understanding about the actual physical reality. That is, just as the engineers of that fateful reactor did not realize that the rods had graphite tips, so too our social engineers do not grasp that women love being dominated.

            3. We will be dragged into both new wars (the entire world has to be made safe for roaming chickens), and into emasculating men at home (to make home safe for roaming chickens, who will as I pointed above, roam HARDER to find a male who will own them)

            4. As a result our resources will be stretched to breaking, and we will have even fewer resources to work with

            5. Many men will go insane. As will many women (all joking aside, there is normal female crazy and holy shit I have to get away from this crazy bitch crazy). Many people will die childless, many more people will be raised in broken homes, subject to the predation of malicious actors.

            To conclude:

            The conflicting imperatives are impossible, the very act of attempting to reconcile them causes them to become worse.

            We will find ourselves in a state of constant war both with each other and with all our neighbors. This will make us odious, and to maintain relations we will have to give more free goodies so other men will not attempt to kill us on sight. Again putting more stress on society

            This has to be stopped.

      • Not Tom says:

        Bravo. Don’t know if it’s what you intended, but I like how each set of answers also map to a coherent ideology:

        A, B, C -> prog/SJW
        C, A, B -> wignat
        B, C, A -> rx
        D, D, D -> boomercon

        Like Fred said – give it a few more questions, a bit of misdirection, and tone down the sarcasm, and you’d have yourself a bona fide ideology test far superior to the Euclidean bull-puckey.

        Also it would probably have to be open-ended rather than multiple choice. Something in spook-brain circuitry seems to prevent them from actually speaking the heresy, but they might be able to bypass the crimestop enough to recite letters of the alphabet, subsequently rewriting history afterward to indicate that they didn’t read the questions at all, and simply picked letters at random, and that it was their superior intuition and/or precog abilities which granted them entry.

        • 2019 is boring says:

          Okay, my next round will be less sarcastic, and open ended.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Disagree on open ended v. multiple choice only in the sense of reproducibility ease; it is in fact the better survey open ended. So, instead of classical MCQs (1 obvious wrong 1 obvious right, 2 non-obvious wrongs), run the spectrum tighter with 3 non-obvious wrongs and 1 less than right. Then the real test is the testtaker explaining why the right answer wasn’t right enough.
          .

      • Nikolai says:

        I see your point with 2. C. I sympathize with the kv incel who just wants to know the touch of a woman and banning harlotry is heretical puritanism, but at the same time we shouldn’t be encouraging whore-mongering and fornication. It’s degenerate, poisons your soul and often comes back to bite you (see Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels).

      • Vxxc says:

        1. C
        2. C
        3. A

        Women’s Rights Problem

        Given today and restoration defined here: I chose restoration.

        I should mention I’m traditional.
        Also no children.
        Also my hypothetical son may be celibate on wedding night but he won’t be a Pussy.

        Finally TFR can be solved via war old school.
        We can certainly kill faster than they breed.

    • 2019 is boring says:

      More questions (sorry, FA, but the sarcasm is necessary) in a similar vein, to drive home the point.

      4. Your co-worker just shared with you that he had fucked a big-boobed slut who’s younger than the AoC.

      A) Yep, I’m gonna catch him alone, e.g. in the parking lot after work, and then I’m gonna f**king wreck his child-molesting f**king face. Oh, that motherf**ker will f**king bleed on my f**king dagger to his f**king death, let me tell you. I’m-a f**king split his f**king skull open, for f**king abusing an innocent child.

      B) Uhhh, we don’t use such words as “slut” around here, at least not derogatorily.

      C) I’m not a real man. I’m a little bitch and a little snitch, a sneaky weaselly disloyal insecure fag-boy, a literal bi-sexual cuckold. So I’m gonna report that to the police and to the boss, in as whiney and lisping a voice as I can muster, because that is The Right Thing To Do. What, do you expect me to in-group pedophiles? Ewww.

      D) I’m already on my way to buy him some beer, lol.

      5. Your co-worker fucked your own virgin 15-year-old daughter.

      A) My God, I am surrounded by sick perverts. We all know and all agree that no man is sexually attracted to females younger than 17. This is the consensus here, right? Right. That’s it, I’m running away to the marshlands, where presumably Bigfoot resides; there, living the hermit lifestyle, I won’t have to contend with all these sick, sick perverts. This is the proper response.

      B) Damn, I should have married her off, or should have beaten her with a stick harder. Well, now I’ll do whatever I can to get that co-worker to marry her. My shotgun may prove quite useful in this regard. Otherwise, I’ll get someone else to marry her. And, of course, I’ll beat her with a stick.

      C) 911? Yes, I’d like to report child sexual abuse.

      D) Umm, did you just refer to her as a “virgin”? How about… NO??? Pffft, Rethuglican Wingnut Alert – in the Current Year we simply don’t consider “virginity” to be a thing anymore, end of story. I’ll let you know that I’ve already bought her a sex toy collection: virbrators, dildos, sybians, the whole bit. Her vagina, her rules! (No, it’s not creepy at all that this is my attitude to my own daughter)

      6. A Hollywood girl alleges that, once upon a time, someone in the industry touched her inappropriately.

      A) Sorry, but I don’t care about privileged cis-het white girls. I’m a sexually abused mulatto genderqueer escort myself, though I have a veiny cock and hairy testicles. The TERFs are not allowing me to join #MeToo, because they are transphobic bigots. My plight is far worse, you see.

      B) The sky has fallen. I cried, and cried, and cried – a river streams on my anime pillow. As Coldplay would say: “Every teardrop is a waterfall.” This is conclusive evidence that we need to re-open Auschwitz. The sanctity of Hollywood girls must not be impinged! Death to Roman Polanski, and death to the kikes.

      C) So, you’re saying that an attention-whoring slut feels, or pretends to feel, like she’s been sexually victimized by rich and powerful men? Gee, no one could ever have predicted that such a thing would occur. (Sarcasm)

      D) It’s because of — wait for it — capitalism. Come the Glorious Workers’ Revolution, the entertainment industry will collectively belong to the Narod, and then such things will simply be unthinkable.

      • Vxxc says:

        4. Not my problem
        5. He’d be too afraid and so would she.
        6. All of Hollywood can burn in our fires.

  41. Vxxc says:

    Kapernick was adopted and thinks he’s the Chosen.
    🤣🤣🤣🤡🤡🤣🤣🤣

    Gonna be interesting when he runs for his life and Israel won’t take him.
    You gotta pass DNA test to emigrate to Israel.

    All I want is what Israel’s got.

  42. Friendly Fred says:

    There are no cynical secret message-dissemination squads; people are and have always been motivated by desire to realize Big Ideas — and the traditional mindset of let’s-live-in-accordance-with-the-eternal-pattern is just the default-version of this motivating desire. This is as true of powerful important people as it is of small anonymous people.

    The monthly or yearly shifting of Messages, the replacement of one by another, is like the development of unforeseen traffic-jams here and there — maybe mathematicians can make sense of it. Meanwhile the general disintegration continues: the single overall persistent Message (to which the shifting ones are only occasional footnotes and commentary) is the imperative, “Destroy!”

    I think that even the perpetrators of grotesque 180-degree Message-shifts such as the one following the Hitler-Stalin Pact probably felt that they were suddenly perceiving a detail of the beloved Big Picture that they had been ignoring until now. Okay, maybe Stalin himself was merely a cynical manipulator — maybe not — but he was hardly operating in secrecy. He was the official established Message-emanator, and everyone assumed that he was earnestly in tune with the gods of history.

    When guys who had apparently liked the Khmer Rouge yesterday started apparently disliking it today — well, they really did like it yesterday and really did dislike it today — their attitude changed. And nobody changed it for them, with secret messages. The change of attitude went all the way to the top — or bottom — like a shift in traffic-patterns.

    Anyway, it’s more fun to assume that people believe what they say. That way you can marvel at the spectacle of the West’s natural disintegration (proceeding in delicate resonance with the ideas that both express and hasten it), as opposed to wondering who’s operating the ingeniously designed disintegration-engine.

    I probably misunderstand you …

    • jim says:

      > The monthly or yearly shifting of Messages, the replacement of one by another, is like the development of unforeseen traffic-jams here and there

      This fails to describe abrupt U turns carried out all at once in absolute unison with total uniformity, with no public discussion or debate. One day everyone in Academia believes X. The next day everyone believes Y, and no one remembers that anyone ever believed X

      No discussion, no sifting of messages. It is creepy and totalitarian.

      You cannot talk to an academic about it. He will not in any way acknowledge that anyone anywhere ever thought X, even if he is supposedly a libertarian anarcho capitalist, and yesterday X was totally acceptable and widely taken for granted. X gets erased from Wikipedia, and any mention of X, or any mention that anyone ever thought X, gets deleted from Wikipedia if inserted. Where is the sifting?

      If in the Soviet Union you started trying to explain changes in photos, you would be out in the Gulag, and if today you started trying to explain changes in the history books, you would be out of academia. Even if your explanation was politically correct, it would still draw attention to that which you are forbidden to notice.

      Even if you wrote “The earlier photograph showing the commissar was in error, and the error happened because Trotskyite wreckers”, you would still be in the gulag double plus quick, for drawing attention to the change in photographs. Academics are not only loyal to the very latest version of the past, they refuse to notice that the past changed. The former might be fashion, or sincere faith in progress, but the latter is terror.

    • jim says:

      > I think that even the perpetrators of grotesque 180-degree Message-shifts such as the one following the Hitler-Stalin Pact probably felt that they were suddenly perceiving a detail of the beloved Big Picture that they had been ignoring until now.

      If he feels that, he will not say it, for he will not acknowledge that he and everyone else used to believe something different.

      If you twit an academic with some abrupt change in history, he will not only loyally espouse the latest version of history, he will refuse to notice that history has changed. The former might be sincere, but the latter is terror.

      If in the Soviet Union you started trying to explain changes in photos, you would be out in the Gulag, and if today you started trying to explain changes in the history books, you would be out of academia. Even if your explanation was politically correct, it would still draw attention to that which you are forbidden to notice.

      Even if you wrote “The earlier photograph showing the commissar was in error, and the error happened because Trotskyite wreckers”, you would still be in the gulag double plus quick, for drawing attention to the change in photographs.

      • Not Tom says:

        This actually seems like a worthwhile experiment. What are some good examples of “we have always been at war with Eastasia” type of rewriting? One that I can think of is the constant “revision” of historical climate data, but we already have the Climategate files so no further proof needed there. Another one is the number of illegal immigrants residing in the USA, where the current estimate is completely inconsistent with historical estimates plus annual inflow and deportation estimates, and it’s strange indeed how even rank-and-file progressives are able to immediately un-hear this or hallucinate having a totally different conversation.

        Conservative activists are fond of pointing to hypocrisy – of a person or publication espousing one value when shaming enemies and the opposite value when praising allies – but these are simply principles, which Marxists lie about having in the first place. I’d like to see what happens when confronting them with evidence of outright, provable revisionism.

        • Doug Smythe says:

          They usually do this, in my experience, in ways that are extremely difficult to refute even when such attempts aren’t censored or can’t easily be. The preferred way is various novel re-interpretations of existing data that are basically impossible to falsify, at least on their own terms. Example: pseudo-criminological argument that homicide is “caused” by guns- a conclusion reached simply by dismissing any other possible cause as an a priori impossibility and thus excluding any other possible causal variable from the statistical analysis at the outset by theoretical fiat. Unpacking all the illogic in the underlying reasoning is tedious as hell- and in time it takes for you to debunk one lie the Leftist has told a dozen more.

          • Doug Smythe says:

            >I’d like to see what happens when confronting them with evidence of outright, provable revisionism.

            Thus the short answer is that you can’t. You’d have to basically be willing to spend a good chunk of/ an entire academic career trying to, and even if they let you it wouldn’t seriously cramp their style since they have MSM on their side giving them free infomercials on request and you don’t.

            • Doug Smythe says:

              Thus to return to the case of guns MSM continues to repeat the gun-grabber revisionist interpre