The reactionary program.

Neoreaction plans to be the priesthood, but we think warriors should be on top and should steal sufficient to fund the army and the state, that warriors should do warrior stuff, merchants should do merchant stuff, and priests priestly stuff.

Our current problems are the result of an excessively numerous priesthood overflowing and intruding on the activities more properly performed by merchants and warriors. Thus human resources disrupts the corporation, wars are overrun by lawyers, and the military is forced to pretend that women can be warriors. This excess of priests is a result of priestly dominance with open entry into the priesthood and the resulting overflow of people into the priesthood.

We plan to cut off open entry into the priesthood. The Marxist and progressive program is a rationale for the priesthood intruding into the affairs of merchants and warriors. It is full employment program for Academia. Hence the joke that LIA, Low Intensity War, actually stands Lawyer Infested War. Hence the cat ladies of Human Resources, and the transformation of accounting from tracking value and value creation, to talmudic generation and enforcement of obscure, obstructive, and incomprehensible rules. Today, accounting is not about tracking value when it is transferred from one entity to another, and measuring the creation of value, but rather what rituals one must perform if one wants to transfer value from one entity to another.

Lawyers (who tend to be the day to day ruling class even if academia sets doctrine long term) and writers like all the priestly professions overwhelmingly oppose Trump.

In a reactionary state, the state will enforce marriage, and end open entry into the priesthood. Military priests will be trained in military academies under the control of retired warriors. Women will be forced to honor and obey the first man they have sex with till death do them part and will be denied access to men who are not yet contributing to the state and society.

Women feel that a man who is single and lonely, especially in today’s world of open sexual market, is not fully a male of the human species. At best, he may be an animal with some horrid infectious disease of the skin to be pitied from a distance. But much more often they are just ignored or laughed at. No amount of ideology can override these hard wired settings in the female brain.

On the other hand, men see this in women and join the mocking and the laughter in order to signal that they’re definitely not that type.

Since women are hypergamous, the natural tendency is for there to be a very large number of young males in this hyperoppressed class.

Further, this incel class cuts across the reactionary classes (warrior, priest, merchant, and followers), since high status wealthy businessmen, merchant class, often do very badly with women, and people that we categorize as priestly class, high status males whose career requires strict political correctness, who are required to very politically correct, usually do very badly with women.

But if we look at successful past societies, they have generally taken extraordinarily drastic coercive measures to minimize this class of men, to overule female hypergamy.

While socialism in goods invariably fails catastrophically, in part because the priests run businesses to produce holiness, rather than value, drastic coercive intervention in the market for love and sex seems to be a basic requirement of civilization, without which civilizations fail. We need to ensure that every man who pays taxes and every man who fights for order tribe, society, King and God, gets pussy, which runs contrary to natural female inclination.

Marriage is a contract between the former owner of the bride, normally her father, and the new owner of the bride, normally her husband. Reproductive sex is an essential part of this contract.
Women should be attached to one male and not allowed to ride the cock carousel, ideally the first male they ever have sex with, hence shotgun marriage.

Male society consists of priests, warriors, merchants, and followers, and the female population is not a society, but consists of feral women and women under the authority of a husband or father. Women are only part of society through an intimate relationship with a male in authority over her. That is not the reactionary program. That is biological reality, manifesting in the disastrous consequences of attempting have female run corporations. Today, we don’t have equal women, we have feral women.

Late marriage west of the Hajnal line was, in the towns, linked to enforceable apprenticeship, up to about 1800 or so. A man was typically an apprentice till about twenty four or so, and it was ok to be lonely, despised, and mistreated, since upon successfully completing his apprenticeship, he would cease to be despised and mistreated, and would soon afterwards marry a virgin about four or so years younger than himself – who had been apprenticed to housewifery, to servant and housekeeping type tasks, or some traditionally feminine occupation, but who upon marriage would perform those tasks for her husband, or under the supervision of her husband. For women, apprenticeship was typically ended by marriage, for men, marriage typically followed not long after the completion of apprenticeship, at least in the towns, where work was formalized. In rural areas, work relationships and education were informal, so no connection between formal work, education, and getting married appears in the records for rural areas.

Apprenticeship was emasculating, but apprentices were expected learn from a manly role model who was working at producing value, and expected to become that man. Today, they are trained by priests who have no knowledge of the real world, and will not read old books, instead reading what other twenty first century academics say about old books that they have not read either.

The apprentice role was effeminate and emasculating, with the vows of apprenticeship and the restraints of apprenticeship resembling a wife’s marital vows, but it was intended to prepare them for life as a man, not to prevent them from becoming men, whereas modern priestly education aims at preventing men from becoming men.

In North America apprenticeship typically ended about three years earlier at twenty one, and people correspondingly got married earlier.

Frame is a set of assumptions about the conversation and the interaction, and in order to facilitate communication and the interaction, we tend to tacitly accept the assumptions without conscious awareness.

Notice we have the word “racist”, but no word for people who claim that there are no races, that everyone is alike. We have the word “sexist”. If you think that women are different from men, you are sexist, but no word for someone who thinks they are interchangeable should be subject to the same rules, and perform the same social roles.

History shows that whoever tells you capitalism is a recent economic system intends to murder you. Notice that no one making this claim is prepared to argue it or defend it – they just frame it a way that presupposes it is indisputable fact that one doubts, that you agree that it is true. They will never argue on the basis of history, only try to project their frame on to you. Commies murdered a hundred million people, and commies told all of those people commies were on their side against evil capital.

The reactionary program is being met with efforts to frame it as if we agreed, as if everyone agreed, with progressive frame. Supposedly we want different rules for women because we hate women. Supposedly we want capitalism and security of property because we favor rule by the capitalist class. Supposedly we want families to be protected by society, Church, Sovereign, and God, because we hate women and want to beat our wives and children. Supposedly property rights are rule by capital, and did not exist for anyone except aristocrats until quite recently. Supposedly whites fled Detroit because they hate blacks, not because their houses were being burned down around their ears.

I intend a restoration modeled on Charles the Second: Fertile semi hereditary aristocratic elite, divine right monarch, openly official state religion, which one must affirm for state or quasi statal office, capitalism and modern corporate capitalism, with a restriction that the business plan be approved and adhered to. Investors need to know what they are investing in, and governments need to know that large successful corporations will not start investing in unrelated activities that buy them political influence and restrain competition. One corporation should have one business model.

The situation immediately preceding Charles the Second resembled today’s American Hegemony: An officially unofficial state religion that had suffered a leftist singularity, which singularity was ended by Cromwell, not Charles the Second. He ended it with far less bloodshed than Stalin ended it in Russia, though bloodshed is frequently unavoidable, and more difficult to avoid the further leftism has gone.

The American hegemony also resembles the Turkish empire, which had become the anti Turkish empire as the US State Department has become “The International Community”. It was the Turks, not the provinces, that revolted against the Turkish empire. I had hoped that Trump would be Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, would be Atatürk, Cromwell, and Charles the Second in one man, but that is a tall order. An Atatürk needs to be a military man, and the left has taken precautions against such a man.

As progressivism spirals to ever greater heights of madness, ever faster, there is bound to be a crack up – bound to be a Kemal Atatürk, a Cromwell if we are lucky or a Stalin if not quite as lucky, and, eventually, if we are brave, effective, prudent, and lucky, a Charles the Second.

Female emancipation never lasts, because peoples, tribes, cultures, states, and religions with emancipated females fail to reproduce. Pretty soon Japan will not have the Japanese. They either restore patriarchy, as the Japanese have done once before, or they will be conquered by manly patriarchs who enslave their women, as happened to the Chinese, or they just disappear and are replaced by outsiders. Peoples with emancipated women cannot fight very well, because they are short of young males, because involuntarily celibate young males prefer to hang out in mum’s basement, and because young males are reluctant to fight for family, society, sovereign and God, because they don’t have family. They are even more reluctant when society, official state religion, and the sovereign is hostile to them having sexual opportunity, and ejects husbands from their families. Why fight when you have no pussy to fight for, and when if you got married, would likely face a court order parting you from your children and denying you your assets. Our descendants will patriarchs, or we will be mighty short of grandchildren and we will be replaced by patriarchs.

881 Responses to “The reactionary program.”

  1. Mike in Boston says:

    Commies murdered a hundred million people, and commies told all of those people that commies were on their side against evil capital.

    It’s a good point, almost good enough to make twice as you (I assume inadvertently) do here.

    Even more telling is that many of those murdered by the commies nonetheless felt themselves to be on the commies’ side against evil capital. The Socialist Revolutionaries, as I am sure you know, sang their lefty songs while awaiting death in the gulags.

    a Cromwell if we are lucky or a Stalin if not quite as lucky

    I look at a competent petty totalitarian lefty like Bloomberg and I see the foreshadowing of a more serious competent totalitarian, a Stalin 2.0. Just as commie propaganda was so entrenched that Stalin had to pay lip service to it while consolidating power, so too, I feel, will Stalin 2.0 have to pay lip service to Diversity, Equality, and Tolerance while halting the left singularity and imposing order. I wish it were not so: as in communism, the lies are what poison the society.

    The problem is that, just as the Right in Russia was fragmented after the tsar abdicated, and could not provide a coordination point (everyone hated Rodzianko, Kerensky was a leftie and weak to boot, and the military was tarred with an unpopular war), so too today the Right in America has no coordination point now that the Constitution has been redefined to include gaymarriage and court-mandated puberty blockers for preteens. Those Christians who haven’t been hopelessly liberalized squabble over denomination. The sane whose identity is not primarily religious have no unifying national organization or creed.

    The right needs a rallying point, and fast. Otherwise, we get Stalin 2.0, and despite your hopeful words about a Charles II, here we are sixty-odd years after Stalin’s death and Russia still doesn’t have a new tsar. Mr. Putin’s oligarchy has much to recommend it, but it’s far from healthy: still shot through with “sovok”, it convicts nationalists for “hate speech” under Article 282/

    • BC says:

      >The right needs a rallying point, and fast.

      Have to wait for the left to overact and do something really stupid to find common cause and more importantly, we need a military leader to follow once things start moving.

      I have a possible candidate for that:
      https://twitter.com/dancrenshawtx

      • Rollory says:

        Don’t volunteer men you don’t know for jobs they don’t know they’re applying for. Regardless of what he thinks of it, you are virtually certain to be tremendously disappointed.

    • Issac says:

      The right, including Trump, per CPAC, is officially dead. You cannot rally around a corpse. Both Military and Capital made their bed wit the left, they can lie in it.

    • calov says:

      Christians that are worth anything do argue and divide over doctrine, because it matters whether the bishop of Rome is the head of the church by divine institution and it matters whether the bread and wine in communion are the body and blood of Christ or merely “emblems.” But I don’t see how Christians divide over denomination in the political sphere. Those who are orthodox in believing the creeds and in the traditional morals taught in the decalogue are pretty well united in the public square, as far as I can see; catholics, evangelicals, and what’s left of orthodox magisterial protestantism tend to be on the same page regarding globohomo and abortion, etc.

      • Mike in Boston says:

        Those who are orthodox … are pretty well united in the public square

        They are on the same page, and that is heartening, but there is no organizational structure that unites them (the fact that they belong to different churches mitigates against this), nor even a common slogan or program they can rally around. The left has the universities and the media. They articulate goals and work towards them. The right needs to agree on positive goals, not just opposing the left. That opposition is channeled into the Republican establishment, which puts up a half-hearted fight against the left for fundraising purposes, then acquiesces. It has no interest in setting any specific goals.

      • Paul the Troofer says:

        The orthodox divided because of politics and then invented the doctrinal cover.

        • calov says:

          No, Christians have been divided over doctrine since at least a thousand years ago, long before politics existed.

          • jim says:

            Politics has always existed. The First Council of Nicaea was highly political, and highly influenced by politics. It was summoned by Constantine.

            • calov says:

              Obviously politics always existed, but among a much smaller group of people. American politics 2019 has nothing to do with Christian divisions about doctrine, and it’s reductive and basically leftist to write off theological history as politics by other means.

              • jim says:

                Debates about the next world are relatively harmless. The Arianism dispute is often rightly ridiculed because they were quarreling over the incomprehensible, the unintelligible, and the unknowable. Does anyone today have a position on these issues? We cannot translate the words they used in their arguments, because no one today knows what they meant, and it is doubtful that they themselves knew what they meant.

                We still have theological disputes, but because the eschaton has been immanentized, we now quarrel over whether a male sex pervert can join a woman’s sports team on the basis of the improbable claim that he is a woman, which has more serious real world impacts. Is he/she or it really a woman? Is the son cosubstantial with the father or consubstantial?

                At least we have the excuse that issue of the Trinity is beyond human comprehension and anyone lecturing us on his efforts to comprehend it is a pompous fool, but I can comprehend exactly what the tranny in the girl’s sports team is.

                • calov says:

                  The question of the nature of God is not a question purely about the next world; it matters greatly who God is not only for the sake of an individual soul but for the sake of an orderly state. Trinitarianism and Arianism can’t easily co-exist in a state and can’t coexist in a church at all. Arianism is by definition outside of Christ’s church. And precision about Trinitarian doctrine did not lead to the precisionism of the Puritans and the death of the king–not ever, that I am aware of. The reason we no longer debate the trinity is because it has been a settled issue in Christendom–outside of fanatical sects–for 1500 years. Although it raises its head again in these last days among mainline protestants who have taken to baptizing and invoking a gender-neutral trinity–Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier instead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (Or even Mother, daughter, and I don’t know what.)

                  When you play with the Trinity, you raise the question of a validity of a church. The people begin to doubt whether such a deity and such a baptism can save them. Once that happens there can be no peace for the Christian ruler.

                  Again, the idea that disputes about the Trinity, or about the real presence of the body and the blood of Christ in the Sacrament, or such things, are merely politics by other means, appears to me to be a leftist approach to the Christian religion. Men like Luther and other reformers were actually concerned about God and salvation. Christian rulers have to be concerned about upholding the people’s esteem for the church as spiritual authority, otherwise you get al-Qaeda (or whatever the version of that would be in a Christian state.) And so we need theology that actually cares whether God is three distinct persons in one essence, whether justification is forensic or by infusion, etc. Otherwise if people no longer believe that the church imparts the true God and eternal life, they look elsewhere and radicalize.

                • jim says:

                  Of course disputes about the Trinity were politics. Not politics by other means, just plain politics.

                  No one would ever worry about matters not only beyond human knowledge, but beyond human comprehension, except for reasons of political power.

                  But they had the great advantage over trannies in women’s sports in that they resulted in people being commanded to believe in things that no one could know were false, or even comprehend what it was that they were commanded to believe. No one can intelligibly explain trinitarian doctrine without falling into one heresy or the other.

                  No one could intelligibly state what they were disagreeing over. The trouble is that today, you can intelligibly state that a eunuch with delusions is not a woman.

                • calov says:

                  Also I don’t think we would ever be arguing about trannies being allowed to compete in women’s sports if we still considered it important to argue about the Trinity or the two natures in Christ like they did in the 16th century. The rise of indifferentism, pietism, rationalism as an antidote to the religious wars actually just weakened Christian faith and devotion. And the end result of that was not that people became less devout but that they became devoted to other purveyors of holiness. Like the Emersonian, New England Unitarianism that–bereft of the old God of revelation–set loose on the world the unclean spirits of every left wing enthusiasm since the 19th c.–abolitionism, feminism, temperance, suffrage, civil rights, contraception, no-fault divorce, up to the present trannyism.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  But they had the great advantage over trannies in women’s sports in that they resulted in people being commanded to believe in things that no one could know were false

                  Side note here – “conservatives” who argue that trannies are ruining the integrity of the sport are emblematic of our problems. Any woman’s sport that a man in a skirt can do better is one that women shouldn’t be playing and only exists due to progressive politics.

                • jim says:

                  Of course women’s football and so forth are a result of the doctrine that women are equal with men and interchangeable with them, which doctrine is, unlike the doctrine of the trinity, readily intelligible, and, unlike the doctrine of trinity, complete insane, a lie which people are forced to affirm in order to degrade them and humiliate them.

                  Whereas affirming one’s belief in the trinity does not degrade or humiliate anyone, even if one quietly doubts it in private.

                  The doctrine of the trinity can be effectively wielded against God too Big heresies, which was its original purpose. We need a God that can be big enough to provide the white pill, and small enough to allow human flourishing. Muslims fail to contribute to science, and Orthodox Jews also fail to contribute to science, demonstrating the effect of God too big on human flourishing, but Christian God too big heresies, such as predestination, keep re-appearing.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Christianity is off topic for this blog, except as Christianity relates to reaction, which it usually does.

                  Also, your attempt to pass as a Christian was unconvincing. You misuse Christian shibboleths the way you misuse reactionary and white nationalist shibboleths. If you want to pass, try reading actual Christian texts rather than academics writing about actual Christian texts, not on the basis of reading them themselves, but on the basis of what some other academic wrote about those texts, for fear of getting contaminated by crime think if they touched primary sources.

                  In the case of Christianity, mangling shibboleths constitutes heresy. Come the restoration, if you are still a member of the priestly classes, Christian shibboleths will have to be used correctly by people with quasis statal status, or else the inquisition is going to charge you with heresy. But we, unlike the progressives, will not actually force our priests to use tricky shibboleths, and to learn correct use of tricky shibboleths. How many genders are there today comrade?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There’s nothing wrong with grass roots women’s games. Traditionally they were usually different from men’s games, eg. hockey, but it’s no big deal if women want to play football.

                  What you see on television isn’t grass roots and doesn’t reflect women’s preferences; the whole thing’s a political broadcast, like most things are today quite frankly…..

                  But we shouldn’t overshoot here: games are never going to make that much of a difference, all things considered.

                  Of course, corporate mass media sports are a world away from the concept of a GAME between people, or even a little competitive league…… these teams of people drawn from all over the world by big financial guns are a different animal, but I don’t feel like criticising that aspect too much here because people get awfully touchy about these things.

                • jim says:

                  > it’s no big deal if women want to play football.

                  You presupposes progressive frame: that women want to play football. They don’t.

                  Women’s football exists only by political fiat

                  > games are never going to make that much of a difference, all things considered.

                  Making the games happen is a form of forced affirmation – that everyone agrees that women are the same has men.

                  Point Deer Make Horse.

                  When they force people to affirm an obvious lie, it is intended to humiliate and degrade, to force people to show submission.

                  The games make a difference, the way bowing and prayer make a difference. They lower the status of everyone participating in the lie, and raise the status of everyone enforcing the lie.

                • calov says:

                  To not get lost in the weeds about things like whether predestination is a heresy, etc. (it isn’t, although the Calvinist version is)–the point is “are debates about the Trinity–purely theological debates–actually sublimated politics?” I answer no, and insist that answering “no” is necessary for a proper reactionary government. In point of fact, debates about the Trinity were not merely political debates but indisputably debates about which God exists and therefore also debates about the validity of the church as the community of salvation–at least for many of the people who debated it. Many of those bishops, etc. were people who had risked death under Diocletian for their Christianity–viz. Athanasius. These were people who were ready to die over the right worship of God because they wanted to be saved, not because they wanted to rule the empire.

                  At issue is whether the right God is worshiped in the church and whether the church remains the church of Christ and the ark of salvation. If you have the wrong God you can no longer be the church of Christ and such a church can no longer save you.

                  The reason why this is important to a reactionary ruler who may or may not actually believe in the Trinity or the doctrine of the church is that if the peasants no longer believe in the church as the means through which God dispenses saving grace, society becomes unstable. You get fanatics like the Puritans and Anabaptists who tell people that the established church will not save them and is a counterfeit church. You get fanatics like al-Qaeda who say that actually the majority of so-called Muslims are kaffirs and legitimate targets of holy warfare.

                  Surely you agree with this.

                  I am in full agreement with you about why science flourished under Christianity–at least I think I am. A rational God and the incarnation makes science possible and a legitimate object of study. I think this is the point made by Stanley Jaki in his book “The Savior of Science” although I never finished reading it. Some people here might find it interesting.

                • jim says:

                  It is important to worship the right God, one who is big enough to provide the white pill, yet can reach out to man by making himself small enough to be flogged through the streets of Jerusalem.

                  God too big is an intolerable heresy, and that a mere man was flogged through the streets of Jerusalem also an intolerable heresy, and it was right to suppress both heresies. It was and still is important to suppress both heresies.

                  But attempting to get too specific about a doctrine that avoids both heresies gets into the unknowable and incomprehensible mighty fast, and when they got overly specific, was politics, a struggle for power within the Church, using in that power struggle the tools that they needed to use to suppress hostile heresies.

                  Today, now that Christianity is powerless and there is no longer power at stake, no one cares about, or even comprehends, the finer, more obscure, and less comprehensible details of Trinitarian doctrine. The debates that they had then are today untranslatable.

                  On predestination: Everything comes from God, but usually comes from God through natural agents. When predestination attributes all right conduct to God’s grace directly, rather than through natural agents, it is a dangerous God Too Big heresy, which results in the Muslim promising adherence to a contract, “God Willing”, and then it turns out that God is never willing. Genesis Chapter three tells us that when God plays poker with us, he does not look at our cards till we lay them on the table.

                • calov says:

                  And, I forgot: of course the Trinity is a mystery–the mystery of the Christian faith. There are lots of mysteries, but it doesn’t follow that there is no intellectual content to the mysteries and nothing that can be rationally communicated about them. We think that way now because educated people have been taught to think that theology is unimportant and that it is not real knowledge. But of course during the flourishing of the western world theology was regarded as “the queen of sciences”. If we considered theology important, like the early church did, we would not dismiss centuries of theological debates so peremptorily. It is of course possible that Athanasius, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, and others attempted to give firm answers to questions that were better left open, but to simply dismiss debates that led to the Nicene Creed, for instance, essentially empties Christianity out. No “homoousios”, you have a “Christianity” that encompasses everything from Jehovah’s Witnesses to Boston Brahmin Unitarianism. Really you have a Christianity that excludes BOCP Anglicanism, since the BOCP (like every western catholic liturgy) confesses the Nicene Creed at every eucharist. To dismiss theology in this way does not strike me as reactionary–it seems to owe more to Ralph Waldo Emerson or William Godwin or Milton.

                • jim says:

                  Well yes, but can you explain the difference between “co-substantial” and “con-substantial” without falling into one heresy or the other?

                  Let’s stick to worrying about the heresy of Jesus as an imperfect community organizer who was fulfilled by Obama the Lightbringer.

                • calov says:

                  [It is important to worship the right God, one who is big enough to provide the white pill, yet can reach out to man by making himself small enough to be flogged through the streets of Jerusalem.]

                  Beautifully said.

                  [God too big is an intolerable heresy, and that a mere man was flogged through the streets of Jerusalem also an intolerable heresy, and it was right to suppress both heresies. It was and still is important to suppress both heresies.

                  But attempting to get too specific about a doctrine that avoids both heresies gets into the unknowable and incomprehensible mighty fast, and when they got overly specific, was politics, a struggle for power within the Church, using in that power struggle the tools that they needed to use to suppress hostile heresies.]

                  I guess the question is whether orthodox Trinitarian theology, a la the Nicene Creed, is “too specific”. Or the Athanasian creed. Also I don’t think the way the Arian controversy actually went conforms to a purely political battle. It seems like it would have been much easier for the Catholics to have tolerated Arianism and made friends with the German Arian tribes who persisted in their Arianism past the dark ages–that would have been politically expedient.

                  [Today, now that Christianity is powerless and there is no longer power at stake, no one cares about, or even comprehends, the finer, more obscure, and less comprehensible details of Trinitarian doctrine.]

                  This is largely true. It’s also true that very few people understand the reason why the church divided over whether a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law or by faith that works through love, or why churches divided over whether the body of Christ is really present in the bread of the Sacrament or is only partaken of in a spiritual manner. Nevertheless these problems will arise again because at some point enough people will realize that salvation hinges on the right answer. Theological problems never disappear, they just go dormant. That is why in church history there are seldom new heresies, only old ones.

                • jim says:

                  > I guess the question is whether orthodox Trinitarian theology, a la the Nicene Creed, is “too specific”.

                  The Nicene creed is fine, except for “co-substantial”. Who today knows what “co-substantial” means? Who today comprehends the once vitally important difference between “co-substantial” and “con-substanitial”? But that is fine, provided that no one is required to worry about what it actually means.

                  It is important to assert that all things were made through the the being that was flogged through the streets of Jerusalem, that:

                  he came down from heaven,

                  and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,

                  and became man.

                  For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,

                  he suffered death and was buried,

                  and rose again on the third day

                  The Athanasian Creed slides dangerously close to God too big, but is OK. There is nothing in it that any Christian should disagree with. It just has inadequate emphasis on the humanity of Christ. We have to require everyone with quasi statal authority to agree that Christ was fully God and fully man, which is not explicitly in the creeds, though the Nicene creed does an adequate job of making everyone agree to it: “He became man”. Good enough in context. Athanasian creed gives less context.

                  Today, our big heresy is Jesus as community organizer, a being that was fulfilled by Obama the lightbringer. Today we see “Christian” pastors condescending to Jesus as living in less enlightened times. Instead of seeking to be more like Jesus, they think that Jesus should have been more like themselves. I suppose the Athanasian creed “Perfect God; and perfect Man” might be a good reply to that, “Perfect God; and perfect Man” but I think the Nicene creed does it better. But maybe the Athanasian creed “Perfect God; and perfect Man” does it better.

                • calov says:

                  The Athanasian and Nicene Creeds are both symbols of the faith of the Western Church, so there is no need to pick between the two. Like all creeds and confessions of faith, the wording depends on the heresy being addressed. That’s an important caveat for all theology, even in the bible; seemingly contradictory statements are often different sides of the same truth, like C. S. Lewis points out about Jesus saying “Whoever is not against us is for us” in one setting and “Whoever is not for me is against me” in another.

                  I think I understand the difference between homoousisios and homoiousios–of one substance and of like substance or perhaps “consubstantial” and “co-substantial”. (I’ve never heard it expressed that way, which means I have not been reading the same books.) I think I understand the difference and maybe that is a reflection of my inferior intelligence. My understanding is that the real difficulty is understanding the difference between “persona” and “hypostasis” as used by western and Eastern theologians, respectively, when discussing the person of Christ. The “ousios” of the Nicene Creed does not appear to be as difficult. We are discussing the “essence” or “substance” or nature of God, and saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all of one nature or substance, all equally God, despite being distinct persons. The Arians and semi-Arians were all denying that to one degree or another; saying that Christ was “of like substance” to the Father, or something less, and therefore not God. And therefore, as you point out, something less than God became incarnate and suffered for us, which changes everything, as you seem to acknowledge. It’s not impressive at all that an ordinary Jewish prophet was flogged and crucified, and only mildly impressive if an angel or the demiurge or some lesser heavenly being became a man and suffered for us.

                • jim says:

                  My beef with the Athanasian creed is that “perfect man” can be misused to imply “not a man”. But that is not the heresy we face today. The heresy we face today is that of Pope Francis: Jesus as community organizer, who is fulfilled by Obama the lightbringer. We complain about the Catholic priesthood having gay sex with each other in a great big pile, and he replies that that was all adults in the pile, and we should worry about Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

                  When we complain that the Catholic priesthood does not aspire to be like Jesus, Pope Francis replies that we should aspire to be like Obama, who miraculously stopped the oceans from rising merely by being elected, just as the Nobel committee tells us he brought world peace merely by being elected.

                  “This was the moment the rise of the Oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal” Rising from the dead was not good enough. Obama had to one up him.

                • calov says:

                  I have a tendency to beat dead horses so I will stop after this. I agree that Jesus as the community organizer/Nelson Mandela figure is certainly the chief heresy of our time. But that version of Jesus has roots that go back to German rationalistic theology a la Schweitzer, and that theology has parallels in Anglo-American theology also, the one I hate most being Ralph Emerson. He has a pedigree too–one can find his forebears in Milton and other “independents”, who were also always Whigs. The point is any sort of relaxation of doctrinal rigor almost always leads to Jesus as community organizer. Certainly imprecision about the Trinity leads there. Once Jesus is no longer “God of God, light of light, very God of very God, begotten not made” he then becomes a man of great faith or idealism who may or may not have been adopted as God’s Son at the Jordan River; he becomes Obama or Mandela who, possessed by the desire to see the will of God done on earth, sacrifices his life in the cause of love for humanity.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  The Trinity is rejected by the Jehovah’s Witnesses and the Mormons because they use the Bible as their source.

                • jim says:

                  That is an unreasonable and tortured reading of the bible, in that the bible is cheerfully inconsistent on the humanity of Christ, and the only way to reconcile is to cheerfully embrace the inconsistency.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yep. The Bible doesn’t tell us because we don’t need to know. Heretics will slip up and get caught. No need to be more specific than the Bible, in the meantime.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  Nope.

                  Jim, I like your blog, it’s better than TV, but you’re arguing against the Word itself. Pointless.

                  There is no “Trinity” mentioned in the Bible.

                  Mormons say there are three entities united in one purpose.

                  Jehovah’s Witnesses say there are two, with the Holy Ghost not quite it’s own.

                  So the JWs tell me in the streets.

                  Whatever their unique takes on things anyone can pick up the Bible and confirm for themselves.

                • jim says:

                  > There is no “Trinity” mentioned in the Bible.

                  The bible says contradictory things about God: That God is big enough to create the universe, and small enough to be flogged through the streets of Jerusalem. To shut down stupid heresies about the unknowable and incomprehensible, we have to command people to embrace the inconsistency. God is three and God is one.

                  The core of Christianity is that God made himself small to reach out to man. If you try to think about it, makes no sense at all, so we tell people to stop thinking about it, because if anyone starts thinking about it, he winds up attacking Christianity. Which is what you are doing.

                  Gnostics are Luciferian entryists, you are a Luciferian entryist, just as Carlylean Restorationist is a Marxist entryist.

                • calov says:

                  Also the bible clearly teaches a Trinity even if it doesn’t use the word “Trinity.” JW’s and Mormons are both the mutant children of American revivalism; they both came from the “burned-over” district of upstate New York. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burned-over_district

                  American revivalism is poisonous. It’s true that the Bible is the norm for doctrine, and not the opinions of old theologians, but that doesn’t mean you can pick it up and expect to interpret it rightly by means of your corrupted and depraved intellect. When Luther began questioning the dogma in the church at his time he did so as one who had a call as a doctor of theology in the church. He worked to reform the church, not put out a shingle and start a new religion. Whenever you have guys doing that because me and my bible and democracy, you inevitably find the devil.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  deleted

  2. kawaii_kike says:

    I get that it’s important that a movement has a strong ideological foundation and a plan for society which you’ve contributed to greatly but do you have any more practical ideas on how we can gain power. It seems like all across reactionary circles people just say wait for a new Cromwell, or Stalin, or Charles II. Or they say start a a family and raise them on reactionary values. But is there anything more practical we can do? It just feels like we’re waiting for a revolution that will never come. Do you have any advice on how we can start building our own institutions?

    • jim says:

      Reflect that the Mormons are collapsing somewhat less rapidly than other non state religions, and that the Federalist Society has a had a great deal of success.

      The Federalist society is a purely priestly movement, and it does what we do – talks, meetings, papers, etc. They provide Trump with a cohesive group of loyalists, which he is spectacularly lacking.

      The Mormons are successful, or at least less unsuccessful, because they have a state government in their pocket.

      The plan of the Federalist Society was that as a priesthood they would be summoned by state power to perform priestly functions, and they have been.

      Businesses get attacked by social justice warriors, and we have the Vox Day plan for resisting that. I had a similar experience, long ago. You just refuse to accept their frame, and accept the ensuing explosion. See Vox Day’s books on Social Justice Warriors for a lengthier exposition. Sqlite suffered social justice attack, and blew it off, though they are not talking about what happened, perhaps for fear of attracting the eye of Sauron.

      Biggest problem of course, is marriage, and we just don’t seem to have any program for alpha males to support each other’s authority within their families.

      The way the Mormons do it is that they have social events that provide a tribe and mutual support for the women, but only, of course for non feral women, for women under the authority of a father or husband. So if a woman misbehaves, she faces a fate that is worse than death for a woman: Social exclusion.

      I am part of an informal group of males that do something similar. It is not a political group, and has no doctrine, though it somehow happens that the more influential males in the group happen to be somewhat red pilled, and it just somehow happens that feral women do not get included, though the women are apt include them if you let them.

      I suspect it would be even more effective if we had formal organization and formal quasi religious doctrine like the Masons, but I am not going to fix what is not broken.

      • barf says:

        >Sqlite suffered social justice attack, and blew it off, though they are not talking about what happened, perhaps for fear of attracting the eye of Sauron.

        Their former code of conduct is now called their code of ethics, and their code of conduct is just the Mozilla Community Participation Guidelines which are the standard diversity pap. It seems to me that they capitulated and ‘baked the cake’, albeit quietly.

      • Dave says:

        See celebrity chef Mario Batali for example. He got #MeTooed and didn’t fight it, he just let his partners cash him out and is now a free and very wealthy man. He “will no longer profit from the restaurants in any way, shape or form”, according to the woman replacing him. Nor will you, sweetie, because every businesses is doomed when a woman takes the reins. At least you won’t hurt any waitresses’ feelings on your way to bankruptcy court.

        • Ron says:

          Yeah, but now we lose an excellent restaurant chain.

          • Ron says:

            Also, why would anyone rip out their heart and soul to make something beautiful if it’s that easy for people to ruin it?

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              The same reason anyone makes something beautiful; they do not consider it’s destruction. I am building a family not because it will eventually die, but because of what it gives me while it lives. To paraphrase Mitch, I’m not going to not eat apples just because they will inevitably become apple cores.

    • Ron says:

      Maybe we can get the ball rolling by taking up his challenge

      “Notice we have the word “racist”, but no word for people who claim that there are no races, that everyone is alike. We have the word “sexist”. If you think that women are different from men, you are sexist, but no word for someone who thinks they are interchangeable should be subject to the same rules, and perform the same social roles.”

      What demeaning yet accurate name can we use for these people? He’s right. If we can name them we can deal with them.

      Traitor is a good start, but it’s too vague and when you are dealing with a country that both has a draft and whose leftists make sure to stack themselves into the top units, easy to push off

      The war is for minds not just to make a person “other” but to alert them to the obnoxiousness of the false ideals they hold.

      • Ron says:

        Actually the real question is what does God want us to do?

        That’s always the question, it’s the heart of all of this mess.

        The progressives are an offshoot Harvard puritans. That means we are discussing religion. Religion is ultimately about what God wants

        Does He want us to do engineering? Poetry? Science? To dance naked in the forest? How about dancing clothed?

        We assume He wants this or that based on logic, tradition or just whatever feels good.

        But what is really needed is a method of reasoning out what He wants for us both as a society and as individuals.

        Specifically in this topic. Does He want us to use labels against those who are anti race differences? Anti male and female nature?

        We should at least have names for these positions.

        Ok, I’ll stop now!

        • jim says:

          > Actually the real question is what does God want us to do?

          God is Gnon.

          Gnons position is made clear in the copybook headings, and made clear in the Book of Proverbs.

          • calov says:

            What God wants you to do is found in the decalogue. Proverbs is an expanded decalogue. The decalogue is an expanded first commandment.

    • The Cominator says:

      Modern Mormons are pozzed. All the Mormon leaders except for Orrin Hatch and to some degree Chaffetz (who hated Hillary far more so reluctantly tended to support Trump) were fanatical Nevertrumpers.

      The Mormons up until the 1970s were an alt-rightish based and redpilled religion but not so much anymore. Fundamentalist polygamists Mormons are I assume much different.

      • Bob says:

        Modern BYU profs are pozzed and many local leaders I’ve seen are. But the top leadership is not completely. For instance the prophet still tells women their primary role is to have children (https://youtu.be/keqbSQtqyOk at 25:12) and tells men to not be gay. Maybe purple pilled, but not blue. It is getting worse, but it’s not all the way there.

      • Frederick Algernon says:

        You betray your ignorance of Mormonism by indicating that the politicians who are Mormon are Mormon Leaders. This is not the case. IANAM but the ones I know and interact with are shining examples of guided masculinity. LDS as an entity is hard to pin down. They are one of the few religions that has maintained a true, formal, idiological separation from politics. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a better Reactionary State Religion.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          LDS might actually be the Reactionary State Religion to replace the prog religion.

          • calov says:

            Hell no.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              What’s your replacement religion?

              • jim says:

                And there is the problem

                • vxxc says:

                  Christ is Dead.
                  Ex Ecleasia Nulla Sallus.
                  Illicet, Anathema.

                  For Christ to rise again men’s work needs doing.
                  As it happens there’s a plan and model that works and indeed is already working through Generation Zyklon and we know the name; National Socialism. You can denounce it and dream of The Return of King Arthur in Anglican form all you wish, that is fantasy and you know it. The Left and its allies have only themselves to blame.
                  They pummeled the little white schoolkids until a miracle mmhappened – they actually learned something.
                  Amid all the shrieks and insane babble the white children discerned 4 words: Hate Whites, Fear NAZIS.
                  The little white kids then achieved complete strategic surprise- they got bigger.

                  Gen Z are the trains after Trump.
                  Accept it and get on board.
                  Maybe then you can save your friends but that will be a privilege to be earned.

                  The Trains after Trump are Gen Z or us inside the cattle cars. Decide. Soon.

                • jim says:

                  Don’t immanentize the eschaton. Not men’s job.

                  Your program is a left wing program barely distinguishable from that of the Marxists.

                  When someone favorably invokes Hitler or Nazism, when someone says “Nazi” in a positive way, this a highly effective attack on enemy status, by desecrating the holy symbols of Holocaustianity.

                  But when someone says “National Socialism” rather than “gas the Jews”, he is saying “Socialism”. And Hitler’s socialism failed in the same way as every other socialism.

                  And when someone proposes to bring about the return of Christ, he proposes to immanentize the eschaton. Like socialism, been tried.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  National socialism is a label, not a religion. You need content. Are kids reading 1930s German works (anything from books, field manuals to pamphlets) and following them?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “National socialism”

                  Lulz. Why do I want anything to do with left wing economics?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  deleted

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for projecting the Randian position on me – which is an improvement on projecting the Marxist position on me.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for presupposing that women in the workplace is productive and is a response to market forces, business demand, and the free market, and presupposing that I agree that women in the workplace outside of traditional female jobs is productive and is a response to market forces and business demand, that everyone agrees with this and it is totally uncontroversial and unquestioned, despite my numerous comments and posts stating plain and blunt fashion that women in inappropriate workplace roles, which is most of them, cause massive destruction of value

                  Deleted for being unresponsive in that you are ignoring my frequent and vehement posts and comments on the topic, and presupposing that I and everyone agrees with progressive doctrine on the topic of women in the workplace.

                  Deleted for argument from false consensus. What you are really saying is not what you are purportedly saying, but that women in the workplace is all sweetness, rainbows, and sparkly unicorns, even outside of traditional female workplace roles, undeniably so, because even I do not deny it, and our only reason for opposing it is that we hate women: Which you supposedly totally agree with because you supposedly hate women even more that we do.

                  Deleted for pretending to enthusiastically agree with us while attributing to us the hateful position that feminists attribute to us. Supposedly you totally agree with our supposed position on women in the workplace because you hate women twice as much as we do.

                  If you want to be allowed to comment stop telling us what we think, and stop assuming that we agree with Cultural Marxism and feminism on the facts, and that we only disagree in that we (and supposedly you) just hate women and blacks and oppressed proletarians because of stupidity and evil.

                  If we accepted the premises that you attribute to us, we would conclude that feminism, socialism, and Marxism were the best things ever.

                  If you think we should accept the premises of Marxism, feminism, and progressivism, come out and argue for those premises, rather than arguing from purported consensus.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Don’t tell others that I think things you know I do not think.

                  I do not believe that women in the workplace is ‘productive’: what I believe is that capitalists would rather pay lower wages than higher wages.

                  You’re at liberty to walk us through the praxeology of how the entire business community conspires to keep worker compensation HIGH if you so wish, but it’d be pretty bloody retarded.

                  You know this of course: you just want to pain me as economically illiterate and ‘blue-pilled on women’ at the same time, because you’re a malicious lying piece of shit who knows his ideas crumble on closer examination so he suppresses and slanders meaningful opposition.

                • jim says:

                  > What I believe is that capitalists would rather pay lower wages than higher wages.

                  Why does being forced to employ women in men’s jobs result in a lower wage bill?

                  Explain to us, without presupposing the feminist theory that women are equal to men and interchangeable, and without presupposing the Marxist theory of value that labor is value, and without presupposing that everyone uncontroversially agrees with feminism and Marxism, why being forced to employ women in men’s jobs results in a lower wage bill for the same work done?

                  Replies that presuppose Marxism and feminism will be silently deleted, because I am tired of repeating myself.

                  The argument “Larger pool of employees therefore lower wages” presupposes feminism: That men and women are interchangeable and of equal or roughly similar value to the employer. It also presupposes Marxism: the labor is simply value and the problem of getting labor to accomplish something of actual value is relatively trivial.

                  Repeating: Replies that presuppose Marxism and feminism will be silently deleted without being acknowledged, and without me saying yet again “Stop presupposing that everyone agrees with feminism and Marxism.” And repeating yet again: the argument “Larger pool of employees, therefore more exploitation, production, and lower wage bill” presupposes feminism and Marxism.

                  From where I stand, looks like a massive disruption of the workplace, and that is in fact how employers reacted. My impression is that they will find it a huge relief when the people who forced them to hire women for men’s jobs are taken for a helicopter ride to the pacific.

                  During World War II, the US switched to a command economy in order to seize resources for war beyond the long term Laffer limit. During that command economy, employers were forced at gunpoint to hire women. In the US the war communist command economy, and most of the New Deal command economy, were abruptly dismantled at the end of the war, and to the great surprise and horror of those who commanded women to be hired for men’s jobs, all the women working in men’s jobs were immediately laid off and not rehired.

                  So, eventually, we got human resources, which in every corporation bigger than a certain size, gets between the boss and the hiring process, and forces the boss to hire women.

                  And if you look at companies in the US that are sufficiently small that the government does not insert their pet HR department, and are privately held and therefore not subject to SoX, and they don’t need to be eligible for government contracts, they generally do not hire women for men’s jobs.

                  While a female can generally do pretty much what a man can do in the workplace, women are disruptive in ways that men are not. Men naturally form hierarchies, women are forever subverting the hierarchy and each other. Women also treat the business as a substitute family and substitute husband, which is apt to result in inappropriate conduct – they wind up wanting a divorce while keeping the house and children. Thus female labor looks productive to a Marxist, in that the female is dutifully grinding away doing whatever she is supposed to do, or doing something that in superficial form looks like very like what she is supposed to be doing, but somehow, mysteriously, that grinding away fails to produce value.

                  That employers have to be forced to employ women in men’s jobs, and that when not forced, they very seldom employ women in men’s jobs, tells me that it is not a benefit to employers and not our evil Jooish Capitalist overlords that are doing the forcing. It is you guys, the priestly class.

                • ten says:

                  Do you have posts and/or data arguing that women in the workforce causes value destruction? I’d like to have that handy in case of future discussions

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  As expected, when something doesn’t fit the narrative, you just flatly deny its existence.

                  So wages haven’t fallen since women entered the workforce. You know they have, as well as anyone else does. It’s all so tiresome.

                  Here goes: I’ve got a few minutes to kill so rather than have you censor for being ‘unresponsive’, I’ll pretend I believe that you really believe that women’s entry into the workforce didn’t result in falling wages for everyone.

                  “Why does being forced to employ women in men’s jobs result in a lower wage bill?”

                  Because wages are not, pace Walter Block, an unstable variable that tends to approximate the productivity of the worker over time and across jobs.
                  Wages are the price of labour, based on supply and demand just like any other good, and the overwhelming majority of jobs don’t much distinguish between amazing entrepreneurs and mere normie plebs: they’re just not that demanding.

                  Sure, unit-productivity exerts a force in specialised fields, but the overwhelming majority of jobs aren’t specialised at all. A call centre operative has to surpass a pretty low bar but beyond that their potential productivity’s almost irrelevant. They pretty much read from a script.
                  The same can be said for the majority of job roles: ‘unit productivity’ is completely irrelevant: it’s SUPPLY that matters, which is why the more people there are in the workforce, the more wages stagnate.

                  You know this of course, you’re just too much of a liar to concede even the obvious. It’s just part of your strategy: obfuscate, deny, pretend stupidity, and if needs be, temporarily concede then revert in the morning.

                  Yes I’m channeling Uncle.

                  “Explain to us, without presupposing the feminist theory that women are equal to men and interchangeable, and without presupposing the Marxist theory of value that labor is value, and without presupposing that everyone uncontroversially agrees with feminism and Marxism, why being forced to employ women in men’s jobs results in a lower wage bill for the same work done?”

                  Repetitive and deliberately intellectually dishonest. It’s not that paying WOMEN drives down wages: it’s that having a greater SUPPLY of workers drives down wages, and you said it yourself: “the same work done” – yes women as managers, etc. is a disaster, but most jobs aren’t like that. If I want dishes washed then it doesn’t really make much difference whether it’s a pajeet, a Mexican woman, a queer or a tranny. They either wash the dishes or I fire them and hire someone else.

                  What matters is how many idiots are lining up to wash those dishes, and the more there are, the less likely it is that I’ll have to overpay them.

                  “Replies that presuppose Marxism and feminism will be silently deleted, because I am tired of repeating myself.”

                  Well since you define Marxism (and I’m guessing feminism LOL) so insanely broadly, that’s a tall order.
                  I’m just bored, so you do what you will. If you think your case is so weak that you can’t possibly allow anyone to point out the obvious – that it’s obviously bullshit and you don’t believe a word of it – then go ahead.

                  “The argument “Larger pool of employees therefore lower wages” presupposes feminism”

                  ROFLMMFAO and there it is

                  Disagree with me and you must be a feminist. Wages aren’t driven down by increasing the supply because that would be feminism.

                  “That men and women are interchangeable and of equal or roughly similar value to the employer.”

                  When it comes to call centres, receptionists, waiters, uber drivers, hairdressers, bar-tenders, checkout assistants, unskilled factory operatives, cleaners, gardeners and dog walkers, they ARE interchangeable – at least in terms of Walter Block’s unit productivity.

                  Unless you want to invoke some magical manly quality that makes a boy checking out your tins of baked beans superior in some ineffable qualitative way than a girl doing it. Personally I couldn’t give a damn if it’s a red indian transvestite: I’m not going to pay more than I have to.

                  “It also presupposes Marxism: the labor is simply value and the problem of getting labor to accomplish something of actual value is relatively trivial.”

                  And there it is: claiming that labour supply affects labour price is inherently Marxist ROFL

                  You’re a fucktard do you know that?

                  Getting some faceless automaton to scan packets of biscuits with a handheld device IS relatively trivial you moron!

                  “Repeating: Replies that presuppose Marxism and feminism will be silently deleted without being acknowledged, and without me saying yet again “Stop presupposing that everyone agrees with feminism and Marxism.” And repeating yet again: the argument “Larger pool of employees, therefore more exploitation, production, and lower wage bill” presupposes feminism and Marxism.”

                  You can’t help yourself: who said ANYTHING about exploitation!
                  Male workers fought long and hard for a living, family wage. Two generations of women in the workforce has destroyed it. We were exploiting the capitalists before that!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

                  “From where I stand, looks like a massive disruption of the workplace, and that is in fact how employers reacted. My impression is that they will find it a huge relief when the people who forced them to hire women for men’s jobs are taken for a helicopter ride to the pacific.”

                  Pinochet’s an appropriate role model for you, Mr Cantwell.
                  You may well believe that Walmart winces every time it sees a woman pushing boxes of breakfast cereal along a belt, or that Morgan Stanley despises documents it can transparently see were photocopied by a (shudder) woman.

                  In the real world, they’re just glad to have forty applicants for every job in good times, instead of having to bother themselves with competing on price.

                  “During World War II, the US switched to a command economy in order to seize resources for war beyond the long term Laffer limit. During that command economy, employers were forced at gunpoint to hire women.”

                  Robert Higgs indahouse. So? Have you never been forced to do something and then found a way of turning it to your advantage?
                  Don’t fib now Shlomo, you know that’s your greatest joy!

                  “In the US the war communist command economy, and most of the New Deal command economy, were abruptly dismantled at the end of the war, and to the great surprise and horror of those who commanded women to be hired for men’s jobs, all the women working in men’s jobs were immediately laid off and not rehired.”

                  That’s a slanted view. Normal women didn’t want to work in the first place, because they knew it wasn’t for them AND they knew they didn’t have to: given the choice, they wouldn’t today either.

                  “So, eventually, we got human resources, which in every corporation bigger than a certain size, gets between the boss and the hiring process, and forces the boss to hire women.”

                  Wow I never knew that! I thought it was all the market. There I was, being all Marxist and feminist, claiming that capitalism just discovered all those women of its own accord!
                  Thank you for your enlightening insight, master!

                  You’re a twat: there was a huge psychological operation over decades to persuade women that they were being oppressed. What I’m saying to you is that once business owners realised this was a fact they could do nothing about, they – consciously or unconsciously – were able to hire more staff, or pay existing ones less. In the end, they came to accept that ‘progress’ had been a good thing in spite of their personal misgivings. That’s Cathedral/Cthulhu theory 101 you numpty!

                  “And if you look at companies in the US that are sufficiently small that the government does not insert their pet HR department, and are privately held and therefore not subject to SoX, and they don’t need to be eligible for government contracts, they generally do not hire women for men’s jobs.”

                  ***bangs head on desk*** are you simple or something?

                  They hire men AT LOWER WAGES THAN WOULD OTHERWISE BE THE CASE, and if you asked them outright whether they’d prohibit women from working for other people’s firms, they’d say no……….. and even if some of them privately said yes, if it happened they’d be worse off!

                  I never said CONSCIOUSLY better off, I said BETTER off: there’s often a difference.
                  If women were forced out of the labour force, even the companies that cheered the change would end up paying higher wages because instead of forty people for every job there’d only be twenty.
                  In fact for low paying jobs, there wouldn’t even be twenty because men would need higher wages to support their wives, so the labour pool for bullshit service jobs (like 3/4 of US jobs today) would shrink to just dependent single males, which is I dunno 30% of the population? Maybe much less.

                  But supply and demand is Marxist – and now it seems FEMINIST TOO!!!!!! ROFLMMFAO @ your retarded dogma. I’d call you an L-word, but you’d censor that as Marxism too, no doubt about it!

                  “While a female can generally do pretty much what a man can do in the workplace, women are disruptive in ways that men are not. Men naturally form hierarchies, women are forever subverting the hierarchy and each other. Women also treat the business as a substitute family and substitute husband, which is apt to result in inappropriate conduct – they wind up wanting a divorce while keeping the house and children. Thus female labor looks productive to a Marxist, in that the female is dutifully grinding away doing whatever she is supposed to do, or doing something that in superficial form looks like very like what she is supposed to be doing, but somehow, mysteriously, that grinding away fails to produce value.”

                  That’s the most intelligent part of your case but it’s just not true. Most crappy service jobs are so atomised that people barely interact at all. You’re always thinking of office staff at mid to high level. (It’s probably your way of pretending to be high status.)

                  In the real world, most jobs are just not like that. You turn up, hand burgers to people, then go home.
                  Sure there MAY WELL be the occasional bit of drama but labour’s so cheap and plentiful, they just fire the man because all women are virtuous (LOL) and hire someone else – or, better still, I’ve seen INTERNS at MacDonald’s!!!!!!!!!!!
                  “But but but there are so many people competing for jobs, it makes sense for you to gain some work experience goy”

                  “That employers have to be forced to employ women in men’s jobs, and that when not forced, they very seldom employ women in men’s jobs, tells me that it is not a benefit to employers and not our evil Jooish Capitalist overlords that are doing the forcing. It is you guys, the priestly class.”

                  I’m not a member of the priestly class and parodying the word ‘Jewish’ doesn’t change your people’s shitty behaviour that always and everywhere eventually gets you flung out as soon as people recognise you as a distinct group.

                  Your behaviour hasn’t changed, so don’t expect it to be different in the future.

                • jim says:

                  > So wages haven’t fallen since women entered the workforce.

                  Nuts. You live in a strange parallel universe where Marxism, progressivism and whig history are true.

                  Wages did not fall when women entered the workforce. They fell when employers were forced to take them.

                  Women entered the workforce in first wave feminism, over a century ago, in the sense that women were free to take any job over a hundred years ago, employers were free to hire them, and society, the state, and academia strongly encouraged them to enter the workforce, academia insisted on training them for workforce entry even when they that was not what they wanted, and employers came under strong social pressure to hire them, and to hire them for high status, high pay jobs.

                  But, for the most part did not hire them, except for traditionally feminine, and traditionally low status and low pay jobs. When Charles Lindbergh flies the Atlantic, no ticker tape parade. When, considerably later, Amelia Earhart, a dangerously incompetent pilot, is carried over the Atlantic like a sack of potatoes in a plane, she gets a ticker tape parade. So, by 1937, extreme social pressure on women to enter the workforce, and employers to hire them, but not yet much outright socialist coercion to forcibly inject them into the workforce regardless of what they or their employer wanted. Amelia Earhart should never have been allowed to pilot a plane without a male co-pilot, but she was allowed.

                  So real wages went right on rising fast, and continued to rise fast until about 1972, when the state proceeded to forcibly inject women into the workforce regardless of what the employer wanted, after which they stagnated. Then, about 1990, started to fall, the date of the change from stagnation to falling depending on whose consumer price index you believe.

                  Real wages fell, not when women entered the workforce, but when employers were forced to take them, starting about 1972 or so, with more and more forms of coercion being introduced, and the pressure on each form of coercion being steadily ratcheted up, until the election of Trump.

                  They fell because women destroy value in the workplace, and because the coercion disrupts and undermines the authority of the employer: the boss cannot fire a disruptive female employee. He has to beg Human Resources for permission to delicately ask her to resign. And Human Resources will not damned well give me permission, so I have to appeal to my boss, and he has to appeal to the chief executive officer, the top boss, and then, if I am lucky, she “voluntarily” resigns – but I now have a bad smell with the top boss and Human Resources, because the top boss dare not fire too many misbehaving female employees, though you can fire a misbehaving male employee for word out of place.

                  > > “Why does being forced to employ women in men’s jobs result in a lower wage bill?”

                  > Because wages are not, pace Walter Block, an unstable variable that tends to approximate the productivity of the worker over time and across jobs.
                  Wages are the price of labour, based on supply and demand just like any other good,

                  It is not supply when the government forces you to take it, and it is not demand when the government forces you take it, and only a commie would call that supply and demand. And the next comment where you refer to “supply and demand” as if commands constituted supply and quotas constitute demand will be silently deleted for presupposing Marxism and presupposing that everyone agrees with Marxism. Only Marxists talk like that.

                  > Sure, unit-productivity exerts a force in specialised fields, but the overwhelming majority of jobs aren’t specialised at all. A call centre operative has to surpass a pretty low bar but beyond that their potential productivity’s almost irrelevant.

                  Nuts.

                  Hardly anyone works in jobs like that.

                  Call centers are low wage and low status, and are similar to traditionally female jobs like waitress that have been overwhelmingly female for thousands of years. Women have never been restrained from being waitresses and such, and employers have usually employed waitresses rather than waiters except for high class restaurants where it is important to customize the order and the service to the individual customer, and similarly checkout girls at the shop counter. If the customer needed advice and guidance, for example tailoring, it used to be always a male serving, but no brainer jobs similar to the ones you describe have always been overwhelmingly female – in the early days of corporate capitalism, 1660 to 1800 or so, generally a female apprentice who left when she got married.

                  If you call a techline that is actually competent to solve tech issues, rather than giving away your password to anyone who calls up claiming to be you and who has worked out the bugs in the script that the call center worker is following, you will notice it is always a male at the other end.

                  Conversely when I go to the supermarket, the people doing the low wage low status jobs you describe are overwhelmingly female, and overwhelmingly either young girls killing time till they get married, or old women who spent their lives raising children, and got a job when their children left home. They don’t reflect the typical employee, the typical job, and never have. Most jobs require large group socialization, and women are as inherently bad at large group socialization as they are at chopping wood with an axe. Their small group skills are innately superior to men, but their large group skills innately worse. All women are like that.

                  > >“Explain to us, without presupposing the feminist theory that women are equal to men and interchangeable, and without presupposing the Marxist theory of value that labor is value, and without presupposing that everyone uncontroversially agrees with feminism and Marxism, why being forced to employ women in men’s jobs results in a lower wage bill for the same work done?”

                  > Repetitive and deliberately intellectually dishonest. It’s not that paying WOMEN drives down wages: it’s that having a greater SUPPLY of workers drives down wages

                  All further references to command as “supply and demand” will be deleted without reply. All further comments referring to command as supply and demand will be silently deleted.

                  > > “The argument “Larger pool of employees therefore lower wages” presupposes feminism”

                  > ROFLMMFAO and there it is

                  A larger pool of workers who cannot do men’s work is not going to drive down male wages, and the historical reality is that it did not drive down male wages. The kind of jobs that you describe, jobs that do not need skills, physical strength, nor large group socialization have always been done predominantly by girls – and I mean girls, not women, typically apprentices whose apprenticeship ended when they married. There have never been very many such jobs. There were not many such jobs in seventeenth century England, and not many such jobs today.

                  Further assertions that feminism is so obviously true that rather than presenting arguments in favor of it, you merely have to ROFLMMFAO at anyone who doubts it will result in the comment being silently deleted.

                  > When it comes to call centres, receptionists, waiters, uber drivers, hairdressers, bar-tenders, checkout assistants, unskilled factory operatives, cleaners, gardeners and dog walkers, they ARE interchangeable – at least in terms of Walter Block’s unit productivity.

                  Not uber drivers. Uber drivers require social skills and navigation ability, and driving ability that tends to be substantially less common among women. Bar tenders are frequently required to socialize with customers and give them advice on life’s problems, which requires a male bartender, though females are fine if all they are require to do is give a sympathetic ear.

                  Gardening is physically and mentally hard. All gardeners that work in the private sector are men – all of them, without exception, because many of their customers are not forced to meet a quota for female gardeners.

                  Cleaners yes, women can do cleaning fine. Better at it than men.

                  But guess what: Cleaning has always been a predominantly female job, a traditionally female job, for thousands of years.

                  Factory jobs that merely require unskilled labor have generally been automated. We now need skilled labor, aka white male labor – hence the substantially lower productivity of Mexican car factories, which only existed by government fiat, which fiat has now been removed.

                  Being of the priestly classes, you tell me that all non priestly jobs are stupid. They are not stupid.

                  > > “During World War II, the US switched to a command economy in order to seize resources for war beyond the long term Laffer limit. During that command economy, employers were forced at gunpoint to hire women.”

                  > Robert Higgs indahouse. So? Have you never been forced to do something and then found a way of turning it to your advantage?

                  Never. Not once. Never happens to any adult white male, because if I could see a way to turn it to my advantage, the force would have been unnecessary. The use of force indicates net value destruction. Only women and children need to be forced to do what is good for them.

                  > > “In the US the war communist command economy, and most of the New Deal command economy, were abruptly dismantled at the end of the war, and to the great surprise and horror of those who commanded women to be hired for men’s jobs, all the women working in men’s jobs were immediately laid off and not rehired.”

                  > That’s a slanted view. Normal women didn’t want to work in the first place, because they knew it wasn’t for them AND they knew they didn’t have to: given the choice, they wouldn’t today either.

                  By 1870 or 1890 or so, every woman everywhere had been socialized to work and taught in school that they could and should work. (First wave feminism) But they found it strangely difficult to get anyone to hire them, except for the very few low skill, low status, low pay jobs that you ludicrously claim are typical, and were quite shocked to lose those jobs at the end of World War II in the USA.

                  > I never said CONSCIOUSLY better off, I said BETTER off: there’s often a difference.

                  You of course, know better than other people how they should live, so you intend to make them live as members of the priestly classes far away who know nothing of them shall command.

                  You are wrong.

                  > If women were forced out of the labour force, even the companies that cheered the change would end up paying higher wages because instead of forty people for every job there’d only be twenty.

                  No one proposes to force women out of the labor force. We propose to stop forcing employers to take them. We also propose that their father, husband, or guardian gets to decide if they are allowed take the job. Further comments that use the word “force” to refer to the absence of force. will be silently deleted, because such usage presupposes Marxism is true and uncontroversial, and that we agree with such usage – that it is what we, like Marxists, think of as “force”.

                  To a Marxist, it “force” when a peasant has a cow he wants, it is “force” when someone else owns a pizza shop, but it is not force when the Marxist burns down a supermarket to steal a case of beer, and it is not force when he kills the cows of the peasant who has more cows than the Marxist thinks a peasant should have.

                  From here on, you will use the word “force” the way normal people use it, or your comment will be silently deleted.

                  Further, if a employer is allowed to refrain from hiring value destroying employees, he makes a much bigger profit. Making a bigger profit, he is able to expand and wants to expand, so wants to hire more men. And since all the employers will want to hire more men – women being largely irrelevant for most jobs, the wages of men will approximately double. The vast majority of value goes to employees, and only a small proportion goes to entrepeneurs and owners of capital, because if a substantial proportion goes to capital and entrepreneurship, competition to expand competes profits down and wages up.

                  > > “While a female can generally do pretty much what a man can do in the workplace, women are disruptive in ways that men are not. Men naturally form hierarchies, women are forever subverting the hierarchy and each other. Women also treat the business as a substitute family and substitute husband, which is apt to result in inappropriate conduct – they wind up wanting a divorce while keeping the house and children. Thus female labor looks productive to a Marxist, in that the female is dutifully grinding away doing whatever she is supposed to do, or doing something that in superficial form looks like very like what she is supposed to be doing, but somehow, mysteriously, that grinding away fails to produce value.”

                  > That’s the most intelligent part of your case but it’s just not true. Most crappy service jobs are so atomised that people barely interact at all. You’re always thinking of office staff at mid to high level.

                  Most people do not work in crappy service jobs, and those that do have been overwhelmingly female for thousands of years. In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, typically female apprentices whose apprenticeship ended with marriage.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  deleted

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for presupposing feminism and Marxism, and presupposing that your interlocutor accepts as self evident uncontroversial and universally accepted, in that the question that you ask presupposes that forcing employers to hire women for roles in which they are unsuited constitutes an increase in the supply of workers, which presupposes feminism, in that women are supposedly equal and interchangeable with men, and Marxism, in that it presupposes that labor and value created are the same thing, or that it is trivial to convert labor into value, and that your interlocutor accepts this, that it is entirely beyond discussion.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive

                  Women working was deemed empowering in 1870. What changed in 1972 was a massive and escalating apparatus of coercion to compel employers to hire woman, and restrain employers from firing woman for conduct that would get a man fired, and I have been on the receiving end of both kinds of coercion.

                  Coercion is economically damaging, disruptive, and destructive, and don’t tell me it all the culture. It is all compulsion.

                  If the boss can hire a man directly, he will hire a man, but Human Resources interposes itself between the boss and the hiring, and he finds a woman shows up.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I already know you’re going to call me a Marxist, and I’m numb to it now.

                  You’re out of touch in your bourgeois bubble:

                  “Most people do not work in crappy service jobs, and those that do have been overwhelmingly female for thousands of years.”

                  This eyebrow-raising statement’s really worthy of a Margaret Thatcher.

                  Get out of your ivory tower in Boston Massachusetts and talk to some real people in Rio-Rhinelander some time.

                • jim says:

                  I go to the supermarket. I chat up the checkout girls. They have not been working there very long, and they don’t expect or intend to be working at that sort of job for very long. Therefore this kind of job is not typical of most people. It is not even typical of the people working there.

                  Silently deleting your numerous comments about the condition of the proletariat that seem to be based on Marx’s fantasies from over a century ago, rather than contemporary observation.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  I already know you’re going to call me a Marxist, and I’m numb to it now.

                  You get called a Marxist because you plainly and obviously are one.

                  Hmm, I wonder how everyone came to that conclusion:

                  Because wages are not, pace Walter Block, an unstable variable that tends to approximate the productivity of the worker over time and across jobs.
                  Wages are the price of labour, based on supply and demand just like any other good, and the overwhelming majority of jobs don’t much distinguish between amazing entrepreneurs and mere normie plebs: they’re just not that demanding.

                  Oh right – that’s why. At least when Marx was writing the concept of marginal productivity was new so he could say that he’d never been informed. You’re literally more Marxist than Marx.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  All further posts saying “I am not a Marxist, Marx was completely wrong about everything” will be silently deleted if they continue to be accompanied by long lectures attributing to me, to reactionaries, to libertarians, to Randians, to Mises, to Bastiat, and the rest, Marxist positions.

                  In fact they will be deleted if the post fails to acknowledge the points on which everyone else differs from Marxism: You can tell us we are totally wrong, but you have to respond to our actual position, rather than framing our position as Marxist.

                  If you want your “I am not a Marxist” post to not be silently deleted, it needs to acknowledge that I, and just about everyone except those that intend to murder everyone like me, take the definition of capitalism, and the account of economic history, explained here and here.

                  Disagree with what I say, but don’t tell me I and every normal person everywhere is saying something different from what is in those comments.

                  If you say “I am not a Marxist”, while continuing to tell me that I am a Marxist, you are in fact arguing for Marxism while practicing entryism. You have to acknowledge the actual reactionary position when you tell us what is wrong with our position, and similarly the actual libertarian position, the actual Moldbuggian position, the actual Misean position, etc.

                  And similarly, all your posts declaring that you are a racialist will be silently deleted unless you acknowledge that we do not hate blacks and Jews etc, still less hate them for absolutely no reason, but rather, we notice human biodiversity, and see that human biodiversity makes it difficult for some races to live in close proximity. Any declarations of how much you hate Jews and blacks and so forth will be deleted if they imply for us, or directly attribute to us, views that deny human biodiversity. When you declare yourself a racialist, you are saying “I am stupid and evil just like you, because I hate them twice as much for even less reason”. And, similarly, when you declare yourself not a Marxist. Supposedly you and I are not Marxists, despite the fact that Marx was supposedly totally right about everything, and I supposedly agree that Marx was totally right about everything.

                  And similarly for women. You can deny the red pill, but when disagreeing with our position on women, you must attribute to us the red pill position on women, or else your comment will be silently deleted.

          • Koanic says:

            Believing retarded bullshit imposes an IQ ceiling.

            The real Bible tends to impose an IQ floor, at least on those who overrate their cognitive abilities.

            • Koanic says:

              Well, an IQ*Ingenopathy ceiling, so either you will have dumb good people, or smart evil people.

              • Obadiah says:

                >you will have dumb good people, or smart evil people.

                A perfect summary of Mormonism, toward which a cursory glance reveals, to the trained eye, to be a fairly archetypal “fake Freemason Kabbalah-hermeticism-derived cainite melonboon heresy pyramid-scheme cult” (for lack of a more concise phrase)

              • jim says:

                Recollect my famous remark about leprechauns.

                • Vxxc says:

                  Jim,

                  Reference; the next Trains – after Trump Gen Zyklon.

                  I am observing.
                  Not immantentizing, or programming, or advocating.
                  I am saying this is what is happening.
                  This is like war: I accept war, I accept violence.
                  I don’t have to seek – Hard Times have found us.
                  Are we The Strong Men who can make good times?
                  We’ll see.

                  We probably shouldn’t begin by denying the truth of our own very cohorts strongest young men.

                  I don’t care about the socialism part as we’re past modeling and into reality. Probably Nationalistic Hybrid Market/ethnically oriented safety net Capitalism is a more accurate description but that’s not important.
                  Economics is a dead priesthood.
                  Diversity is dying.
                  We are its eager hangmen but at cost and the consequences must be faced and controlled – and not by turning our backs on the dangerous and distasteful.

                  One doesn’t sway men by denunciation.
                  One puts in the work and earns trust.

                  *As for Christ this is irrelevant to me now.
                  Any prayers I have are private, any Church literally the Benedict option – my Brother a Prior.
                  He will likely be Abbot.
                  Any Church business is referred to him.
                  Christianity illicet, Vatican anathema.
                  That part is finished.

                  We go on without Christ, his public resurection isn’t our problem. Survival our problem.

                  Are we the Strong Men or not?

        • The Cominator says:

          “You betray your ignorance of Mormonism by indicating that the politicians who are Mormon are Mormon Leaders. ”

          Mormons did not vote for Trump in the Republican primary, ergo pozzed.

          • Bob says:

            https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/upshot/election-2016-voting-precinct-maps.html

            On this map, the more LDS, the more they voted for Trump. McMuffin got a lot of votes in areas with universities. Don’t know why for sure. The small Utah towns and all-LDS-suburbs voted Trump. In the last ten years, Utah had been flooded with outsiders, just like with Texas.

            • The Cominator says:

              That was not the primary, very few Mormons had Trump as their 1st choice.

              Anyone who isn’t pozzed had Trump as their 1st choice.

          • Bob says:

            If the LDS states primary for one guy, then a certain number vote for him, but a much larger number vote for Trump, then they’re not pozzed.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Legit reactionaries did not vote for Trump in either primary or general. Your logic is flawed and, per other response, your assessment is incorrect.

            Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

            • jim says:

              I voted for Trump.

              Why not?

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                The concept of passivism connotes non-involvement in the demotist process. From my perspective, I do not see it as either moral failing or official status reducer, but it does run counter to the concept of Restoration as I interpret it.

                • jim says:

                  It was the flight 93 election.

                  Soon we will be back to elections where both candidates are the terrorist candidate.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  It was my first real test of self imposed principle since I adopted NRx. In the end, the state I was inhabiting was so solidly blue, and the district even more so, that I merely did my best to get other people to “vote proper,” an endeavour that was met with greater than expected success.

                  My intent with the comment was to establish that voting and pozz status were not directly correlated, and not at all intended as a status signal.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Muh principles” thats Ben Shapiro bullshit.

                  Almost every NRxer endorsed Trump and said the normal idea that one shouldn’t vote didn’t apply to this one. Trump at least drives the Cathedral towards accelerating madness but at the same time hampers their ability to consolidate ever more power.

                  He probably can’t get rid of them but when the moment of truth comes they’ll be a lot weaker…

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  >principles
                  >are a jewish

                  K

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  From a certain standpoint, FA’s take on passivism has been vindicated by Trump.

                  Even so, Walter Block’s right: sure you know you’ll be whipped but given the choice of seven times a week or five, you take the five.

                  This is one of the reasons NRx is better than libertarianism though: Block doesn’t understand that when you vote for the candidate that talks about immigration control, you get the opposite because the bureaucracy is alerted to the threat and doubles down.

                  Nevertheless, the temptation to believe that an authoritarian demagogue just might get the job done was significant and it wasn’t unreasonable to vote for him.

                  At this point though the sane view is the Richard Spencer one: Trump was the last chance to save America and it hasn’t worked – Yang is the recognition that it’s not possible so if you’re being offered a thousand dollars, you’d better have a good reason not to take it.

                • jim says:

                  Trump is building the wall right now, and he is launching a counter attack against Cathedral control of the internet and for freedom of speech in universities.

                  He is successfully bringing the FBI to heel.

                  He brought the manufacturing jobs back, and overnight (well over the first one hundred and fifty days) restored American oil and coal production.

                  He has reversed the great centralization, which has now become the great decentralization. The great centralization was about to give the Democrats control of Texas, which would mean they would have never lost another federal election. In the long run, reversing the great centralization is bigger than anything else he has done, even though no one is talking about it.

                  OK, two years late in building the wall, and the counter attack on the enemies core greatest strength will very likely fail, but everyone who was black pilled, including Spandrel, is looking silly.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > Sane
                  > Richard Spencer

                  Pick one

            • The Cominator says:

              Most of the time I don’t think you should vote but a legit anti-Cathedral candidate like Trump against a Cersei Lannister who wanted to start WWIII with Russia was a special case.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                I see the argument. I think it is a very tiny leap yet logically consistent. I thought long and hard about it. I applied logic to my geographical/temporal reality. I decided not to register and instead focused on hawking Bernie/Indy to the Leftward and Trump to the Rightward in my family and friend group. My principles were sound and my methods were sound. No ragerts. I even have Trump t-shirt.

              • Andre says:

                Trump was not a legit anti-Cathedral candidate. He is solid Cathedral and never hid this fact from anyone. I’m not saying he wasn’t better than Hilary, or that there was no value in him being elected, but it’s completely insane to call him “anti-Cathedral”. One example is how loudly he proclaimed the lgbt gospel during the republican national convention.

                • The Cominator says:

                  On gays he was never anti-Cathedral I just don’t think he cares that much but he did ban trannies from the military.

                  He was solid anti-Cathedral on most issues.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  You are worse than CR because you are an actual Reactionary but you are totally feminine.

                  Anyone: this is a good thing.

                  Andrena: No it isn’t. How good is it? Is it the goodest possible good?

                  Someone: Well, no, it isn’t the “goodest,” but it is good.

                  Andrena: Good is not good enough. Good isn’t goodest, so good is bad.

                  Some other: Wait a sec, good may not be goodest, but it doesn’t make good “bad.”

                  Andrena: *asks why until Jim posts again*

                • Andre says:

                  The lgbt gospel is just one example. As far as I’m concerned, his anti-Islam stance is actually a manifestation of him being “pure hearted” Cathedral. While liberals hug Islam and turn a blind eye to its reactionary elements, the “pure hearted” conservatives actually hate Islam for all the wrong reasons, because they have accepted the morality of the left and just want to apply it consistently. This is very dangerous. He, and most of his base, are the true believers of the gospel of The Cathedral. They are like protestants telling the catholics they aren’t following the Bible closely enough. This can be helpful in the war, or it can backfire. Not easy to know, too many moving pieces, too little accurate information. I do feel better with him elected than I would with Hilary; but that might be a bad thing. He is false hope. Sometimes false hope helps, other times it hurts. And maybe, just maybe, it’s actually real hope. I wouldn’t have voted for Trump, as I didn’t vote for Bolsonaro, because voting is stupid. But I respect those who did as potential allies doing the best they could, while I don’t respect anyone who voted for their opponents.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Donald Trump is not what a true believer synagogite looks like; John McCain is what a true believer synagogite looks like.

        • Bob says:

          It might be an excellent Reactionary State Religion or it might not.

          On the one hand, the Book of Mormon has a couple chapters telling the Nephites to not have a king and that the people in the America’s will never have a king if they’re righteous. Equality and not being led to wickedness.

          On the other hand, when the Nephites gave up kings, they quickly lost their faith. They were almost defeated by invaders numerous times until temporary dictators were able to stop their iniquity and fend off the invaders. Then the guy stepped down and everyone became wicked again, restarting the cycle until eventually they were completely annihilated.

          I’ve never heard another LDS talk about the second point, but like race-realism (Alma 3), it’s right there, plain as day.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            Mormonism started out like Kekism; a meme religion spun up by some bros to dupe suckers and reap tangible, if esoteric benefits. But in giving people an identity, a path to status, it became a tangible movement. By being hunted and hated it became lean and dynamic. By sticking to it’s arbitrary but codified principles, it developed an Organic Path to Righteousness. There were a ton of upstart religious movements, most of which ate themselves or spun down or what have you, but the Saints persevered. The closest I can see to LDS pozzing was their magical desegregation event (1970s I believe), and even that is debatable (how many LDSdus do you know of, and are the more like the Church or is their faith more like tha community?).

            The issue, for me, comes down to this:

            The Restoration needs a faith.

            This faith needs to fit into the Restoration.

            The faithful need to add value.

            The faithless need to be able to fake it.

            Can you list out the other religions that fit this bill? Or, if you feel my specifications are to few, to many, or wrong, build your own then measure to fit. It isn’t Catholicism because Protestant beats Catholic. It isn’t Protestantism because Marxist beats Protestant. It isn’t Marxism (or any godless religion) because the Restoration needs GNON, and it isn’t Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, or Islam because they are not Western.

            • jim says:

              Correct.

              What I hope to do is resurrect 1940s Anglicanism, current Anglicanism being dead as doornail, and bring it into communion with Christian Orthodoxy.

              But resurrecting the dead is a tricky business. If we had a live religion, would be easier, and nothing Christian remains in the American Hegemony except Mormonism, which is not really Christian.

              • evangelisch says:

                There are Anglicans in America that use exclusively the 1927 BOCP (or whatever it is, 1939).

            • I don’t think systems of thought necessarily and inherently lose to others.

              A few guys said what Luther said and tried to do what Luther did a couple of centuries earlier. I can’t remember their names or any dates because their proto-protestantisms didn’t last very long at all.

              Luther found guys with thick arms and sharp swords to protect him. State not defending Church, because Charles V tried to get too close to the church, so being pissed at Charles V made you pissed at the pope, made Charles’ enemies willing to listen to a guy who was pissed at the pope.

              (No, it wasn’t the printing press. The Holy See can and did use it to circulate anti-Luther writings and had considerably more power to do so)

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                You make an interesting point in regards to timing. Malcolm Gladwell is an utter simpleton, but I recall him talking about how game changers are a confluence of design and timing.

                My point remains; history accepted, we live in the now. The question seems to be threefold:

                Make up a religion.

                Revive a religion.

                Co-opt a religion.

                Mormonism uniquely hits all three: it is made up (as all formal religions are, so this is not a strike, it is just relatively new); it is in need of a principled reanimation; it would maybe be amenable to “going pro” in terms of State sponsorship.

                • Howard J. Harrison says:

                  Frederick:

                  Your writing is the best in this thread and your analysis is so near the mark, but you must avoid Mormonism.

                  Mormonism by nature is and always has been hostile to reason. It’s a logic game in which the saints begin at it were with the proposition that 2+2=5, and then see what results one can progressively derive from that. Have you ever sat through a Mormon Elders Quorum meeting? I have. There are some good men there, but in Quorum they earnestly compete with one another in the skillful layering of one misapplication of reason upon another.

                  Mormonism is a European religion rooted in that most anti-European of cultural patterns, plural marriage.

                  Despite that the Mormons had fundamental problems to begin with, their magical desegregation event of the 1970s did deeper harm to the Mormon fiber than you realize. That was like female bishops to the Anglicans.

                  Anglicans have St. Anselm. Mormons have Joseph Smith. One was an honest man. The Anglicans at least have, in principle, a worthy tradition upon which to fall back. The Mormons, not so much.

                  It is true, though, as Jim has observed, that Mormonism is collapsing less than the others. Nevertheless, I won’t have it and neither should you.

              • calov says:

                Nobody said what Luther said prior to Luther. Except maybe Paul. Broad historical strokes that are basically totally inaccurate are unlikely to accomplish anything useful.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Qualify with sources please. Anabaptists did not begin with Luther IIRC.

                • Nobody needed to say exactly what Luther said. Other men criticized the legitimacy of the Church and Pope as guardians of the one true Christianity, and that is what matters.

                  It does not matter exactly what Luther said because within a decade you had thousands of people far crazier than Luther pushing anabaptism and predestination and protocommunism and criticizing kingly sovereignty over violence as well as Church sovereignty over truth.

                  Luther let the cat out of the bag, a cat which had tried and failed to get out of the bag beforehand, and he let it out not because of what specifically he said but because supporting him and other anti-Catholic Christians was now a path to worldly power where it was not before.

                  It was now a path to worldly power because Charles V captured the Pope, which made resistance to the HRE resistance to the Pope. If Charles V had not captured the Pope, you could resist the HRE’s armies while still being a good Catholic.

                • jim says:

                  The sack of Rome followed Luther, it did not precede him. Luther caused the sack of Rome. The sack of Rome did not cause Luther. The protestant revolution against the Pope was well and truly started before Charles V captured the Pope.

                  King Frederick the Third rescued Martin Luther from the Pope and Charles the fifth, and housed him a castle to translate the bible into German vernacular.

                  Just as the Kaiser gave Lenin his start, King Frederick the third gave Luther his start.

                  State sponsored memetic warfare. Translating, and printing, the document that the Church was supposedly interpreting, was devastating blow the Church’s power. Similarly, if no gas chambers.

                • Thanks Jim, I thought it was the other way around- though my point about Luther surviving because he found a warrior to protect him still stands.

                  The Reformation did spread to England, at least, because Charles captured the Pope.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, correct that the reformation came to England because of the sack of Rome.

                  But the reformation came to Germany because Frederick III rescued Martin Luther from Pope and Emperor and installed him a castle to translate the bible.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Yes, correct that the reformation came to England because of the sack of Rome.

                  But the reformation came to Germany because Frederick III rescued Martin Luther from Pope and Emperor and installed him a castle to translate the bible.”

                  I don’t think Charles V was willing to take the genocidal measures required to stop Germany from eventually deserting Rome. He was Catholic but he just was the kind of a fanatic some of his successors were and which the Catholic Church (via the Jesuits) started instilling in the Counter-Reformation Hapsburgs who started the 30 years as a result of losing most of Germany (before the 30 years war Austria and Hungary had mostly become Calvinist). If not Luther it would have been someone else eventually… the Germans saw the RCC in Luther’s time the way people in flyover country see DC.

                  To get Southern Germany Austria and Hungary back in the Roman orbit took semi-genocidal measures…

                • info says:

                  ”To get Southern Germany Austria and Hungary back in the Roman orbit took semi-genocidal measures…”

                  A dramatic drop in the male population compared to females.

    • Andre says:

      Fantasy, logistics and violence. Those are the three sides of civilization that must be organized coherently. Fantasy, the realm of the priest, is always the head. Logistics, the realm of the merchant and violence, the realm of the warrior are always, always, ALWAYS subject to fantasy. It is delusional to deny the primacy of the priest and attempt to put warriors or merchants at the top. Did you catch that? It is in itself a fantasy. The leftist singularity works because it is based on true principles of power. Convergence is not a leftist phenomenon, it is the very nature of power. You will never defeat the left by denying this. Power is not a game of chess, it’s a game of chicken.

      • jim says:

        Priests on top results in everyone wanting to enter the priesthood. Organized groups of enemy infiltrators, adhering to heretical doctrines in private, form secret insider circles within the priesthood, declaring individual members of their invisible ingroup to be holier than any one who is genuinely orthodox.

        Heretics get in, announce open go for heresy, Holiness spiral ensues and rapidly swelling priesthood and ever more bloated ensues. System self destructs in a few decades or a couple of centuries.

        So: How did they do it in Old Testament times?

        Moses appointed Aaron. Aaron did not appoint Moses.

        David was anointed King by the Prophet Samuel, but it had no substantial effect until the mighty men came over to him, and still did not work until the Judean militia came over to him, and then he had himself reanointed by someone inconsequential.

        Solomon executed the previous high priest, appointed the new high priest, who then anointed Solomon to be King while the blood of his predecessor was still fresh.

        How did they do it in Christian Rome?

        Constantine did it. He appointed Bishops, did not get appointed by Bishops, and did not actually convert to Christianity until quite late in his reign.

        How did Charles the Hammer do it?

        Charles the Hammer sent a Pope to Rome surrounded by a bodyguard of his men, effectively appointing the Pope. Until then, he had just been yet another Bishop.

        How did Charles the Great, Charlemagne, do it?

        After Charles the Great came to power, well after he came to power, he had himself anointed Holy Roman Emperor by a Pope that he had granted substantial earthly power to.

        How does the Russian Orthodox Church do it?

        Back in the days of the Czar they were good Tzarists, and a minor official of the Tzar directly appointed priests. Under Stalin they were good communists to the extent that one can be communist without being too flagrantly unchristian, and under Putin they are good Putinists.

        That is how you do it. That is how you are supposed to do it. Moses appointed Aaron. Aaron did not appoint Moses.

        The sovereign is not supposed to meddle with the high priest, unless he decides that this is an exception. But he gets to decide the exception, and the high priest does not get to decide.

        • Andre says:

          The fact you keep pointing to Moses as a warrior who backs up your theory is completely insane. I don’t even know how I can reply to that because… wtf?

          “Priests on top results in everyone wanting to enter the priesthood.”

          No, it doesn’t, and even if it did, it doesn’t matter. The priests do not allow everyone to enter the priesthood.

          “Organized groups of enemy infiltrators, adhering to heretical doctrines in private, form secret insider circles within the priesthood, declaring individual members of their invisible ingroup to be holier than any one who is genuinely orthodox.”

          So what? Warriors can lose a battle. Merchants can go bankrupt. And priests can be corrupted.

          “Heretics get in, announce open go for heresy, Holiness spiral ensues and rapidly swelling priesthood and ever more bloated ensues.”

          If your church is corrupted, it is corrupted and you break with it. This is the reason you must persecute heretics. Because if you don’t, they will rule and persecute you.

          • jim says:

            > The fact you keep pointing to Moses as a warrior who backs up your theory is completely insane. I don’t even know how I can reply to that because… wtf?

            In the end, Moses led in battle, Aaron led in religious services. Moses and Aaron were both initially priest magicians doing priestly stuff, but when the proverbial hit the fan, Moses separated priestly from military and administrative work, and gave the priestly work to Aaron. Aaron became high priest. Moses ceased to be a priest. So, the man who led in battle on top, the high priest not on top.

            > > “Priests on top results in everyone wanting to enter the priesthood.”

            > No, it doesn’t,

            Nuts

            > and even if it did, it doesn’t matter. The priests do not allow everyone to enter the priesthood.

            Initially they do not allow everyone to enter the priesthood. So the hostile enemy faith practices entryism against the official faith, claiming to subscribe to the official faith, only with even greater enthusiasm. They keep trying for centuries. Sooner or later they pull it off, and throw open the doors.

        • Andre says:

          Do you seriously think some guy is going to lead a coup, realize he has no idea how to rule, and then annoint neo-reactionary thinkers into his “priesthood”? People who have no idea what to do with power don’t lead coups. People that are pissed off with heresy lead coups. No, it’s not going to happen. Today we have the priests of 4chan and “The Alternative Influence Network”. Their message is weak and the result was Donald Trump. Donald Trump is not a warrior type, he is a religious figure, a prophet, responding to the beginning of a religious war. He is a mildy heretical progressive. A coup is not the warrior class reasserting its dominance over priests, a coup is a priestly class reasserting control against heretics. The only meaningful and consistent reactionary priestly class in the world today is radical Islam, which has a universalist plan so you are not going to hide from it through the peace of westphalia. Radical Islam is infiltrating progressive institutions and establishing control over territory. It is taking over organized crime. It is pillaging and raping and giving young men a reason to live, fight, kill and die. If you continue to put your hope on some sort of western coup d’etat that finds the light of neo-reaction, you will wake up one day to realize there is no God but Allah and Mohammad was his messenger. If there is salvation for America, it will come in the form of a radical mormon prophet, not Donald Trump, and certainly not the USG military, unless it is infiltrated by said radicalized mormon church. At this point in history the conflict is between some kind of progressive transhumanism and Islam; and the funny thing is, the two seem to already be merging. So stop fucking kidding around waiting for a great warrior to appear out of thin air. Great warriors come from religious radicalization. There is a growing pool of young men eager for said radicalization, but they are being lead astray by either fools or outright enemies of the kind of ideas you defend.

          Soldiers fight against monsters, not people. Monsters are those the priests define as monsters.

          • jim says:

            > Do you seriously think some guy is going to lead a coup, realize he has no idea how to rule, and then annoint neo-reactionary thinkers into his “priesthood”?

            Warriors need priests. The current priesthood (academia, the mainslime media, the judiciary, and such) hates warriors. Also, the current priesthood is about to self destruct. A vacancy will shortly open, possibly through them all murdering each other. The problem will not be getting the job. The problem will be staying alive to get the job.

            Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has, like me, figured out the left wing singularity, except that she does not see all the way to the end, or sees all the way to the end but does not care. Being even holier the other Democrats makes her the boss, she correctly says.

            • Andre says:

              Why do warriors need priests?

              • The Cominator says:

                “Although Augustus considered a military force as the firmest foundation, he wisely rejected it, as a very odious instrument of government. It was more agreeable to his temper, as well as to his policy, to reign under the venerable names of ancient magistracy, and artfully to collect, in his own person, all the scattered rays of civil jurisdiction. With this view, he permitted the senate to confer upon him, for his life, the powers of the consular[1], and tribunitian oifices[2], which were, in the same manner, continued to all his successors. The consuls had succeeded to the kings of Rome, and represented the dignity of the state. They superintended the ceremonies of religion, levied and commanded the legions, gave audience to foreign ambassadors, and presided in the assemblies both of the senate and people.”

                I would recommend you read “Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”. Gibbon goes into this better then anyone.

                The Severan dynasty tried to govern through naked military rule… it didn’t work. The warriors need to rule but to create a synthetic tribe you need myths/memes and that is the proper domain of priests.

                • Andre says:

                  Do you realize that a military force is itself a synthetic tribe?

                • jim says:

                  Which is one of the big reasons that the military need a priesthood. Our enemy seeks seeks to inspire our military with the emancipation of Afghan women and gay rights, but this is obviously not working. The military will need a priesthood even more when they rule.

                • Andre says:

                  What do you mean by “this is obviously not working”?

                • jim says:

                  Simply obvious that our fighting men reject the replacement myths. They fail to inspire.

                • Andre says:

                  And yet they keep fighting for the SJW state, so what exactly do you mean “they fail to inspire”?

                • jim says:

                  1. It is obvious
                  2. They keep losing against insignificant enemies. We are now rapidly approaching the same condition that Europe has already reached. The navy is incapable of sailing without running into each other, and the army will not fight.

                • Andre says:

                  So how is that military going to be able to take over?

                • jim says:

                  Are progs going to fight? They will be busy killing each other over witchcraft charges, and will ask the military to intervene against each other.

                  The military likely will take over for the old myths

                • Koanic says:

                  Yes, and a lot of my bitterest vitriol is directed at eviscerating this mythos for which the American fighting man still misguidedly dies. The fact that checked-out Millennials and supine Euros can neither comprehend the ethos nor the critique troubles me not. Only the warriors matter.

                  I believed it, once, and wanted a place on the front lines opposite the Dar al Islam.

                • The Cominator says:

                  > “Are progs going to fight? They will be busy killing each other over witchcraft charges, and will ask the military to intervene against each other.
                  >
                  > The military likely will take over for the old myths”

                  Based and redpilled I LOVE this comment.

              • jim says:

                The founding myths of our Republic are being eviscerated. When military rule arrives, will need new myths, somewhat disguised as the old myths.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Something like the Augustan settlement of the “Republic restored” but better…

                  But in reality a monarchy that nobody called a monarchy until Caligula foolishly tried to govern as an Eastern style god king.

                • jim says:

                  We plan a King, and cheerfully say so out loud, but when the time comes, he will not call himself a King, and we will call him whatever he decides.

                • Andre says:

                  Why?

                • Andre says:

                  Let me be a little more specific with my question. Do you disagree with my perception that the only people that take those myths seriously are those identified with the warrior class?

                • jim says:

                  Your perception is accurate, but I don’t see the relevance of that observation. Our priesthood is eviscerating the myths most central to our warrior class at the same time as they attack unit cohesion on the front line and infest war with lawyers.

                  They try to inspire our men with emancipating Afghan women, and it conspicuously fails to work.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Warriors acceptance of the common priestly myths depends on the society.

                  In America you’d be somewhat right in regards to the OLD founding myths of the Republic but actual warriors (as opposed to the massive Cathedral commisarate in the military) don’t like the modern Cathedral and its new myths.

                  You are right that the military is itself a synthetic tribe but militaries tend to have their own “mystery religion” of a warrior ethos instilled by basic training and sometimes unit hazing. More effective militaries are conscious of this. The Prussian military was very conscious of this concept and the US Marine Corps is very conscious of this. The rest of the US military is not at all conscious of this.

                  The Roman military I imagine was conscious of this and they even had a widespread mystery religion for soldiers only (Mithraism). Military “mysteries” are not suitable for being the civilian ethos or mythos though.

              • calov says:

                Warriors need priests not only to inculcate morality and faith into the people, so that they don’t have to always be forced to do their work at swordpoint, but also so that there are bureaucrats who can do bureaucratic work effectively. Priests are involved in administration (some are better than others), but they also are always involved in teaching and training government administrators, bureaucrats, etc. to do “clerical” work. Jim has pointed out repeatedly how Trump is struggling to rule for lack of bureaucrats who will and can carry out his program–i.e. lack of a priesthood. The Muslims after conquering huge swaths of Persian and Roman Empires had to figure out how to use the Christian and Persian administrative apparatus to actually administer the nations they had conquered, otherwise they would not have been able to keep them under control.

  3. Alistair Hermann says:

    As always, enjoy your work.

    I will comment on one thing, and that is the ‘approved business plan’. This is a critical notion, and one that moreover needs a hierarchical government organisation that can directly reference each and every corporation, through people more capable than the leadership of each corporation, into the overall program of government. Such an organisation is required for that which is presented as context and advice to be acted upon in a manner which replicates orders, without constricting the capacity of any organisation to act in its own interests except where such interests violate those of society.

    Ever in joy.

    • jim says:

      No one could understand what Enron’s business plan was or how they were making a profit, and when the dust settled it turned out that their plan was to buy stuff on credit and sell it for cash, without ever getting involved in the inconvenient activity of actually touching the stuff and themselves moving it around. They inserted themselves between bulk sellers and bulk buyers on paper, without ever going near the actual pipeline.

      • Alistair Hermann says:

        Of course such things are handled today by the ‘board’ – without hierarchy , without context, without an overriding intent beyond commercial return. The notion that the Collegium – without the King – is capable of ordering its own affairs.

        On such things the collapse of Order is built.

  4. ScaryGary says:

    Oh no no there Mr. Jim. Ya see, you just have to be “alpha.” Ya gotta sit and stand in “power positions,” that way, all women will simply obey you, ya know, cuz yer “alpha” and all. You won’t even need to actually do any of that stuff (warrior, merchant. priest), you’ll be a high-value male just by having the latest haircut; yeah really.

    LOL! I personally don’t care about female nature, I care only about results. Workers, troops & priests get everything, goofy bums, pua and silly boys get nothing- and let’s never mind granting them status because silly women supposedly ‘prefer’ them. Women may grant ‘status,’ but men can take it away. Onward and upward chaps!

    • jim says:

      Sarcasm is difficult over the internet because there is so much real insanity.

      To repeat your point in plain speech: power positions and suchlike will fail, because women will shit test you, and you cannot pass the shit tests without being something of a genuine uncaring badass.

      But we don’t want men motivated to be genuine uncaring badasses. We want them to aspire to status in the male hierarchy, in the eyes of their fellow men, not the eyes of women. We want women to admire, rather than ignore, the male hierarchy of status.

      We want men to define alpha, not women to define alpha, so that we can make conduct and talents that are actually valuable to society high status. But nature gives women more power than men, because a man can merely kill you, whereas a woman can make you immortal. To impose our status hierarchy on women, it is not sufficient to deploy our superior capacity for violence. We have to also deploy our superior capacity for extended very large scale cooperation.

      Because nature dangerously empowers women, law must disempower them, so that the sovereign can be the fount of all honors, mortal and divine. We want Newton and Clive to be higher status than Jeremy Meeks.

      • ScaryGary says:

        Haha, yes indeed; sarcasm is difficult over the net, that’s why I tried to pour it on thick.

        Your points are excellent here Jim. The “uncaring badboy” is really not actually “bad” in any way and is no threat to the Cathedral whatsoever. He is, in fact, the perfect citizen if you think about it. The “badboy” is only “rebelling” against his fellow victims of the Cathedral. You’re right, women can’t chose what masculinity is and such poseurs are obsessed with the opinions of the women they “don’t care” about, lol. What a mess.

        Great post.

      • Ron says:

        It sounds like the real essence of the problem is a lack of male cooperation

        The patriarchy is dead because the patriarchs did not take the roles of son, brother and father seriously enough.

  5. Alchemist says:

    American English needs to import the word baizuo* or invent a suitable substitute. We need to put the $^#%posters on this task, and bring a word into the collective id of Americans.

    Currently the best example is NPC, but its appeal is likely limited to the game playing demographic and youth. Also, it emphasizes the unthinking follower aspect. We want to emphasize and dismiss as unworthy of attention the out-of-this-world utopian cultist quality. Leftoid, #$%^&lib, others are a bit too derogatory, and not matter-of-fact enough. A proper term would imply matter of factly that this person is just not participating in what we call the ‘real world’, they are lost in a dream world and might be harmless or in need of institutionalization but either way one certainly shouldn’t pay attention to what they advocate. Matter of fact dismissal of crazy is the proper attitude.

    I am currently in favor of shortening baizuo to baizu and defining it as: “Even the communists recognize that person as being a bit left of sanity.

    Usage: “Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez? That baizu can really dance.”
    “Bernie Sanders, Vermont’s most famous baizu….”

    I am open to better suggestions. Heartiste may have some ideas.

    • Dave says:

      I just say “white liberals” and point out that they are doomed to extinction no matter what, not because I expect them to be hacked to pieces by their beloved diversity (though some will be), but because they have so few children. And I dismiss black and brown liberals out of hand by pointing to Zimbabwe and Venezuela.

      White liberals won’t even deny this, they just say the world will be too hot for life in 100 years so it’s a good thing they’ll all be dead by then.

  6. Alchemist says:

    “Female emancipation never lasts, because peoples, tribes, cultures, states, and religions with emancipated females fail to reproduce.”

    AND/OR . In societies where females are emancipated females overwhelmingly choose to reproduce with the strongest men or not reproduce at all. So the next generation males are more dominated by the traits women like, and thus far less inclined to tolerate female emancipation.

    Erogo the Islamists could win, the fascists could win, or the reactionaries could win, but the progressives will die out.

    • Bruce says:

      Progressives will lose – they have already lost-Darwin says so. They are a disease. Those of us who survive will be largely inoculated like Europeans who survived the Black Death.

      • Koanic says:

        An optimist! Darwin says: The bonobo has been with us from the beginning.

        • Bruce says:

          Whatever qualities distinguish the bonobo from their closest relatives – they can’t possibly lower fertility as much a progressivism does.

        • Before civilization there were millions of chimps and thousands of bonobo.

          • The Cominator says:

            Female chimps aren’t picky. Alpha male tries to ensure mating monopoly through extreme violence but female chimps will quite eagerly have sex with beta males.

            Do not know if female bonobo are picky.

            Human female sexual choice is a disaster because they only want who they deem an alpha at the time but their impression is fickle and they reckon status the way a small evil child in a tribe of cannibals reckons status (well that and they like artists especially musicians who may or may not have actual talent).

            • Women aren’t that fickle about who is alpha. A PUA needs to convince a woman that he is alpha, and even legendary PUAs don’t hit a 10% open-to-bang rate. They do manage to fuck a few of them, and thus come to the conclusion that women are fickle about who is alpha.

              If you are the alpha male of a social circle of men who want to be you, you can bang 80% of the girls in your circle with less time and effort than the PUA, and the 20% you don’t are all also involved in a cooler social circle orbiting a man more alpha than you are.

              Musicians hit the right social cues to be considered alpha because they have a room full of people moving to their music. If I pulled out a guitar at a party and no one payed attention to my playing I would not get laid.

            • Frederick Algernon says:

              Chimp tribes have a vicious and effective way of asserting Alpha lineage; cannibalistic retroactive abortion.

            • jim says:

              > they like artists especially musicians who may or may not have actual talent).

              What they like is every male around the artist paying attention to him as if he is an important man.

              • The Cominator says:

                Then why don’t comedians get the same kind of treatment?

                • Obadiah says:

                  >Then why don’t comedians get the same kind of treatment?

                  Interesting question made more interesting by the fact that a man with a naturally good sense of humor generally tends to enjoy the same social-multiplier effect as does the gifted guitar player.

                  Probably because a comedian is always a professional clown–but only sometimes a naturally funny or entertaining man. Some comedians kill on stage, but have infamously depressive, neurotic, and otherwise unpleasant personalities once the lights go down.

                  There’s also a erotic cultural mystique surrounding music that comedy doesn’t have.

                • Many and more of them do

                • jim says:

                  A comedian has to clown, which is a little bit demeaning.

                • Obadiah says:

                  Pagliacci is a man telling jokes; Jimmy Page is a sort of demigod.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Rock stars don’t get Metoo’d no matter how stupid, beta and liberal or how disturbing their fetishes are too women. Louis CK otoh did get metoo’d.

                  Clearly not all commanding attention is equal. Musicians and athletes outrank comedians.

                • Alchemist says:

                  Louis CK got me too’d because he fail to exercise his prerogatives. According to his comedy routines: 1. He was a beta guy who couldn’t get his wife to give him a proper hand job. 2. After divorce he got good at comedy and he got famous. 3. He was attracted to younger women but he failed to f*&^ them because he thought they weren’t interested in him. [they were. All protestations to the contrary women who join you in your hotel room for a drink are interested. They may lose interest in a heartbeat… Its up to the guy to close.] . 4. He jerked off like a pathetic fool in front of women (Louis if you’re reading this here’s a pro tip: p goes in v) and they reacted with appropriate disgust.

                  Fame works. But you still gotta close.

          • Koanic says:

            So? Civilize the male chimp and you will see the bonobo side manifest in the female immediately.

  7. Bruce says:

    “Women will be forced to honor and obey the first man they have sex with till death do them part”

    In your system, marriage will have to be redefined so that coitus or, at least, consent to coitus* define marriage. The consent-to-marriage system (from Roman jurists?) will have to go. Have you begun constructing the theological basis of this. Just go Old Testament?

    * This probably won’t work since they’ll claim rape to get out of marriage.

    • The Cominator says:

      ““Women will be forced to honor and obey the first man they have sex with till death do them part”

      Up until a certain age I would insert the proviso “if their father approves”.

      In most cases the father should choose and the woman should not choose. Female choice should be a fallback if the father fails to find a husband by a certain age.

      • No society, no matter how reactionary, has managed to enforce female chastity to the point where the father makes all the decisions, hence shotgun marriage.

        Shotgun marriage is not female choice, it is male choice, the groom’s choice rather than the father’s. Women did not go to a bar and choose who was the most alpha, get knocked up by him, and get shotgun married. Shotgun marriage required a man who was willing and able to circumvent the father’s attentions and defenses to seduce his daughter.

        While in priestly terms shotgun marriage was patching up the damage caused by sin, in practical terms created an incentive structure that I could call the ‘seducer’s veto’. In game parlance, shotgun marriage requires a ZFG man to sneak into an armed man’s barn in the middle of the night to deflower his daughter, because if he is caught before the act he is a criminal, after the act he is her new husband. In evo terms, the groom is passing a fitness test, overruling the father’s decision that he his not high-status enough to give his daughter to.

        The father’s choice is ideal because the father is older and wiser and higher status, able to make a better match that maximizes his own community relationships and the genetic fitness of his descendants, but we will settle for groom’s choice in the event that the father cannot or will not find a suitable match for his daughter.

        If there are a lot of horny unmarried men around, and a father has an unmarried daughter who is getting hornier by the day, and for whatever reason (there are some good ones but it’ll take too long to mention in this comment) the father will not give his daughter away in marriage, the probability that horny man deflowers horny woman increases by the day, eventually to a near-certainty, and the man with the balls to do it was probably going to be the best match anyway.

        • The Cominator says:

          “The father’s choice is ideal because the father is older and wiser and higher status, able to make a better match that maximizes his own community relationships and the genetic fitness of his descendants, but we will settle for groom’s choice in the event that the father cannot or will not find a suitable match for his daughter.”

          This should only come into effect if the girl isn’t married by a certain age. Then elopement should become legal.

          “the probability that horny man deflowers horny woman increases by the day, eventually to a near-certainty, and the man with the balls to do it was probably going to be the best match anyway.”

          It will often be some lowlife NAM…

          • “It will often be some lowlife NAM”

            I am talking about time periods in which bandits lived in the hills and had no chances of deflowering your daughters, though girls would theoretically fuck bandits if they hung around towns.

            There were very few transients and “lowlives”; the only pool of unmarried men who were capable of deflowering your daughters were local boys tied to the land or to a trade apprenticeship.

            The sexy criminals who would be fucking your daughters if they were allowed were intentionally kept by male society very far away from women if they were kept alive at all.

            Provided that we even have NAMs around Afterwards, keep your daughters physically far away from them or marry them off before it becomes an issue.

            If elopement is illegal before a certain age, then the woman so deflowered must needs become either a nun or a whore and that is a waste of a perfectly good womb and possibly a perfectly good man.

            • The Cominator says:

              “If elopement is illegal before a certain age, then the woman so deflowered must needs become either a nun or a whore and that is a waste of a perfectly good womb and possibly a perfectly good man.”

              Plenty of men will take them even under our system unless shes fugly, some won’t.

              I don’t plan on generally allowing women to become nuns.

              • A woman with one previous sexual partner is a unicorn today, but can’t compete against a field of virgins. If men under patriarchy were willing to choose a deflowered woman over a virgin, shotgun marriage would not have been invented in the first place.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Ancient and medieval society tended to have a bit more “excess women” compared to the ratio today and shotgun marriage in practice happened more with pregnancy then mere deflowering.

                  A girl with one partner probably won’t have a problem if shes a 7 or above (with 9s and 10s men just don’t care what their history is). In the case of girls with lower SMV their fathers will probably be more inclined to permit the shotgun marriage.

                  So the father should be able to reject any man as unsuitable up to his daughter being a certain age.

            • vxxc says:

              AU Senator sparks outrage over remarks that it’s due to immigration.

              https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-outrage-as-farright-australian-senator-fraser-anning-links-massacre-to-a4092421.html

              I am unable to see the maori reaction.

        • The Cominator says:

          Also re chastity. I think its more important that they are married off young hence arranged marriage age should be 14-20 with elopement allowed after that. If one unsuitable guy got to them before being married off not a huge deal.

          Allowing automatic marriage by deflowering without a father’s absolute choice window gives too much of an opening for lowlifes and NAMs (who women find attractive but are worthless in terms of the male status hierarchy) to get higher quality better looking women who should go to higher quality men.

          • White women sleeping with NAMs is fairly rare. Motherly pity is the death of sexual desire to a woman, and the religion followed by white women tells them to feel motherly pity for nonwhites.

            A woman racemixes when the most alpha male in her social circles happens to be nonwhite, which is why it doesn’t happen very often despite the propaganda, because criminal blacks and aztecs don’t usually hang out with whites.

            • Javier says:

              There are populations of whites and blacks who have lived side by side for centuries without intermixing. It is often the one-off black who enters the new, unassuming, all white environment who reaps an early benefit, as the one black guy at my all white school did.

              Right now we have the most cucked white population ever and the most unleashed black population, with black men aggressively sexualized in the media, allowed and encouraged to be as toxic-masculine as they please while white men are barred from doing so. And you know what? Women still taunt each other by saying “You can date a black guy” as a passive aggressive way of calling each other fat or low status.

    • jim says:

      Just go old testament.

      • Bruce says:

        The biblical argument has already been made.

        You might need a narrative on how/when the Church went wrong. I would think the details are lost in antiquity. It’s claimed that early Christian ceremonies were slightly modified Roman ceremonies suggesting that the early Christian understanding on this wasn’t much different than the Roman one.

      • Koanic says:

        My man!

  8. Mike says:

    Good summary. Meanwhile, the 4chan/meme right-wing is losing its ever-loving mind over this Yang guy. Seems like the accelerationists are taking over.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      All the hallmarks of astroturf.

      Noone in any of the communities talks about or references the guy, no build up of interest or funny interactions that later become memes, suddenly one day a bunch of plug-n-play image macros and youtube vids rehashing old memes appear out of the blue. Yeah, right.

      My impression is it’s not really a serious attempt for or indication of deep support by the permanent bureaucracy for Yang as the anointed one for 2020 like Hillary was supposed to be for 2016, but rather as a wedge in the ‘meme vote’. People more plugged in the memetosphere rarely vote democlap, since people with congenitally leftist modes of thought or people poisoned by leftist mind-viruses can’t meme. The effect of meme-voters on Trump’s ultimate victory in 2016 can’t be underestimated, so i suppose the idea goes if it draws a few of them away or just broadcasts static into the discourse in general, then it’s done a job.

      • Mike says:

        While I agree with you that Yang himself is the epitome of a technocrat, who is totally disconnected from the masses and hardly deserves to be called a “populist” (as some people have been willing to label him) the support for him from the “meme” right-wing seems to be legit. Its not that they support him for real (as they did with Trump in 2016). Yang’s platform includes loads and loads of totally cucked, evil Democratic claptrap; they know that things will get worse under his rule if elected. No, its about the $1000 UBI. This promise of a Universal Basic Income is the only policy being promised by any of the candidates that will actually benefit the white -working class, and so these right-wing memers desperately cling to it as a symbol that someone, anyone, still cares about them as a voting group.

        Its basically an “enjoy the decline” thesis. Yes, Yang’s platform is 98% prog Democrat, but 2% of it is $1000 for whitey and maybe less aid to Israel. You get to sit on your ass and enjoy some extra bucks while society collapses around you.

        • The Cominator says:

          Yang support is about equal parts shilling, ironic lulzposting. and blackpilled accelerationism.

          No genuine right winger would fall for a free money trick when unemployment is low so no he doesn’t have any real right wing support, he has shitposting from right wingers who think he is funny though.

          • Mike says:

            Ya it’s all accelerationism mixed in with the desire to see the left put in an awkward spot (I’ve seen some people laughing about how it would be funny if the Dems were made to explain why UBI is bad because it would give free money to white people).

      • jim says:

        Yes, I am seeing a whole lot of entryism – leftwingers and left wing programs dressed in Nazi, Royalist, or Christian costumes – usually with gross inconsistencies.

        Thus, for example, Carlylean Restorationist assures us that he hates Jews and blacks twice as much as we do for twice as little reason – while remaining stubbornly unaware of any hate facts. Supposedly the reason blacks are overrepresented in British elite universities is sheer talent, and the outbreak of knifings and acid attacks is 100% old British working class, who supposedly love the British housing projects. Supposedly he hates immigrants despite the supposed fact that they are innocent of all the things the that the evil right wingers accuse them of.

        Whenever a communist tells you he is on your side, and he totally supports your campaign against capital, he has you, or his boss has you, on the list of people to be killed after the revolution.

        • Mike says:

          Ya, you can see the divide between the entryists/people who just want chaos to win out and the people who still believe in Trump. For example, BAP (Bronze Age Pervert) is still solidly Trump and is pissing off his Twitter followers who are all in on the Yang memes now.

          For my part, I’d love to see Yang as the Democratic candidate for president, just for the sake of confusing the hell out of the Democrats, as we are already kind of seeing with Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Cortez. Make the left eat their own so to speak. At the end of the day though, I’m probably still going to go for Trump, because I realize that there really isnt anything better. Like I said, no one thinks Yang is objectively better than Trump, they just are so frustrated with the power of the Deep State that they want to burn the country down.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          That’s an outrageous misrepresentation and mischaracterisation and you have the gall to censor me for telling others what they think!

          Jag sameach taqiyya shalom shlomo

          • jim says:

            > Elaborate please……….. [censored]

            Write stuff without presupposing Marxisn, without presupposing that your interlocutor is a Marxist, without putting Marx’s holy word in our mouths, and without telling us what we are “really” saying, and it will not get censored.

          • alf says:

            Nah he describes you down to a T.

          • Mike says:

            Lmao are you talking to me CR? Apparently it’s not insane enough to get deleted like your stuff.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*deleted*]

              • jim says:

                You are still putting the holy words of the great prophet Marx in my mouth, even while savagely denouncing me for inadequate Marxism.

                I told you I will not allow argument by fake consensus on my blog.

                I will allow you to argue for Marxist history, Marxist class theory, or Whig history, but I will not allow you to frame other people as agreeing with Marxist history, Marxist history, or Whig history.

                You have to present evidence, not mere assertion, and you especially may not assert a fake consensus.

                I will allow you to present Marxist history, Marxist class theory, and whig history, but I will not allow you to present it as uncontroversial and accepted by your interlocutor. It is as nutty as trooferism and flat earthism, and most most white men outside the priestly professions see it as that nutty.

                And reflect on Queen Elizabeth the first’s relationship with Shakespeare. Shakespeare was free to deviate from the official religion ways that no mainstream author, television show, or movie, can deviate from today’s official religion of progressivism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*unresponsive*]

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  As I said, I will not longer allow you to “rebut” arguments by mere assertion of the official Marxist or progressive truth with double the confidence.

                  If you want to argue that writers and artists are comparably free today under the unofficially official state religion of progressivism as they were under the officially official state religion of Anglicanism, you are going to have to present examples of today’s mainstream authors and writers transgressing progressivism, and then we can debate and compare the seriousness of those writers transgressions against progressivism (which is never more than an insufficiently vigorous barrage of progressive propaganda) with what artists did in the days of Queen Elizabeth the first.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Marxist economic theory. And this time you superficially went through the motions of supplying evidence and argument – but you went around the key issue, which is using the market to direct capital to its highest and best use, trade in capital and the creation of capital, as if no one ever creates capital or traded in land, thus failed to engage each and every one of my previous responses to Marxist economic theory, by talking about trade and ignoring the elephant: Capital. Trade in land, buildings, ships, and equipment, the improvement of land, and the creation of ships and equipment.

                  So deleted, for once again assuming, rather than arguing, Marxism, Marxist economics, and Marxist history. Marxists economics tell us that no one ever creates capital, and that no one ever bought or sold land and ships.

                  Provide evidence and argument for Marxist economic theory that engages my previous responses, and I will certainly allow it, a response that addresses capital in the sense of buying and selling land, ships, and equipment, improving land and creating ships and equipment. Provided you don’t tell me what I, other people on my blog, converged libertarians, or Ayn Rand, thinks. Respond to what I actually said, but do not tell me what I supposedly really said and supposedly really meant.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Repetitious – it deserves a reply, but it already got one.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Now you are rebutting, not what I supposedly think, but what libertarians, anarcho capitalists, and Randians supposedly think.

                  As usual, it is not what libertarians think, even less is it what anarcho capitalists think, and it what Ayn Rand rejected and vividly condemned with her usual vigor.

                  And, in any case, the minute and diminishing points of difference between today’s mainstream libertarians, and today’s progressivism, are off topic for this blog, even if you had accurately represented them. We don’t care. Bored now.

                • Koanic says:

                  Communist Revolutionary was fun, but I much prefer Curtly Redacted.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Nothing screams “valuable intellectual contribution” better than a wanker replying to his version of comments he deleted, after he deletes them.

                • jim says:

                  Those few contributions by you that I do allow are consistent with my descriptions of the comments I suppress, and once in a while I allow a comment that I should suppress to show the kind of stuff that I am suppressing.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  If I was a Martian encountering this exchange, I’d assume that there must be some kind of evidence of Marxism in the deleted comments, because there sure as hell isn’t in the ones that get through.

                  I guess that’s the idea.

                  Thing is, it ain’t subtle. You look like a liar because you are a liar.

                  I have never said a single thing that could be construed as ‘Marxist’. You just use that term to neutralise disagreement because you expect right-wingers to react to that word with hatred.

                  In many cases in this community, you’re correct because they do.

                  Most people who read but don’t comment will have deep concerns about your intellectual integrity.

                  Replying to comments you delete, after you delete them, especially if you’re claiming the person believes something that they’ve repeatedly said they don’t believe, and especially when you accuse THEM of saying you believe things you do not believe and trying to put words in YOUR mouth……….

                  Makes an experienced reader hear echoes and see rat whiskers.

                • jim says:

                  Most of what you write assumes Marxist history and Marxist economics is true and uncontroversial, and that I and everyone else agrees that it is true and uncontroversial.

                  With great regularity I say “If you argue so and so, as if it was not obviously true, and not everyone agreed that it was true, then I will allow it”, where so and so is some major point of Marxist doctrine.

                  I last said that two hours and forty minutes ago, and I am heartily sick of saying it over and over. Saying it over and over is a waste of bandwidth.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I have never said a single thing that could be construed as ‘Marxist’.”

                  This is a “real communism has never been tried” type argument.

                  1. Your class theory is at the least very similar to Marxist.

                  2. Your view of economic history is almost identical to Marx.

                  3. Your view of how the economy should be adminstered is while not what Marx preached broadly similar to what Marxist states implement in practice.

                  If you really WANT TO understand you should read Moldbug before you read Jim… no insult to Jim but I think Moldbug gives a more detailed and better description of reactionary class theory then Jim ever has (Moldbug uses very frilly language but its more detailed and it paints a better picture for those not yet initiated into reactions mysteries) though Jim is broadly speaking better on solutions to problems then Moldbug ever was.

                • ten says:

                  Sometimes it seems like our gracious host is enjoying conditioning Chronic Repetitionist into submission to the rules. Could it be he also enjoys making bad dogs obedient?

                  As for the dog, by december every other poast had visible tear stains, now morale seems to have improved and occasional glimpses of logos compliant thought structures gleam from beneath the mud.
                  Did the winter depression subside? Did life improve? Did the SSRI’s kick in? Or does it enjoy its training regimen?

                • pterantula says:

                  counterfeit antisemitism on a cold take implies that antisemitism is mostly found in hot takes which implication is antisemitism according to the mainstream https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AakBK5leleE

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Most people who read but don’t comment will have deep concerns about your intellectual integrity.

                  When this communist entryist started working here he serially tried to befriend various different commenters and the host abandoning each attempt as it was rebuffed by people who saw through it.

                  Now he’s working on in-grouping the people who read the comments but don’t comment – he’s retreated to the pure fantasy world where everyone silently agrees with him. It would be tragic if he wasn’t a communist entryist – instead it’s hilarious.

                • jim says:

                  When a commie tells you individually that he is your friend, he has put you individually on the list of people to liquidated come the revolution, as happened to most of the non communist members of the popular front movements. They thought their friends were helping them to power, but their enemies were leading them to the grave.

                  When a commie tells you he is one of your ingroup, like Trotsky, an urban Jewish moneylender, telling the peasants that he too was a peasant, oppressed by the peasant with two cows, he means to get you to outgroup your ingroup so that he can rob, murder and enslave your ingroup, as the Trotskyites killed the cows of the peasants, murdered the peasants, and confiscated their seed corn.

                  Commies want you to outgroup your ingroup, and ingroup your outgroup. They want you to denounce your friends and be friends with your enemies.

                  Trotsky’s shtik was “Hail fellow peasant. I am your fellow peasant, and that the guy over there with two cows is not your fellow peasant, but an minion of Wall Street, for capital assigned him those two cows, and not you. And did I mention I was your fellow peasant, fellow peasant?”

                  Similarly, Carlylean Restorationist tells us that your local Domino’s pizza franchisee is a minion of the mighty multinational conglomerate “Domino’s”, and he did not build that pizza shop. Capital appears out of thin air to be assigned by our rulers, and our evil corporate overlords assigned that shop to him and not you, just as they assigned those two cows to that guy over there.

                  According to Trotsky, Trotsky was a peasant, and that guy over there was not a peasant, but had been assigned two cows by Wall Street. And according the Carlylean Restorationist, the guy with the pizza shop did not build that, but was assigned the pizza shop by Global International Capital. In Marxist history, no one ever creates capital, and no one ever decides how to best to use it effectively. The peasant with two cows and the pizza shop is just skimming of the cream for Globohomo international Capital.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*unresponsive*]

  9. Doug Smythe says:

    Jim, not to bitch too much but I have a quibble with the following statement: “The apprentice role was effeminate and emasculating”- That isn’t strictly speaking true. It is a natural order of things for youth to defer to age. There’s nothing effeminate or emasculating about it, since the apprentice has no prior claim to full manhood status; he’s still a boy, and as such under the rightful paternal jurisdiction of his tutor, whose job it is (as you note) to *make* a man out of the young dumbass. The relationship if anything would properly be described as “masculating” or “defeminizing” (the latter, since it is in entering apprenticeship or military training that the boy leaves the sphere of influence of his mom decisively). There is no shame or stigma whatsoever in having to pay one’s dues.

    • Alchemist says:

      I went to work in my 17th year as an apprentice carpenter. I was the lowest guy on the totem pole in many ways. It was the happiest year of my life in many ways. I was PART of something, I was part of a team of men who had a mission and who worked. By contrast, the modern school/university system places men in a position lower than serf. It truly emasculates. It is a contest and all the spoils go to no one. Even if you are at the top of your class you are not on a team with anyone. You have only competitors. It’s like the guru says* “There are no female friends, there’s just bitch politics.” That continues on through the grad school level as far as I can see.

    • Not in an objective sense emasculating, but if you are a cocky arrogant youth as I and probably Jim were, it does chafe to go from young bully boy to being ordered around all day, though you will put up with it to gain status, the same way you put up with the DI screaming into your ear in boot camp.

  10. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      You make a lot of relevant and important points, which deserve a reply, and show that you have actually read the material you respond to, that you are not just spitting out a script upon detecting the trigger words for that script.

      But then you go and presuppose that the Austro Hungarian empire was a command economy, rather than being capitalist and corporate capitalist, and you take for granted that everyone uncontroversially agrees this to be true.

      So, I deleted it, because I delete everything that tries to persuade by imposing frame on your intelocuter, rather than by presenting argument and evidence.

      Argue Marxism openly and overtly. Don’t just presuppose that Marxism is true, and everyone, including us, knows that it is true.

      Provide some evidence that Austro Hungarian empire was a command economy, that restoration England was a command economy, that King Solomon’s Israel was a command economy.

      I presented evidence and argument repeatedly.

      King Solomon in the Book of Proverbs explicitly tells us what the incentives were in early Iron Age Israel, thus implicitly tells us what the social order commanded by King and God, and enforced by the King’s mighty men, was.

      Those incentives are capitalist and market incentives, and King Solomon explicitly tells us that if you behave as commended by King and God, you too could be a capitalist in early Iron Age Israel.

      He does not tell us “Obey your lord, and he might award you a vineyard”. He tells us “work hard, save some money, judiciously buy some land, plant your vines, and tend them.”

      I have made an actual argument and presented actual evidence. Your turn to present actual argument and actual evidence, rather than trying to impose your frame on us.

      • TheDividualist says:

        >But then you go and presuppose that the Austro Hungarian empire was a command economy,

        CR needs to read Stefan Zweig’s The World Of Yesterday. For the rest of you, it is a mildly interesting (despite its liberal bias, but I think all of you know how to read while applying pinches of salt) book but not supremely interesting, it belongs somewhere to the middle of the bucket list. But at least this article: https://www.city-journal.org/html/neglected-genius-12505.html worths 5 minutes. Again, apply salt. Dalrymple is a good guy but hopelessly liberal.

    • Javier says:

      Can we have one comment section that isn’t a CR shitshow?

      Dude, we get it, muh communism. Fine. You do you man. Now come up with something new to say or pipe down.

      • alf says:

        A guy like CR is the final shit-test.

        He does not respond to words, because he instinctively knows words are just symbols. Why take symbols seriously? Just re-interpret in your favor!

        The one thing CR does respond to is power. He is attracted to it like a woman to dick. He feels priestly power here, so he keeps returning. But through words we are unable to communicate our ideas with him. Our concepts just don’t make sense to him, he just cannot compute them. What we write is gibberish to him, strange combinations of letters on the screen.

        So he keeps on going on this Marxist script, and tries to do what he always does; sow dissent, get commenters to turn against Jim and each other. But because this blog is specifically about countering that sort of thing, it does not work. CR does not understand that with every paragraph he writes, he alienates himself further and further from anyone reading his comments.

        He is a textbook example of why, come the restoration, some people will inevitably receive a helicopter ride.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          If CR is responding to power on his own and resorts to leftism in order to get in, then yes, he needs a helicopter ride. Cannot have defective moral automatons roaming about. That is the zombie/robot apocalypse story, and it must be stopped.

          If, on the other hand, he has been sent here because his masters sense priestly power and seek to disrupt it, he does not need a ride. He just needs instruction from a senior inquisitor on the proper manner of behavior and he will be an excellent low level priest. Hard working, passionate, unimaginative, and dogmatically adherent to the prevailing orthodoxy are the hallmarks of a good parish priest. Do not waste a man’s skills and life because he faithfully served a terrible master. Offer him redemption, and put him to work for your ends.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Your responsive is unresponsive and presumes some mysterious fact not in evidence of which no one else is aware, and which I suspect that no one believes.

              Explain what this fact is that you refer to, and provide evidence for it, and I will allow it.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            You presuppose that the command economy will be more effective in improving morals that the extremely stern and drastic measures that we propose.

            Maybe, but you will have to argue this, not just presuppose it.

            Pretty sure you are right that the command economy will result in everyone losing weight. No fat people in Venezuela – but no strong people either. That is not the kind of virtue that we intend to impose.

            Lets debate this, but I want debate, not mere confident assertion.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              “Lets debate this”

              Impossible while you censor everything that:

              1. Interprets what others say
              2. Avails itself of any recognition that social classes exist
              3. Uses the term ‘capitalism’ to describe big business chains

              If you want to hold off the aggressive censorship, it might be possible, but no way am I going to provide citations and do deep dives only to return and see “deleted: unresponsive” lol

              “You presuppose that the command economy will be more effective in improving morals that the extremely stern and drastic measures that we propose.”

              Care to elaborate? You’ve nailed your mast to a refusal to close down businesses that are creating harmful effects in society. How exactly will you shape their behaviour, and why precisely should they receive this privileged attitude?

              You seem quite willing to shut down my bloody comments, and I’m not saying you shouldn’t. What puzzles me is why the same approach is OFF THE TABLE – not just not recommended but completely excluded – for blacked-dot-com

              • jim says:

                > Impossible while you censor everything that:
                >
                > 1. Interprets what others say

                Your interpretation is, in every case without exception, wildly false, radically unreasonable, and often directly and flatly contradicts your interlocutor’s plainly and bluntly expressed meaning, because you interpret everyone as a Marxist.

                > 2. Avails itself of any recognition that social classes exist

                Your social classes do not exist. Our social classes do exist, and have dramatically distinct voting habits and personal lifestyles. You have to present argument and evidence that they exist. I am not going to allow you to presuppose that they exist as if everyone already knew this and agreed with you. Everyone has capital except the underclass, even though some people, because of thrift, hard work, sound judgment, and good luck, have a lot more capital than others.

                My home office is better equipped, and a hell of a lot more comfortable, than most engineer’s workplaces, and most of those engineers also have pretty good home offices. My neighbor behind me has shipping container workshop in his yard full of numerically controlled machine tools, that can make pretty much anything made of metal or carbon fiber without a lot of human supervision. When he moves, instead of disassembling his home worship, he puts the whole thing on a truck or a ship. And everyone has a computer, an angle grinder, a chain saw, and a pile of tools in his garage.

                Capital is not the critical factor of production – entrepeneurship and sound judgement is the critical factor. Thus the woman depicted by King Solomon does not just work hard at a menial job and buy a vineyard for her family. (And her family is most certainly not assigned a vineyard by the King.) She considereth the land and then purchaseth it, directing capital to its highest and best use through the market, and then she plants vines and tends them, physically creating capital. That she considereth land is what makes capitalism work. It is her consideration, not her hard earned savings, that make her a capitalist.

                This, the critical factor of production, is also, perhaps unintentionally, depicted in the show “Dallas”. The communist states showed “Dallas” to their subjects because the capitalists on the show were depicted as evil – but the capitalists on the show were often depicted making difficult decisions under uncertainty, and often depicted losing money because of the inevitable resulting errors, so that the practical effect of the show when shown in communist countries was to teach the audience that “capitalists” were not a ruling class, not wealthy merely because merely skimming off what their subjects produce, that their wealth comes from their critical contribution to production.

                The communists shot themselves in the foot by showing their subjects that show.

                > 3. Uses the term ‘capitalism’ to describe big business chains.

                You are not describing big business chains.

                Your use of the word implies that the Domino’s pizza franchisee and the kulak with two cows is “capital” – that he is a minion of our evil ruler “capital”, and was merely assigned the cows, rather than causing them to exist in the first place, and that it was terribly unfair to the peasant with one cow that evil capital assigned two cows to the other peasant, so the Marxist urges the peasant with one cow to assist him in killing the cows of the peasant with two cows.

                > > “You presuppose that the command economy will be more effective in improving morals that the extremely stern and drastic measures that we propose.”

                > Care to elaborate?

                I have regularly elaborated forcefully and at considerable length, and no matter what I say, you impose some strange and peculiar Marxist meaning on it.

                Your turn to elaborate.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  *deleted*

                • jim says:

                  Argument by fake consensus. You assume that Marxism is true, and that everyone, including us, agrees that it is true, attempting to impose your frame on us.

                  You assume Marxist history without evidence, explanation, or argument and that we agree with Marxist history in that you assume that the economic order of Elizabethan England was a command economy similar to that which you propose, similar to what Shakespeare depicts Jack Cade as proposing and that we already agree that was the economic order of Elizabethan England was a command economy similar to that which you propose, that we agree that Elizabethan England was Jack Cade’s England.

                  If you present evidence that your program or Jack Cade’s program was applied in Elizabethan England, I would be happy to debate Marxist history.

                  If you post your program without claiming it resembles our past, I would be happy to debate your program.

                  But I have been deleting, and I will delete, any comments that argue from fake consensus, that presupposes that everyone agrees that Marxism is true, that we agree that Marxism is true.

                • Eli says:

                  Very good post.

                  Just yesterday went for dinner with my neighbor, a former Burger King manager and, now, a business owner of a fruit smoothie operation. The only way he’s making money is via prudence, including (of course!) by judiciously not letting IRS rip him. Income-wise he is making no more than I — an engineer — am, likely less. And definitely less than my Ivy League professor friend. But the smoothie guy is definitely busting his ass more than both of us combined.

                  This how most of capitalism looks like.

                  https://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Elaborate please……….. [censored]

                  What a joke, what an absolute crock.

                  Then up pops a second Jew to reassure us all that Burger King is a hotbed of enterprise and innovation, not a monolithic left-wing degenerate globalist corporation stifling the restaurant industry in every country on Earth in pursuit of a one world order, one cultural erosion at a time.

                  Want to defend global monopolies and call them private middle-class businesses? EZPZ Shlomo, just reframe it so that the local manager is the boss!

                  ***thumbs up***

                • jim says:

                  > Elaborate please……….. [censored]

                  I told you why you were censored, but you keep doing it. You have to argue for Marxism, not presuppose that we already agree with Marxism and everyone knows Marxism is true. You presupposed that Queen Elizabeth was Queen over a communist state, and that everyone knew this and agreed it was uncontroversially true.

                  Argument by fake consensus not permitted on this blog.

                  > Want to defend global monopolies and call them private middle-class businesses? EZPZ Shlomo, just reframe it so that the local manager is the boss!

                  Just reframe it so that the kulack with two cows is the boss rather than merely being a minion of wall street.</sarcasm>>

                  Domino’s does not have “local managers” The “local manager” is the boss. He owns the shop. At any time he can fire Domino’s pizza.

                  He can fire them. They cannot fire him. They are franchisor, he is the franchisee. They don’t own his shop. At any time he can take down their sign, put up his own sign, and tell them to take a long walk off a short pier.

                  That is how capitalism is and has always been for thousands of years. Marxists imagine that everything is always a central command economy, and “capital” just happens to the current easily replaceable commander. The capitalism that you imagine has never existed and never could exist. It would self destruct as Venezuelan socialism is self destructing right now.

                  You cannot run a pizza shop from wall street any more than you can run a pizza shop from the presidential palace.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I did not say that, that’s just simply a lie.

                  I said this:

                  1. If you’re right, and capitalism is as old as the hills, then it must be the case that Elizabeth I’s England was capitalist

                  2. I want the restoration of a social and economic order very close to that enjoyed by Elizabeth and her subjects: an order in which if you displeased the Queen, she would tell you to stop – if you were lucky – and if you did not stop, she would kill you. Blacked-dot-com would quickly receive such a cease-and-desist order. (((ARE YOU GOING TO FUCKING DENY THAT?)))

                  3. Therefore, I want – BY YOUR ECCENTRIC LEXICON – the restoration of capitalism

                  4. You seem to be calling me a Marxist *BECAUSE* I call for 1 2 and 3 above

                  But you can’t allow the crystal clear logic of that through, because you’re a LIAR.

                • jim says:

                  I will allow, just once, you to post this commie rubbish to that people can see what I am censoring. It will never be allowed again.

                  You want a socialist command economy, and in the post that I deleted, you presupposed, and again in this post, that Elizabeth the First had such a social order, and that we agree that she had such a social order, that Elizabethan England was a socialist command economy.

                  Reflect on Elizabeth the First’s relationship with the merchant adventurers. They were capitalists, owning, and often building or extensively improving their own ships, buying (or stealing) valuables where they were cheap (or ill defended) and selling them where they were dear, and they got much freer hand under her than they do today. Today, they are still merchants, but are restrained from being adventurers.

                  Under Elizabeth the First you did not become a merchant adventurer by being a member of the aristocracy. Like the woman depicted by King Solomon, you worked hard, saved carefully, invested carefully, created capital by improving what you had invested in, and using it wisely.

                  And you did not get orders from Queen Elizabeth the First about what to invest in or how to use it, while today the priesthood uses the state to interfere ever more aggressively in the internal affairs of corporations and businesses through Human Resource and accounting. Under Queen Elizabeth the first, no Human Resources Department full of cat ladies with huge college debt that they acquired while being accredited for a priestly profession, and accountants either did as they were damn well told by the owners, or, like Clive of India, were themselves merchant adventurers. And back in those days, indeed until quite recently, accountants received no priestly training. They got apprenticeship, as Clive of India did.

                  Clive of India was an apprentice, who got his start by marrying the slightly used daughter of his boss, who needed to unload his no longer marriageable daughter on someone. There was no indication that his boss’s daughter volunteered for this arrangement, and it seems unlikely that she would volunteer, since he was at the time performing an extremely beta social role relative to her father.

                  At the time of Clive of India, the East Indies Company had as free a hand as the merchant adventurers had under Queen Elizabeth the First.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for unsupported assertion.

                  You have to present evidence that Elizabethan England had policies similar to what you propose – for example deciding what foods are healthy and unhealthy and making everyone supply only healthy foods and, like Venezuela, enforcing fair prices, forbidding excessive packaging. Not to mention forbidding the merchant adventurers from all their famous and bold wicked acts, which only started to be forbidden in the 1800s.

                  And your idea of what is healthy and unhealthy is nuts, reflecting progressive holiness fads. Bread does more damage than soft drinks, and pizza is vastly healthier than either bread or soft drinks, providing a substantial amount of fat and protein,

                • The Cominator says:

                  > 2. I want the restoration of a social and economic order very close to that enjoyed by Elizabeth and her subjects: an order in which if you displeased the Queen, she would tell you to stop – if you were lucky – and if you did not stop, she would kill you. Blacked-dot-com would quickly receive such a cease-and-desist order. (((ARE YOU GOING TO FUCKING DENY THAT?)))

                  Yes because its communist tripe. Elizabeth I did not run a command economy. The worst thing she did economically was sell monopolies.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  Totalitarianism is not rule by a sovereign autocrat, but rule by many petty would-be autocrats; an army of lawyers, bureaucrats, judges, managerialists, and other apparatchiks, all looking for somethings, anythings, they can exercise power over.

                • Mike says:

                  Devil’s advocate Jim, care to explain the meaning (and/or lies) behind the term “old money vs new money” if supposedly the merchants have no conflict with the aristocracy?

                • jim says:

                  I said that the merchant class is incapable of ruling, that we are always ruled by priests or warriors. Every group conflicts over status, so there is conflict within the merchant class and between the merchant class and the priestly class.

                  And I also said that the French revolution was an attack by the priestly class on both the warrior class and the merchant class, in which the merchant class was deliberate ruined, and many of them guillotined, in Venezuela style socialism. But they found they could not do without warriors or merchants, so in the end, predictably came unstuck.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Putting words into my mouth by arguing against a position no one holds: that I say that Queen Elizabeth the first would allow camwhores.

                  If you argue that because Queen Elizabeth suppressed actresses, she also interfered with bakeries and denied merchants the capability to create capital and apply it to its highest and best use, I will allow that comment.

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  Their interests don’t conflict. They still form petty cliques that look down on each other (who then look down on the next group of upstarts with money).

                • Eli says:

                  Actually, about 90% of Burger Kings worldwide are franchises. I don’t know what the number is for McDonald’s, but it’s probably in the same ballpark.
                  https://www.thebalancesmb.com/burger-king-franchise-review-1350380

                  I never claimed that they are selling you healthy food. The point is that it’s still food, there is a menu, and the people who own and operate it are regular hardworking people, with no insidious agenda. The rest is decided by market forces.

                  Of course, to compare cheeseburgers to drugs or to claim the frinchisees are out to get the poor is wacky.

                  Btw, I think that a lot of these dietary choices are artifacts of the past, when laborers ate extremely heavy breakfasts in the morning, cheap calorie-intensive food, to help them carry through the day.

  11. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    [*delete*]

    • jim says:

      Deleted for telling people what I say:

      You accurately quote me at some length, and then put your frame on my words, leaving out the my surrounding text where I directly contradict the frame that you imposed.

      Deleting, instead of responding, because repeating fuller quote in context, in which context I directly and explicitly state the opposite of your frame, is a waste of space.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          You are asking me “If you think that capitalism is ancient, why do you totally agree that capitalism in England is recent, and why did King Charles totally agree that capitalism was a new thing he was instituting?”

          Nuts.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              Your “summary of what I said” is, as always, nearly the opposite of what I said in my characteristically blunt and clear fashion.

              I think you have mixed up your scripts with a script assigned for a libertarian blog.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*deleted*]

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              I told you I will delete every comment that frames Marxism as already agreed, instead of producing relevant evidence for Marxism

              Your comment presupposes and takes for granted Marxist class theory and Marxist history as simply true and uncontroversial, in that you take for granted that Charles the Second’s England was largely pre-capitalist, that capitalists rule today, and did not rule then, and that I agree with Marxist class theory and Marxist history

              Capitalists don’t rule today and they did not rule then. The big difference between today and the restoration is not more capitalism – we have considerably less capitalism. It is that today priests rule – and you are a priest, defending priests and the priesthood.

              No matter how many times you tell us that we already agree with Marxism, we don’t think the primary problem is capitalist power, and we don’t think there has been any great change in capitalist power. We think the problem is priestly power.

              Instead of assuming there has been a radical change in capitalist power and we already agree that there has been, present evidence.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                “Your comment presupposes and takes for granted Marxist class theory and Marxist history as simply true and uncontroversial, in that you take for granted that Charles the Second’s England was largely pre-capitalist, that capitalists rule today, and did not rule then, and that I agree with Marxist class theory and Marxist history”

                Nope nope nope nope, but everybody will believe your side of the story because you deleted then replied. At least that’s the plan.

                Sadly for you, when people see this kind of thing, they take away the correct opinion that you’re not to be trusted, you know that the things you say are lies and you’re doing it for reasons that you’re careful don’t get out.

                Even if you delete this one too, it changes nothing: that’s how people will see it because that’s exactly how it is.

                I repeat: if capitalism pre-dated Charles II (your choice of specific watershed not mine) then why were reforms necessary and why indeed do you continue to defend those reforms.

                You don’t have an answer because you know you’re talking shite.

                • jim says:

                  You continue to presuppose that I am a Marxist, that everyone is a Marxist. To a Marxist, the economic system is the political system, so if I say Charles the Second was a watershed, I supposedly must be saying he was a watershed for the economic system. Charles the second was not a watershed for the economic system, not a watershed for capital, not a watershed for capitalists, who are as they were back in King Solomon’s Israel, performing a similar role with similar effect, except for a handful of Shockley’s.

                  Charles the second was a watershed because he put the priesthood back in their bottle, because he restored the pre civil war order, because he cut off open entry into the priesthood. That is why we refer to the “Restoration”, not the “Innovation”. He made England great again.

                  We are always ruled by priests or warriors. King Charles the Second was a watershed because he made an enormous change to the priesthood. He made minor changes to economic system, and those changes were innovation, not restoration, but everyone calls it “The Restoration” because that is what mattered.

                  Corporate capitalism is a minor innovation to capitalism that only makes a difference when a Shockley gets hold of it. Corporate capitalism, as compared to regular capitalism, makes a major impact on wealth and technology when a Shockley gets to be a CEO, but does not make any political difference, does not have any significant impact on culture, society, faith, or political order. Our economic order is still that of King Solomon’s Israel, except, of course, for accounting and Human Resources. (Human Resources in businesses with more than fifty employees is a government full employment program for the priesthood, and Sarbanes-Oxley transformed accounting into yet another government full employment program for the priesthood. Similarly the enormous and rapidly expanding healthcare administration, composed of people utterly ignorant of medicine, but extremely knowledgeable about transsexuality and the oppression of women. The democrats healthcare program would criminalize formerly high status private doctors and transform into humble and terrified minions of priests. It is an attack on the status of a high status non priest group.)

                  Corporate capitalism makes a big difference to wealth and technology if you get a Shockley or two, but it does not have significant impact on gay sex, mass immigration of people to live on crime, welfare, and voting left, and stuff like that.

                  Notice the entire political class, including most of the Republican party, is fighting tooth and nail against the wall, but when Trump radically cut back H1B visas, which is what really matters to the corporate bottom line, not a whimper was heard. No one noticed except us engineers. The corporations quietly fell into line with a bit of whining.

                  If you are in the political class, or a federal bureaucrat you heard some mighty loud whining from major donors, but guess what happened?

                  The political class totally ignored the corporations, many of them major donors, in favor of bringing criminal gangs in to vote Democrat. Not a dog barked. No one except the corporations care about H1B visas, and the corporations were utterly impotent to make any difference. The political elite continually pulls strings so that a particular donor can bring in a particular H1B worker, but are utterly oblivious to woeful cries from big donors that it should go back to being easy and automatic the way it was before Trump.

                  We are ruled by Harvard, not Wall Street. For example, gay marriage came from Harvard, and corporations did not promote it after until it was already law and already a serious offense to be the first person to stop cheering at a gay wedding. (No one dares stop cheering till the groom signals them to stop.) I have been telling you that forever, and you continue to presuppose that we are ruled by Wall Street, and that everyone agrees we are ruled by wall street, but that is just not what we see in front of our noses. We see Harvard.

                  You absolutely refuse to hear anyone disagreeing with Marxism. No matter how plainly I tell you, will not hear.

                  So pretty soon I am just going to delete all your posts unread, because this conversation is entirely one way. I write, but you do not read – or at least you will not read anything inconsistent with Marxism.

                  Corporations matter, they matter a lot, because of those rare people like Shockley, because they enable people like Shockley to get hold of other people’s capital, but as we saw with gay marriage and H1B visas, this change in capitalism is insignificant for culture, society, official faith, and politics. Charles the Second’s amendments to capitalism affects wealth, technology, and science, but not the social order, not culture, faith, and political authority. Except for a Shockley or two, capitalists continue today to perform the same role with same effect as in King Solomon’s Israel. Charles the Second closing off open entry into the priesthood, and burning one excessively holy heretic at the stake had a major and radical impact on culture, faith, and political authority, and this impact fell apart when we failed to enslave William Wilberfore for apostacy and sell him to Jamaica

                • The Cominator says:

                  What do you mean by capitalism CR?

                  Corporations did not predate Charles II (the closest thing in England is that people could have “shares” of shipping expeditions) but sole propertiorships for profit sure did.

                  What makes you think England before Charles II was a command economy?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  The Cominator asked your definition of capitalism, and you then proceeded to give a Cultural Marxist definition which you attribute to me.

                  Not letting you argue for Marxism by attributing Marxism to everyone else, as if Marxism was universally agreed and accepted by everyone, including me.

                  Present your definition of capitalism as your definition, and then we will debate whether it cuts reality at the joints or not. I would have allowed your comment in its entirety, if did not start with “According to our host …” Your host is not a Marxist.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive and putting words into my mouth.

                  I will not permit you to argue by putting a Marxist frame on everything everyone says. You want to argue for Marxism, you will have to argue for it, not by presupposing that everyone is already a Marxist. Give us some evidence.

                  Repeating what I said above anyway, though it is a waste of bandwidth: Charles the Second is a watershed in English history. Charles the Second is a watershed because he shut off open entry into the priesthood, and it stayed shut till around 1800 or so, not for his economic reforms which had no effect on most capitalism, which remained then as now very similar to capitalism in King Solomon’s early Iron Age Israel.

                  And no matter how many times I say this, you will somehow attribute to my words that I am saying something that is consistent with Marxism and Whig history. I am tired of this.

                  According to you, I agree that Charles the Second set capital free, and made it dangerously powerful, no matter how many times I tell you he did not and how plainly I tell you he did not, and not matter what evidence I present that he did not.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Your questions are not questions, because they presuppose that Marxism is true and that I agree that it is true. If you seriously want them answered, reframe them without the presuppositions.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The Cominator:

                  “What do you mean by capitalism CR?”

                  Sorry, not allowed to tell you. Three deleted replies.

                  Ask ‘Jim’ what capitalism is: whatever he says it is, it is, even if it’s internally contradictory.

                  What I favour is rule by Elizabeth the First. If that’s capitalism then I’m FOR capitalism. If that’s Marxism, (from a Queen who died 215 years before Marx was born lol) then I’m FOR Marxism.
                  I’m FOR Elizabeth, whether it’s a censorable offence or not to claim she might just possibly have taken issue with several private enterprises currently operating in the current year.

                  Even if she took an entirely Tom Woods line on Fetlife, Foxy Bingo and the new cannabis corporations, I’d still support her. She was a proper ruler.

                • jim says:

                  Try replying without attributing Marxism to me and to your interlocutor. Also, without attributing the Randian position to me or your interlocutor. We are not Marxists, and we disagree with Ayn Rand on important points – not that your depiction of the Randian position is accurate either.

                  Each of your replies had “according to our host” – and you then attributed to me the Marxist position, the totally cucked out progressive converged version of the Randian position (which makes no internal sense, as you quite correctly pointed out) or both entirely incompatible positions simultaneously.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Why are you subtly giving the thumbs up to the pending military intervention in Venezuela, Shlomo?

        • jim says:

          I gave the thumbs down to the pending military intervention in Venezuela and stated, implicitly and later explicitly, that the invasion would result in us re-imposing democracy, which would once again vote to loot the shops, which would once again result in no bread and no dentistry.

          Democracy did not work in Iraq when we imposed it on Iraq, and has already failed in Venezuela.

          As I explicitly stated, if we invaded to turn them into a division of Exxon Mobile, that would work, but as I made clear, that is not what is going to happen. The proposed invasion is to reimpose democracy, which was a disaster the first time around.

          • The Cominator says:

            I’d not want the US to invade. I’d want the US to give slight amount of help to Bolsonaro to invade them because I think Bolsonarno would impose a right wing military dictatorship.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*deleted*]

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              “I’d not want the US to invade. I’d want the US to give slight amount of help to Bolsonaro to invade them because I think Bolsonarno would impose a right wing military dictatorship.”

              I have to quote you in full because the host declares any abbreviation, summary or paraphrase to be inaccurate and grounds for censorship.

              I condemn your comment. You should rethink your attitude to this question. Neo-con wars never work, are never justified and are never in America’s or the world’s interest. Worse, the Venezuelans have done you no fucking harm.

              Yep I condemn this unreservedly. There’s no excuse for it.

              • jim says:

                Bolsonaro invading would very likely be great. The shops would be repaired, their shelves would be filled, and you could get a dentist when you have a toothache – which vital facility of civilization has come to an end in Britain.

                In Britain, your tooth starts hurting, you are put on a queue for eighteen months, by which time your tooth is about to fall out. In due course, British mouths are going to look like Soviet mouths.

                US invading Venezuela, we would find ourselves installing democracy, as in Iraq, which would Chavez all over again.

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                (((I have to quote you in full because the host declares any abbreviation, summary or paraphrase to be inaccurate and grounds for censorship.)))

                This higher standard is placed on you due to your conduct.

                (((I condemn your comment.)))

                Priestly vernacular. You use these words to portray yourself as holy as well as enlightened.

                (((You should rethink your attitude to this question.)))

                You phrase this like a woman. You make it sound as if his position is an inherent, intellectual failing. In so doing you sidestep any actual confrontation of ideas, often called Modern Discourse, and elect instead a behavior often called Post-Modern Discourse. You attack the man for the idea. Again, much like a woman.

                (((Neo-con wars never work, are never justified and are never in America’s or the world’s interest.)))

                This is an interesting claim. If only it were supported by some evidence. But it is spurious once you dig down past an inch’s worth of thought. A war “works” if at least one side wins. Maybe you are claiming Neo-con wars don’t work because neither side wins? An interesting thought, but that was my brain, not yours. Your brain decided to fling out a three part, global, universal claim and your brain decided to leave it unsupported.

                (((Worse, the Venezuelans have done you no fucking harm.)))

                Neither have the Mongols, but what bearing has that on the potential benefits and detriments of Brazil taking over the security logistics of a failed state? You are seeking a fabricated moral high ground. How very boomer of you.

                (((Yep I condemn this unreservedly. There’s no excuse for it.)))

                The priestly repetition + emphasis + a condemnation kicker. As if there might have been an excuse if he’d been a holier person, or maybe a negro.

                This is why Jim censors you. Your comments are worthless to the board, deleterious to the discussion, and feminine in the extreme. I’ve been watching the CR soap opera for a while now. You definitely have nuggets of value, but your mind numbing collection of misguided screeds are just not worth the effort required to parse. Why Jim doesn’t just block you I don’t know, but I trust his judgement.

                Why you keep posting is a different story. You are obviously well read (even if the reading can’t/won’t fix you). You are obviously some kind of shitlord (you found this place). You obviously have something to say (you keep poasting). And yet, knowing full well most of us won’t get to bask in your brilliance (thank you Jim), you keep pounding away like a mid-40s roastie with her favorite dildo, trying to conjure a feeling you aren’t even sure you’ve had. My conclusion is that you are either paid to do this, or you are compelled to do this. Sad either way.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Your argument presupposes that capitalism is more recent than the englightenment, and that all of us already agree with that, without, however presenting any evidence the pre enlightenment societies were less capitalist than our own.

                  You are arguing by imposing your frame on your intelocuters, rather than arguing from evidence.

                  Argue for Marxism from historical evidence, and I will let it through.

                • jim says:

                  > You are obviously some kind of shitlord

                  No Carlylean Restorationist is not. The right wing positions he claims to have are not actually our positions, but the left’s depiction of our positions. Thus his supposed right wingness is incoherent and internally inconsistent. He thinks we hate various groups for no good reason, so loudly announces he hates them twice as much as we do for even less reason. But we don’t hate them. We are interpreted as hating them because we notice things that we are not supposed to notice – and guess what – he fails notice the things he is not supposed to notice.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yeah, lefties automatically do this. It’s an automatic response. Their instinct is to seek social camouflage to hide their depraved and weak nature. So they assume that’s what the Right is. But of course we see right through them, and when the time comes we will show them their insides, physically.

                • calov says:

                  So it’s your opinion that CR is a fed? Or just that he fell away from reaction into fascism?

                • jim says:

                  Not a fed. He is Harvard via oxbridge. He is obviously an academic because he attributes to us Marxist doctrine interpreted to be consistent with progressive doctrine, and his responses to my replies are unresponsive. No fed would attribute to us such very specific doctrine, because he would not even know or comprehend such very specific doctrine, and previous cases of entryism against the libertarians were richly funded by Academia. Feds operate where they think they can get an arrest – thus white nationalism is full of feds.

                  When, in one of my replies, I flatly deny some point of Marxist doctrine, he frames my reply to be consistent with that point, and asks me to explain the “inconsistencies” in my reply. Hence the discussion of Bastiat, which I have censored almost totally. I cannot possibly be saying that Bastiat was on the side of those who militarily defeated socialism, because I supposedly totally agree that the French Revolutions consisted of the capitalist class seizing power, and Bastiat cannot possibly have condemned socialism with flaming and magnificent rhetoric, because socialism was supposedly not a thing back then, never mind that the Popular Society was in power back not long before Bastiat wrote, imposing flaming anticapitalist rhetoric on all politicals, and apt to arrest politicals of merchant class origin for insufficient enthusiasm for price controls, wage controls, rationing, production quotas, and the seizure of merchant goods. Academia correctly points out that politicals of merchant origin were quietly opposed to all this stuff, and inclined to enforce it without enthusiasm, and concludes that they were the real power, even though they were forced to speak with the anticapitalist rhetoric of their masters, and imposed the policies of their masters, even though they knew perfectly well that these policies deliberately created artificial famine, much as academia today totally agrees that famine in Venezuela is caused by capitalists hoarding.

                  The red terror, the Committee of Public Safety which executed very large numbers of people, engaged in flaming anticapitalist rhetoric, and forced everyone to speak with the same flaming rhetoric. Everyone, including the merchants themselves, was passionately condemning capitalism and the merchant classes, blaming them for the artificial famine even though they knew perfectly well that the policies that they imposed were imposing the wholly artificial famine.

                  After the Popular Society lost power, the anticapitalist rhetoric was dialed down a lot, and enforcement of anticapitalist policies was dialed down, but nonetheless continued until Napoleon was defeated. But CR will not read me as saying any of this, because it is crimethink, and crimethink does not register with him. A fed would not know enough about the finer points of doctrine to know so specifically what is crimethink. Therefore, academic entryist, not FBI entryist. FBI agents are selected for general political reliability, but not for ability to use obscure academic shibboleths correctly.

                  Academic shibboleths are deliberate obscure and difficult to use without falling into heresy. An FBI agent would not manage it.

                • calov says:

                  How many of your readers or commenters do you suppose are Ivy League graduates? Or otherwise members of the ruling class?

                • jim says:

                  > How many of your readers or commenters do you suppose are […] members of the ruling class?

                  Hard to tell. I expect a lot of them. But today, you identify an Ivy League graduate by correct use of tricky Marxist and progressive shibboleths, and people are not likely to correctly use obscure progressive and Marxist shibboleths on this blog, even if they can. And it is reactionary policy that you don’t use true names, nor reveal biographical data that can be used to help dox you. I know that at least one reader is highly placed right inside the belly of the beast.

              • The Cominator says:

                Not a “neocon” don’t believe in Democracy. I am an anti-communist. We may need somewhere to flee to… a post-communist converted to extreme anti-communist state in the Americas would be a very good thing.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  See part of me wants to just say “you keep on telling yourself that – meanwhile Sheldon Adelson’s laughing all the way to the bank”, but the rest of me knows that (((Jim))) is pulling the same stunt and people like you (Cominator) stand a chance at seeing through it.

                  Don’t fall into the trap that every previous war of assistance was evil but the next one’s just great.

                  That’s the same trap everyone fell into over all the previous ones.

                  NO….MORE…WARS….FOR…..ISRAEL…..

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  Israel is near Venezuela?

                  The trouble is not wars for Israel. It is wars for Democracy.

                  The only reason you say “wars for Israel” is that you figure we hate Jews and want to harm them, so imagine that you are flashing our shibboleths. We don’t hate Jews. Israel should pursue Jewish interests, and America should pursue American interests. Israel is relevant to the middle east, but irrelevant to Venezuela and Afghanistan.

                  The trouble with neocons is not that they are Jewish. Even though they are Jewish they hate Jews more than anyone. The problem with neocons is that they, like you, are commie entryists. They are internationalists, and want international socialism, an international world government, and they want it to be “democratic”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  As I said I don’t want America invading… I’m fine with Bolsonarno doing so with some covert assistance from Trump.

                  The post 9/11 wars weren’t for Israel, they were even less rational then that.

                • Koanic says:

                  The Bible teaches the holding of multi-generational national grudges, and Israel’s debt runs deep. The Levant could use another round of bleach. The civilized man plants trees in whose shade he will not sit; the decivilized man sows hatreds he will not sate. Israel will be a European country, or an Arab one.

                  It would be weak not to answer such a direct and coordinated attempt at erasure via biological and memetic weaponry. We gave them a home, and in return they tried to destroy ours. An eye for an eye, a country for a country. Nothing personal, just making an example.

                  Maybe I’ll start signing my posts, “Israel delenda est.” It’s the most bipartisan blasphemy!

                • The Cominator says:

                  As Jim would say nuts.

                  Israeli Nationalists jews are not the problem or even part of it. Netanyahu supported Trump. His supporters in Israel overwhelmingly support Trump, Orban etc.

                  When you attack right wing jews you drive them and left wing jews together and what we need to do is drive them apart.

                • Koanic says:

                  I totally support right wing Jews against left wing Jews. All genocides should be conducted in a properly Christian manner.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  No good decent jew-hater would be a commie since as we all know the commies were all jews anyways.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Obviously I meant war in Venezuela not war in Israel.

                  “No good decent jew-hater would be a commie since as we all know the commies were all jews anyways.”

                  Maybe that’s why I’m not a commie and have stated as much a gazillion times only to be censored because the host finds it absolutely essential to establish that I am.

                  @Koanic you’ll soon learn. Take a look even slightly deeper than usual and you’ll notice a pattern emerging…. every;single;time.

                • jim says:

                  You don’t hate Jews. You are entryist to anti semitism as you are an entryist to reaction. You dress yourself in random fragments of ideas taken from the Daily Stormer, which fragments fail to fit together and make sense, because you don’t expect the Daily Stormer’s ideas to fit together and make sense. You don’t know, and don’t understand the reasons and theory behind the fragments you lifted from them, any more than you know and understand the reasons behind the fragments you lift from us.

                  If you hated Jews, you would understand why the Daily Stormer hates Jews. You don’t. They supposedly hate Jews for no sane reason, so you declare you hate Jews twice as much for even less reason.

                  You don’t know, and don’t care, about the internal logic of the systems of ideas that whose shibboleth’s you use – badly.

                • The Cominator says:

                  To be fair to CR 95%+ of anti-semites ideas don’t coherently fit together.

                  The average hardcore anti-semite tends to start with the assumption that Jews (generally all of them) are bad and part of a conspiracy of pure evil and then work backwards trying to prove it. If you bring up good jews like Stephen Miller they generally have no answer for you. This is not the exception this is the rule.

                • jim says:

                  The Daily Stormer is embarrassed by the failure of Venezuelan socialism, which resembles their own, in that the merchant class was not nationalized outright but was subject to controls that take away their entrepreneurial function and deny them the opportunity to put capital to its highest and best use, and blames the Jews for the failure of socialism. They have a point and an argument, in that “the International Community” wants to rule Venezuela, and “the International Community” is in significant part Jewish, so saying the Jews want to rule Venezuela is not stupid, saying that Jews are behind the proposed war is not entirely stupid. But saying that Venezuela is “war for Israel” is stupid. Israel and “the International Community” famously do not get along. If the Daily Stormer actually said “war for Israel”, they said it tongue in cheek.

                  War with Iran, yes that would indeed be war for Israel.

                  If Jair Bolsonaro winds up ruling Venezuela, that would be great. If “the International Community” winds up ruling Venezuela, they will do to them what they did to Russia and Haiti. They are carpetbaggers, the most mobile of mobile bandits. And Jews, being forever in exile, tend to be carpetbaggers given the opportunity, and “the International Community” is exactly such an opportunity, so if “the International Community” winds up pillaging anything left in Venezuela, the pillagers are going to be even more disproportionately Jewish than the rest of the “the International Community”

                  So when the Daily Stormer blames the Jews for the failure of Venezuelan socialism, they are wrong, and their argument has big holes in it, but they actually have an argument and evidence, which evidence and frame Carlylean Restorationist is transparently unfamiliar with.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Maybe that’s why I’m not a commie and have stated as much a gazillion times only to be censored because the host finds it absolutely essential to establish that I am.”

                  You get accused of being a commie because you

                  1) Keep saying that a command economy is a good idea.

                  2) Persistently articulate social class theories which sound very similar to Marxist class theories.

                  3) Present false history whereby pre-Enlightenment Europe was made up of command economies. Egypt was an ancient command economy (actually probably the only successful command economy in history dunno why Marxists never look to it) but medieval Europe and ancient Rome (prior to Diocletian and Marcian ended the command economy in the East that Diocletian created) were not command economies.

                  4) Try to argue that there is a consensus to these things. And maybe among normie progs there is but no such consensus exists here.

  12. Glance of the Promethian Firebestower says:

    Interests. The world runs on interests. Ideology is fine, but it must rest harmoniously atop the underlying interests.

    You repeatedly say that monogamy is top-down coercively enforced socialism of the means of reproduction. This is also fine. But it is important to keep in mind that this is not a natural state of affairs. It is a POLICY pursued in light of certain specific INTERESTS.

    A policy, pursued BY WHOM, in the interest of WHAT??

    To ask is to answer: the masses of young men are bought off, paid off, their loyalty purchased, so that they labor for the good of society, id est the wealth and power of the tawp dawgs.

    And this is the rub: that in order for the grand authorities of wealth and power to DESIRE to enforce monogamy, the BENEFIT they gain thereby must exceed the COST they incur.

    What is the benefit, what is the cost?

    The benefit is positive — male laborers and soldiers — and negative — preemptively subdued riots and/or revolution. The cost is to give up the right of droit du signeur X 100 which now exists in 5 C.Y.

    The cynical observer would observe that that net balance, in the real world, isn’t looking so good for the little guy.

    It also must be considered that, as E. Michael Jones so eloquently lays out in his oeuvre, sexual liberation is 100%, through-and-through, start-to-finish, a scientifically engineered form of SUBJUGATION explicitly intended from the very beginning to literally dissolve the Western civilization.

    But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by ideology alone, but by every interest that proceedeth out of the design of Nature.

    • jim says:

      Nuts

      Who is going to riot? Women?

      Emancipation is a shit test that we failed. Women get bitter, angry, resentful, and frustrated when you fail their shit tests. They love it when you pass their shit tests.

      Who are the biggest losers from the sexual revolution?

      Billionaire Bezos, owner of Amazon, is one of the biggest losers. Under the older system, he would have an obedient respectful virgin wife, and would also be banging his eighteen year old secretary on the side. (Which we would tolerate provided he did not spoil too many women, thereby undermining patriarchy, and did not leave his wife, thereby undermining marriage.)

      • Glance of the Promethian Firebestower says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Don’t tell me “its obvious”. It is not at all obvious. Explain as if you are addressing someone who does not reflexively accept every article of progressivism and Marxism as self evidently true, and is not familiar with every single doctrine of a rapidly increasing pile of doctrines, many of them mutually contradictory.

          State your premise explicitly, and reason to this “obvious” conclusion.

          • Incredulous Stare of the Bequeather of Reason says:

            Jim, I never would have expected you, of all people, to deny the mass sedative power of vidya, porn, and high fructose corn syrup.

            I long thought you smart, sane, and reasonable.

            My disappointment is inarticulable.

          • Koanic says:

            Communist Revolutionary and florid faggot, I think it would be hilarious if you started commenting on Jim’s site using the Gab Dissenter app. You slot right in with the Flat Earthers.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              I’m not in touch with this part of the discussion thread and since ‘Jim’ has censored the guy before responding to what he claims was said, I have no idea what he’s supposed to even have said.

              I have nothing intelligent to add to any of this.

              I do however sincerely hold that the above question beggar is wrong.

              He writes:

              “the mass sedative power of vidya, porn, and high fructose corn syrup.” and invites the reader to concede his implied claim that these things have no power over anyone in society. The whole concept of degeneracy and a culture gone awry is fake and gay by this way of thinking.

              This is a surprising attitude and it’s hard to understand why anyone would think this, or anything remotely like it.

              It’s demonstrably true that there exist in this world ‘problem gamblers’, ‘problem drinkers’, the morbidly obese, people with out-of-control debts, the mass prevalence of payday loans and so on.
              There are only two POSSIBLE, let alone legitimate, responses to this: either it’s a problem or it isn’t a problem.

              There’s no sane way anyone can simply deny the existence of these utterly and undeniably real phenomena, and one might expect self-identifying reactionaries to be the loudest critics, not the most eager defenders.

              • jim says:

                It is also demonstrably true that the morbidly obese, the alcoholics, etc, are mostly hispanic. So I don’t care.

                It is also demonstrably true that reactionaries have the individual solution to the individual problem of obesity: Meat, fasting, lifting iron, manliness, and supplemental testosterone. So I care even less. I and others have published the solution, and if anyone fails to apply it, sucks to be him.

                Obesity etc are individual problems, not political issues.

                It is also demonstrably true that socialism is not the cure for these problems, because under socialism there is not much to eat except bread, which is as bad for your health as a similar quantity of sweet drinks based on high fructose corn syrup, except that there is never enough bread. So instead of people under socialist rule getting obese, they suffer agonies of toothache and their teeth fall out.

                The problem of gluttony is an individual vice, not susceptible to political solutions, except that you guys shoot the cows of the peasant with two cows, which is a political solution that solves gluttony alright, but is a less than satisfactory solution.

                The problem of adultery is far more serious and far more important, and it is susceptible to political solutions.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  deleted

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. You are responding to what the left says I say, not what I say.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Oh it’s much simpler than that. I’m dismissing your individualism. It’s Jordan Peterson tier Whiggery and it does nothing but harm.
                  The Cathedral LOVES right-wing individualism.

                  You can bet every Burkean, Spoonerite, Calhounian, Randian and Georgist from the past two centuries had very clean rooms indeed, kept themselves fit and healthy and always remembered to be kind to their servants.

                  We need the iron fist of a state that we control: a state that bends to our equally iron WILL. We need to milk liberal tears until we breathe the salty air in every hallway.

                  First a thousand dollars, then upwards from there: the demands of the white lobby are never-ending.

                • jim says:

                  The Cathedral’s position on right wing individualism is rendered obvious by the mindless conformity and rigid ideological uniformity of our tenured academics, and by the ever swelling apparatus to impose correct thought on everyone, for example the Human Resources Department.

                  Burke is the father of cuckservatism, not the father of individualism. The trouble with Burke is that the Burke of Liberty subverted the Burke of authority. Whenever Burke had to deal with you lot, as when he condemned the French Revolution, he had to invoke the throne and altar that he was otherwise busy undermining.

                  If no stationary bandit, going to have mobile bandits. If no state religion, going to have a worse state religion.

                  Cuckservatives have no ground to stand on. If liberty, why should some people have property and others not have property, why should some people have authority and others not have authority, which is why Burke had to turn to throne and altar when viewing the catastrophic consequences of his own cuckservative doctrines. The Burke of liberty continually contradicts and subverts the Burke of authority.

                  But wholesale rejection of individualism is not an option, because then everything becomes a coordination problem, and coordination problems are at best difficult to solve, seldom have satisfactory solutions, and usually have only utterly disastrous solutions.

                  Rejecting individualism does not help with the obesity problem: You will forbid food you deem unhealthy and mandate food that you deem healthy? The school lunch program already does this which results in disastrously unhealthy official school meals, and the terrible food characteristic of every socialist regime. Turns out that it is much easier for a mother to feed her children healthy food than for a vast overpaid bureaucracy to feed an army of children healthy food.

                  At the same time, making individualism a religious principle leads not to freedom, but to totalitarianism, for freedom is secured by walls that separate the proper domain of my power and decisions from other people’s, and those walls are an intrusion on their freedom to set fire to the supermarket and steal a case of beer, leading to the socialism painfully familiar to the Chinese who produced this video.

                  And, as Moldbug argued, those walls have to be ultimately backed by a sovereign – though you turn him on his head by telling us that he told us the sovereign should tear down those walls, and the walls should be torn down to punish the peasant with two cows and the man who runs the local Domino’s pizza franchise.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  No, as I’ve said a gazillion times, I would shut down the globalist chain restaurants for a plethora of reasons which include, pretty far down the list, the fact that consumption of their garbage has historically gone hand in hand with the obesity epidemic that’s making our countries ugly, lazy, weak and sick.

                  Every time I make this point, you respond as if I’m calling for liberal regulators to wag fingers at people to get them to cut calories.

                  You have to attack this straw man because if you try to attack the real argument you know you’ll lose. You’re literally ‘defending the undefendable’, and for exactly the same reasons!

                • jim says:

                  > I would shut down the globalist chain restaurants

                  There are no “globalist chain restaurants”.

                  It is utterly impractical and completely hopeless to run a restaurant from wall street for much the same reasons as socialism always fails. Every Domino’s pizza is owned by an individual franchisee, a small businessman who is his own boss, and can at any time take down Domino’s sign and put up his own sign.

                  That you want to go after the “globalist chain restaurants” tells me that you intend to murder the peasant with two cows on the basis that he is a giant agribusiness that is threatening the earth with global warming or some such.

                  The guy who owns my local Domino’s pizza franchise is an OK guy, and you mean to kill him or enslave him, as dentists have been enslaved in England.

                  Enslaved dentists in England are not fixing people’s teeth, and enslaved pizza shop owners of confiscated pizza shops would not produce pizza.

                  Or, for that matter, bread, as they are now discovering in Venezuela.

                  If globalist chain restaurants actually existed, they could not provide pizza for much the same reasons as Britain’s national health service cannot fix people’s teeth.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim you should make an individual article on “right wing individualism” and “cuckservatism” along the lines of your comment here.

                  Authentic NRxers all know it but this is a very good executive summary of it to be put on forums and such…

      • Dave says:

        Tom Brady, the greatest football player of all time and one of the sexiest men alive, married a rapidly fading 29-year-old supermodel who had already been banged by several other famous athletes, and is now so ugly that some people think she’s a witch. What hope is there for us regular guys?

        • Incredulous Stare of the Bequeather of Reason says:

          Dude, they all have an expiration date. Gisele was hot for nearly an entire extra decade.

          Marry at 20 and at 30 you’ll be in the same boat.

          (Unless you practice serial monogamy.)

          Speaking of, if a cabal of tawp dawgs got together and plotted to make droit du signeur real, and about a decade long, they could hardly have done a better job.

          It really makes you think.

          • Dave says:

            Tom Brady didn’t get that extra decade, other guys did. Any woman could give you an extra decade of hotness by marrying you at 18 instead of 28, but she won’t because she doesn’t want to waste one more minute of her youth on her husband than she absolutely has to.

            Had I married my present wife ten years sooner, I would have gained a decade of great sex with a beautiful young woman, had two or three more children, and lost nothing at all.

    • pterantula says:

      lol you replaced the substance of bread with the substance of words to deny the importance of ideas

      well

      I’m derriere diffident about my favorite board, /doomer/, dedicated to the idea that there are no incentives, now has a sodomy thread and a voodoo thread where the doomer aesthetic only includes the vice of drunkenness as intellectual self-mortification

      so denying incentives doesn’t work either

      but i guess thats what you said anyway

      next time less blasphemy plz also droit du signeur is an evil hoax

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      [*deleted*]

  13. peter says:

    You make a very compelling case against a society that empowers feral women…The only remedy for that, it would appear, is the looming CW2, and perhaps also the influx of Asians who don’t buy into that narrative at all.

  14. Monogamy is capitalism rather than socialism, a transaction rather than the assignment of goods by command. Pussy for military service if you are a nominalist.

    I usually write like I am a nominalist because it tends to ensure substantial debate rather than specious debate about the nature of truth, but in my opinion this transaction is a bit easier to intuit as a covenant of two intangibles. As the supreme alpha male of the land, the sovereign trades some of his authority over women to the common man to ensure that he can enforce chastity in his daughters and obedience in his wife. In return, the common man gives his sovereign loyalty in war and obedience in peace.

    This is not redistribution by command, this is a mutually beneficial trade of things which properly belong to each party and are more valuable when traded. The King could bang every woman in his territory, but then he would be king over a henhouse of bickering bitches and disloyal cucks. His supreme alphaness is more valuable when traded for loyalty. A common man could live far from society and use his violence only for himself, give his obedience only to himself, but then he is fighting a constant war against nature and other men. So his violence and his obedience are more valuable when traded for security, peace, and marriage.

    This covenant leaves a man enough violence and agency to run his household and defend his property while leaving the King enough alphaness to marry the highest-status woman according to male society and fuck the prettiest mistress according to nature.

    If a government tried to enact actual pussy socialism by ticking off boxes to assign wives to husbands, it would probably be as disastrous as socialism of goods and no one has been stupid enough to try it.

    • pterantula says:

      > I usually write like I am a nominalist because it tends to ensure substantial debate rather than specious debate about the nature of truth

      nominalism is specious debate about the nature of truth

      > defense of marriage using masonic social contract theory

      I prefer the classical liberal state of nature as householder with woman theory lol

      it is a criticism of progress that it’s unsustainable. We should prefer good government to bad government in our terms for right and wrong, and our world is composed of freeholders who freely choose what is comfy. The terms of marriage between our people have always been, and will always be,

      “from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.” +

      • Monogamy is not a masonic social contract that has to be renewed by consent for every man in every generation. It is made once and you inherit it. In this it is unlike capitalism but also unlike socialism, which requires continual progress and reform.

        I am not defending monogamy in the terms of capitalism because the principles of capitalism are the first eternal good and monogamy+monarchy has to derive its good from the principles of free exchange, rather both have similarities because they are both reflections of the eternal good that comes from God or Gnon or whatever you prefer.

    • alf says:

      Yeah been thinking about this too.

      It is not entirely correct to call it socialism, although it gets the point across.

      I think enforced monogamy is capitalism for men, socialism for women. Men are free to purchase a woman on the market, if they can afford it, and women are divided like winner’s loot.

  15. Reziac says:

    “Women should be attached to one male and not allowed to ride the cock carousel, ideally the first male they ever have sex with, hence shotgun marriage.”

    The flipside of this is that each man would be permanently attached to one female and would not be allowed to provide that cock carousel, which would both preserve the availability of virgin females for their fellow males, and put an end to the scourge of fatherless children (thus greatly reducing the number of feral juveniles).

    • Koanic says:

      Blue pill is gay pill. Consult your Old Testament for a dose of testosterone, stat.

      • Lance says:

        That’s not blue pill, it’s simple math. If the population is 50/50 male/female, and we have a near-perfect patriarchy that ensures nearly 100% of eligible men are able to take a chaste wife, then it is literally impossible for a significant number of men to have multiple sex partners, because then there would no longer be enough chaste women to maintain that system.

        Red pill is understanding female sexuality, it is acknowledging the mutually beneficial but non-reciprocal nature of marriage and sex. It is not refusing all constraints on male sexuality. In an actual patriarchy, only a very small number of alphas can be permitted to sleep around, otherwise ordinary men have no incentive to loyalty (to the sovereign, that is).

        The pussy utopia you imagine can only be maintained with a sex ratio that skews heavily female, which could not last longer than 1 generation absent some bizarre genetic manipulation. Also, I really don’t want to think about the kind of culture produced by a society of 80% women.

        • Reziac says:

          Basically what I was getting at, yes.

        • Koanic says:

          > That’s not blue pill, it’s simple math.

          Comrade, you are ready for the Central Planning Bureau. Don’t worry, all the math is simple!

          In Biblical patriarchy, no alphas are permitted to sleep around. If the King tries it, God punishes him spectacularly.

          > The pussy utopia you imagine

          You have no idea what you’re talking about. The Law worked fine.

          • Lance says:

            Don’t accuse me of socialism because you can’t do math. Fact: if you have polygyny, you have promiscuity and incels. The more polygyny, the fewer virgins and the more incels.

            Yes, The Law did work fine. The Law also, while primarily restricting female sexuality, did proscribe at least some male sexuality. Rape, for example, while technically being a crime against the husband or father, was still a crime.

            No reactionary society can constrain the behavior of a sovereign. That’s unimportant here. The King may be the ultimate alpha but he isn’t the only one.

            • jim says:

              No rape was not a crime in Old Testament times.

              Raping a girl and then dumping her was a crime – it was exactly the same crime as seducing a woman and dumping her.

              Whether the woman consented or not made no difference to the man’s culpability, though it made a big difference to the woman’s culpability.

              This reflects the real world behavior of women, who behave in a way that makes consent profoundly unclear, and even more unclear to themselves.

              In practice, women do not complain about rape. They complain about having sex with a man who then promptly fails their shit test. After such an event, a woman feels creeped out and disgusted, and mentally files that feeling of revulsion and disgust under whatever heading is socially acceptable in her society.

              Husbands and fathers object rape – and if they were allowed would object exactly as strenuously to seduction. We have to make the complainant, the primary victim in law, someone who is likely to object to the behavior that we want to suppress, which rape law fails to do, and sexual harassment law fails to do.

          • jim says:

            The King sleeping with other men’s wives is apt to be disastrous, and regularly ends the power of Kings.

            Solomon with thousands of concubines, no problem.

    • Bob says:

      Afaik, the OT says to replace
      “each man would not be allowed to provide that cock carousel”
      with
      “the father can kill the married man who sleeps with his daughter”
      “the father can shotgun marry his daughter to the unmarried man who sleeps with his daughter”
      “the husband can kill the man who sleeps with his wife”

      • jim says:

        Not what the old Testament says.

        The old Testament says that the father should ordinarily give his daughter to the married man who sleeps with her as an additional wife.

    • jim says:

      One pin can pop a hundred balloons. We have to control female sexuality, not male sexuality.

      If you try to control male sexuality, that just means that uncontrollable anti social males father a large proportion of the children.

      Eggs are precious, sperm is cheap. You guard what precious, not what is cheap.

  16. BC says:

    I’ve been doing some thinking about homeschooling. In my experience so far most male home school kids are not terribly well adjusted to normal male hierarchies due to the lack of interaction with them that would normally happen in school. Apprenticeship would probably solve this issue, but it’s currently not really a thing in the US for most people. However, girls do very well with homeschool are likely to come out much more interested in being a wife and mother instead of an Instagram slut even with the pozed state of the churches that homeschool groups tend to form around.

    I think it might be useful to send boys to regular school but definitely keep the girls homeschooled.

    • Koanic says:

      > I think it might be useful to send boys to regular school but definitely keep the girls homeschooled.

      Absolutely not. It is a soul-corroding character-degrading waste of time. If you have not figured out how to lead your son into the adulthood in the age of the Internet, don’t have children.

      • BC says:

        Fuck off with that bullshit Koanic.

        • Obadiah says:

          The one thing that improved my character in any way as a consequence of attending public school was participation in team sports–which is an activity that school isn’t necessary to organize or participate in to begin with.

          Aside from basic math and science, along with elementary skills like reading and writing and whatnot, the educational curriculum in my public school was worthless for turning students into anything other than neurotic, Western-civilization-hating, morally degenerate, deluded, confused, hoodwinked, unthinking debt slaves.

          Fuck public schools.

          • Jehu says:

            Team sports are the one area in public schools where striving for excellence is still actually sort of, kind of tolerated.

            • Anonymous Fake says:

              Sports are the hardest lesson for conservatives to accept. It’s the first and most brutal experience of being beaten down by cheating elites who start abusing performance enhancing drugs as soon as they hit puberty. The elites in most other fields, especially capitalism, are the same kind of sociopaths.

              I say avoid sports. Avoid rigged competitions. It’s better than “winning” a cuck bronze medal because the liberal gold medal winners won’t engage in nice fair play.

              • Simon says:

                What a faggot!

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                Gay.

                That said, martial pursuits are better than sports for inculcating masculinity in young men, particularly those that are team based. Lifting, shooting, wrestling, hiking. Maybe hockey, particularly if the fighting is allowed.

                Let the invaders have the games. Priests play games, but we can make new games. Warriors practice to hurt people, and if you priests want warriors, you have to learn the warrior lingo. Jim has it, but most of the rest of you do not. Learn it, or when the time comes, no one is going to pay you any attention.

                Fake, what is your position on sports for women?

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                I’mma pile on and say you have the big gay, but only because you are a copout. I’m sure some kids are juicing. So what? You sound like a weeaboo faghot bemoaning the use of ballistic projectiles in war. Cheaters add another dimension of challenge. The point of sports is team building and instilling disciprine, not trophies. Cheaters are not an excuse to not play; they are an excuse to not play by the rules.

      • alf says:

        Koanic stop being an idiot.

        You’re what, 30-ish? You talk like someone pretending to be 60 who for the first time in his life has procured a gun and really REALLY wants to kill a commie to make up for all the repressed stuff in his life.

        Calm down. Stop overcompensating. You’re fine as you are. You are among friends here. A bit of modesty goes a long way.

        • pterantula says:

          Koanic is fine. Cominator is the first one we feed to right-wing CR when we need to prove our loyalty ;]

        • Koanic says:

          You’re some sort of Scandinavian who spent time in New York right? I’m sure your advice is relevant to those milquetoast milieus.

      • Theshadowedknight says:

        Koanic is correct; stop being pussies.

        Send your sons and daughters to public school, you get effeminate sons and masculine daughters, and no grandchildren.

        Send your son to public school and homeschool your daughters, and you end up with effeminate sons and feminine daughters, and maybe your daughters give you grandchildren.

        Homeschool your sons and daughters and you will will have masculine sons and feminine daughters. You will most likely have grandchildren.

        If you do not want to do the work of raising sons, then you should not have them. Koanic might be obnoxious and overly aggressive sometimes, but in this case he is absolutely correct. Find a mentor for your sons if you must, but do not send them to public school to find one.

        • alf says:

          Around here, no one does homeschooling. For me, if I’d do such a thing, I’d be raising eyebrows.

          At the moment I’d rather risk the damage of public schools than the damage of stamping my kids social outcasts.

          Besides, how big is the teachers’ influence really? It wastes time sure. Maybe they could spend that time learning more useful stuff. But, unless you are grandfathered into a farm or some stuff, you just don’t have the resources to provide full-time private tutoring.

          • Alchemist says:

            I think that it is easy to underestimate the degree to which public schools have become soul crushing for most if not all young men.

            >Besides, how big is the teachers’ influence really?

            An actually good tutor – life changing. ie. one that teaches you to learn, instead of instructing and proselytizing.

            >It wastes time sure. Maybe they could spend that time learning more >useful stuff.
            Not all but many of the greats in science and math started early. Waiting until senior year in high school to learn calculus is deathly.

            >you just don’t have the resources to provide full-time private tutoring.

            1. If you live in a place where you can pool with neighbors/congregations then you can do it reasonably.
            2. If I had it to do over I would spend all my college tuition $$ on a writing tutor and a physics/applied math tutor and just get a PhD. Way better use of time and $$.

            And I graduated high school in ’87. My nephews are in grade school and jr high now. It is so so so much worse. The one bright spot is they have robotics club, and good sports outside of the school.

          • Bob says:

            It’s not so much the teacher’s influence, but the habits of sit down shut up. Homeschoolers aren’t programmed to fit into the system. Sometimes it shows up in bad ways, like with antivax, sometimes in good, like resisting poz.

            If you have sports teams they can participate in, they’ll be fine, socially. That is, if you and your wife are normal. Good luck.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              Is anti-vax so astounding?

              Doctor: “Eat according to this food pyramid, eat eggs, take these drugs oops they are unhealthy lol. Don’t eat eggs eat eggs, take *this* drug, eggs are bad again. You can eat eggs food pyramid is bad that last drug was bad, have some opioids instead. I know you lost 50 pounds on that diet but it’s clearly unhealthy unlike my diet because I am healthy at any size. Oops opioids are bad lol sorry for killing your friends. Would you like to get vaccinated?”

              “Uhhh, no, I’ll pass on the shots, thanks.”

              Doctor: “Ahhh, anti-vaxxer! DONT YOU FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE BECAUSE I FUCKING LOVE SCIENCE YOU MUST LOVE POLIO AND DYING AT 2 YEARS OLD INSTEAD WHY DO YOU HATE HEALTH AND BABIES!?!?!?

              Oh, also, that man is now a woman its science.”

              More to the point, the Gardasil vaccine has had enough fatal adverse effects that is has statistically killed more young women then it will save. Question the wisdom of that shot, and you get rabidly attacked by normally sane people. Is anti-vaxx such a strange phenomenon?

              We judge people based on the red pill most of all, because it it the best test for loyalist or interloper. If you, a normy, have to set up a heuristic for lefty science hoax nonsense and you see that behavior around all the usual suspects like global warming, queers, and vaccines, are you going to shoot your kids up with the shit that the doctor is offering you?

              • jim says:

                Back when smallpox and polio were real threats, it was reasonable to cut a few corners in preparing vaccines and coercively imposing vaccination campaigns.

                Trouble is that this got institutionalized, and they are still cutting a few corners in preparing vaccines and imposing vaccination campaigns.

                The HPV vaccine, a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease was imposed on nine year old girls, because imposing it on the actual carriers, adult gay males, was too politically incorrect, has caused an epidemic of sterility and infertility. One quarter of girls vaccinated with HPV become infertile.

                • Roger u says:

                  “The HPV vaccine, a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease was imposed on nine year old girls, because imposing it on the actual carriers, adult gay males”

                  My wife was having lunch with some female friends (all early 40s) and HPV came up. All of her friends had it. This is anecdotal, of course, but what are the odds that they all had slept with a bisexual man? Based on this anecdote, it seems HPV is likely widespread. Are “Chads” bisexual or did enough women sleep with bisexual men in the past to spread it to the general population of men or some third possibility?

                  To be clear, I’m against vaccinating underage girls for it.

                • jim says:

                  Perhaps you are right. On the other hand, perhaps you under estimate how many men those women have slept with. Early thirties, very late twenties, right? Heterosexual males recover from HPV very quickly, because they only get one strain at a time, and don’t get it all that often, while gays usually have multiple strains. Women who catch HPV frequently fail to recover, depending on the strain. If it lingers for a long time, harms them.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  Slightly tangential, I read that Ebola is in the news again. Is there a record of ANY white person dying from Ebola? I remember a case of a few years ago of white people contracting it, along with some of their black associates. They were flown to the US for treatment. All the whites recovered and some of the blacks died.

                • jim says:

                  To the best of my knowledge, no white person.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “To the best of my knowledge, no white person.”

                  Some cathedral personnel has been infected.

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

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Please ignore comment above, misread the initial comment.

              • jim says:

                Some anti vaxxers are nuts. Some are looking to sue the doctors, subconciously or consciously knowing that lawyers and judges are priests, and bitterly hate anyone who has high status without being a priest.

                But events have confirmed the vaxxer thesis that the vaccine makers, and those that impose vaccines upon us, are reckless and dangerous. The HPV vaccination program has been a catastrophe, and everyone is quietly ignoring that catastrophe.

                • BC says:

                  >The HPV vaccine, a vaccine for a sexually transmitted disease was imposed on nine year old girls, because imposing it on the actual carriers, adult gay males, was too politically incorrect, has caused an epidemic of sterility and infertility. One quarter of girls vaccinated with HPV become infertile.

                  I had no idea.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  Source please? Not skeptical at all and I will do my own digging as well, just trying to save some effort…

                • jim says:

                  A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection

                  Needless to say, this result is being ignored and resisted. No end of scientists to announce that it is not true because of data that they will not show you.

                  HPV vaccination of sexually immature virgins was always evil, insane, and dangerous. It is part of the same program as “How to put a condom on a banana”, and the joys of sodomy. You don’t get herd immunity by vaccinating women. The intent was never to prevent the spread of HPV, for its infection pool is gays who spread it to women through bisexuality, but to tell nine year old girls that it is normal for them to have sex, and that HPV has nothing to do with gays.

                  Gays are the only males who individually benefit from being vaccinated, because they are the only males for which HPV is a problem, and vaccinating gays would have a large impact on herd immunity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Doctors are definitely “priests” as well but not in the power structure of the priesthood outside of their own field.

                • jim says:

                  Doctors are not in the power structure even in their own field. The point of government interventions is to put them under a priestly administrative class.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  They’re certainly starting to be. Pretty dangerous corruption of an important role.

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                As I understand it, vaccination these days furthermore encompasses something like 30 different diseases, with multiple doses administered per visit. By contrast, I had a handful of vaccinations through my youth, perhaps one per year, and never more than one at once.

                Since a vaccine is basically broken down dead bacteria (cell walls), it’s not surprising that there can be severe adverse reactions. Even a single vaccination dose can put an adult to bed for days, e.g., bird flu vaccine. In short, it’s not risk free.

                Finally, neither am I surprised at seeing what strongly looks like (1) rent seeking, by getting your vaccine added to the mandatory list, and (2) ideological/degenerate entries, like HPV.

                • jim says:

                  Everything is poisonous if you administer enough of it. There does not seem to have been any research into the effect of massively multiple vaccinations, and the reaction to the HPV vaccine news shows why.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The biggest issue isn’t even just whatever denatured infectious material itself, but rather, the additional ‘inactive ingredients’ many vaccination serums have (most particularly, preservatives, both hydrocarbon based, and heavy metal based containing mercury or aluminum salts).

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Indeed, both of you.

                  Here is the CDC immunization schedule:

                  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html#birth-15

                  From birth to 15 months, they have two variant schedules. For the first one, they recommend vaccination against 8 diseases with a total of about 20 doses administered. The second one just(?) requires four doses (though sometimes more).

                • Zach says:

                  My son got sick after a flu vaccination.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            Schools can no longer enforce the value of their degrees for white men, or Asians at all. Blacks and Latinx’s dominate education now. Stern disciplinarian principals just damage good kids for no reason now. There’s no payoff and no prestige career for conservative study robots who work harder than everyone else.

            Schools are rigged for the left. I have no idea what fresh college students expect out of their education now, when they can see older millennials approaching 40 with no promised rich career in exchange for earning good grades, extracurricular work, volunteering, etc.

          • Koanic says:

            He’s too afraid of raising eyebrows to raise his kids! It’s a wonder you can manage an erection.

            • alf says:

              Nah man my dick actually grew three inches this year you should come take a look.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                I am afraid that if we have a dick measuring contest, that I would just embarrass the both of you, so I will, in the interest of unity and not upsetting allies, concede and bow out.

              • pterantula says:

                michaelangelo didn’t think men get chosen for their dongers and neither do you ┴┬┴┤・_・├┴┬┴

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            I left school here in the US for a decade to do military service then reintegrate before college. I wound up having to relearn what I learned in middle school math class as college level algebra because the schools have gotten so bad that basic algebra is now a college level course. The math that I was learning at home is now a sophomore year college course. By the time your children reach it, it will be worse, and I doubt that accommodations for decreasing congnitive ability are not being made to cater to invaders in Europe.

            You can teach your children better that a teacher can because you know them better, and you actually care. You can place them in social circles that will prepare them for their futures, because they will be able to interact with adults as equals much faster when they are not surrounded by the savages in public schools.

          • Alrenous says:

            “I’m going to let my children get spiritually raped because I’m afraid of something that cannot materially hurt me.”

            And the Prussian school survives another generation.

        • Howard J. Harrison says:

          Homeschooling boys works less well in fact than one would like, unfortunately. Nice idea. Results are mixed.

          Every nine-year-old boy needs a couple of fistfights with boys who outweigh him by 10 or 20 pounds. Then, having survived the fistfights, he needs to learn to find his place in the male status hierarchy. It’s not neat but it’s kind of fun, and in any case it is necessary for proper maturity into manhood.

          All the theoretical benefits of homeschool cannot make up for the raw lack of fights and such. Approach the homeschooling of boys with caution. Avoid if possible.

          • I totally agree, but they won’t get that at public school either. Public school made the male hierarchy and the status placement games and fights that boys play illegal, encourages gay and womanly behavior of snitching and tattling.

            I don’t care what they’ll teach my future sons, I can undo the programming, but I care very much that they won’t let him socialize like a boy socializes, that they won’t let him grow into a man.

            I feel pretty confident that I can find a way to let my sons socialize with other kids without catlady supervision. Of course, you might live somewhere remote where the schools aren’t nearly as pozzed.

          • Koanic says:

            If homeschooling means being raised by a woman, or a neutered man, in a precious bubble of smarmy ideological delusion, then it is obviously a bad idea.

            • Howard J. Harrison says:

              Koanic, theory is fine. You and I are after all surrounded by Clown World. Neoreaction reacts to the Clown and I am for it to that extent.

              However, I wasn’t actually theorizing.

              Below, Bob is right about the brothers. Brothers help.

            • The Cominator says:

              Homeschooling should generally be done if you can do it. Public education especially pre high-school is turning your children over to the dumbest (I assume we all know statistically how dumb education marjors are) generally female acolytes of the priesthood.

              A few fistfights are good but public school social enviroment (especially pre high school) is not.

          • Bob says:

            Your son needs many brothers as much as you and your nation need many sons.

    • Andre says:

      Define regular school. If you mean today’s mainstream schools, absolutely not.

  17. Bob says:

    I was homeschooled and was in an area with many other homeschoolers, mostly orthodox presbyterian. I’m surprised no one else ever mentions it, but homeschooling amplifies the parent’s influence on the kids. A lot. Social parents, very social kids. Christian parents, very faithful kids. Military officer dad, ultra Chad sons. Awkward parents, very awkward kids.
    I suspect the hierarchy problem is what you described, combined with what I described. I knew a number of homeschooled guys who fit in well, at the top or bottom of the group, but they either had eight brothers or hung out a lot with other homeschool guys.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Those effects are genetic. The environmental effect of parents is extremely limited. Around half of all the cause of any social/psychological trait you care to mention is always genetic. The other half is in effect random, in that it comes from all the various interactions the developing person has. A homeschooled child will generally have friends, will watch television, play video games, read books, learn things and ‘take to’ some subjects more than others, etc. etc. and of course the learning is itself genetically shaped in all manner of ways, not least the importance of preparing for life in a social hierarchy and finding a mate.

      The idea that parents are responsible for your psychological foibles in adulthood is a (((psychiatric))) plot to spitefully undermine the family.

  18. WRB says:

    “Notice we have the word “racist”, but no word for people who claim that there are no races, that everyone is alike. We have the word “sexist”. If you think that women are different from men, you are sexist, but no word for someone who thinks they are interchangeable should be subject to the same rules, and perform the same social roles.”

    I propose:
    Flat-racers
    Flat-sexers

    • pterantula says:

      SJW caught on because everyone, including SJWs, sees SJWs as warriors for social justice. Equalitarianism can’t be debated because it’s insane, and equalitarians will avoid the label in mixed company, as SJWs will claim they are pro-civility in mixed company. TERFs, aka feminists, lost to transhumanists, because transhumanism was where individualism and equalitarianism pointed.

      Transhumanism is dead because * google goggles are creepy * rare earth magnet in your finger to sense magnetic fields is a well understood trick * sexbots aren’t interesting enough for The Twilight Zone anymore, Black Mirror features virtual interracial lesbian sex between dead women instead * trannies don’t have frontholes, transplanted or synthetic organs aren’t available, and would be creepy

      Chekov was impressed with Harry Mudd’s phalanx of fleshlight-wielding androids in the early 60s.

    • Lance says:

      You’re confused. The problem is not that our cleverest wordsmiths have failed to produce clever enough epithets. The problem is the massive institutional power of the Cathedral that gives words like “racist” and “sexist” social power.

      When the neoliberal order collapses and reactionaries are once again in charge, we won’t need new words, because to the average person, the words “feminist” and “democrat” will elicit a minor chuckle while “progressive” and “anti-racist” trigger seething contempt. It’s not the words themselves that matter (although the rectification of names IS important), it’s who controls their meaning and emotional polarity

      • jim says:

        We nonetheless need words to refer to their doctrines, even though, lacking power, those words will not be dangerous to the person to which they are applied.

        As a political tactic, not effective without power.

        As a tool for understanding the world, useful now.

        How about flatsexer and flatracer?

        • WRB says:

          Of course, I was inspired by similarity to “flat earther.”

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Just call it equalist.

          Why is a scientist–science- and -ist–high status? Science is high status, whether the true science of the Royal Society or the fake priestly science of Harvard. Racist and sexist are low status because the priests have made mention of the differences low status. Doing a low status thing makes you low status.

          Eventually, believing in equality will get the same response as believing that women are emotional and blacks commit more crime, but until then we need language we can use. The problem is that contrary to the claim, they do not desire equality but the eradication of European peoples. Destructionist might catch on if it can get memed hard. “Not just obstructionist but working to break America down again. Dont be a destructionist, Make America Great Again.” Also plays off deconstructionism, which is a little too high brow for most, but might make a good catch.

          • pdimov says:

            >Destructionist might catch on if it can get memed hard.

            “Destructionist” will never catch on because by the time you’re finished saying it the audience is asleep. To catch on, need to be accessible to the leftist portion of the bell curve.

            – raciss
            – sexiss
            – nazi
            – cuck
            – jew
            – NPC

            If by some miracle “destructionist” catches on, it will probably be shortened to “destro”.

            • Theshadowedknight says:

              It is not so much for the normal people to use, because by the time we get in power, equalist will work for pretty much everything the left wants. Class warfare? Burn, equalist. Racial equality? Burn, equalist. Sexual liberation? Burn, equalist. That is all they will need to know.

              Perhaps entropist. The left is the heat death of a civilization, the status death, where every useful social structure has been burned for status until status is the only thing remaining. It gets at the fundamental problem of the left, their monomaniacal pursuit of status at any cost.

          • jim says:

            Yes.

            Equalist is readily intelligible.

            • Koanic says:

              Yes that’s the egghead dialectical version.

            • Alrenous says:

              Egalitarian: someone who believes everyone should be treated identically.

              Equalitarian: someone who believes everyone is literally identical. (Or rather, claims to. Nobody actually believes this.)

              The egalitarian position is faintly arguable.
              If you argue with an equalitarian you’ll see they’re hysterical, as if you noticed that they doubt their own position. Have to cover up their weak faith with loud pronouncements.

              • Koanic says:

                Good distinction. I think the reasoning goes like this:

                “I am weak scared and lazy, but that’s not my fault, life is unfair, I should get more stuff, and [designated victim group] is also weak scared and lazy, they should get more stuff too, now I’m noble and you are bad! And since we the weak should get more stuff, we’re really equal to the scary mean strong, except more equal, because we’re nobler. You’re not better than us! We girls have to stick together, we’re the important ones.”

                The solution is to put a baby in the bitches and a bullet in the rest. Solipsism solved!

                • ten says:

                  I think the reasoning goes

                  “Everyone is of equal value, this we hold sacred and true and do not argue (it’s implied in the bible if you wear silly glasses and we didn’t read the rest). Thus what is unacceptable in one case can’t be acceptable in another. If it is wrong to kill your son, it is wrong to kill our enemies. If you would not work a shit job for a shit wage, noone should have to. If you wouldn’t want career impairing effects from necessary life events, women shouldn’t have to take it.”

                  Obviously all such “inequalities” are gnon compliant so fighting them hampers strength and excellence, as a side effect to the benevolent progressive mind. But since he is tricked by the devil, actually the main effect, all “equality” and “justice” arising from it temporary side effects, paving the road before hell.

              • pterantula says:

                Who says they’re not equalist they’re egalitarian? They do. I expect I’m egalitarian not equalist from CR. What I want from CR is an essay about why Yang is the socialist to end socialism.

                Instead of pouring their perfume on the Lord’s feet, the Boomers, agreeing with Judas, sold everything and gave it to the poor. Consequently God gives the lands and daughters to foreigners like in Jeremiah. Judas is described by John in this passage as a thief because religion is the part of justice that gives to God what is God’s, and if I may paraphrase the Lord, Jesus says that Mary Magdalene had been saving that perfume for a special occasion and His crucifixion counted. Judas was a SJW proclaiming no fun allowed.

                “The first shall be last and the last shall be first” is, through converting God’s is not to their ought, interpreted as meaning that the holiest should rule. Claiming the right to rule based on holiness is an invitation to superstition, which is itself blasphemy and superstition.

                Instead of arguing their own motte and bailey, we should distinguish our enemies on our terms. Perhaps we could try to separate the irreligious who steal from God from the socialists who steal from men, and distinguish malicious irreligion that thinks it knows better than God, invincible ignorance to which superstition is the closest thing to religion, and wilfully ignorant irreligion that refuses to, as Cicero remarked, read again. Following which, we can observe that this country has been humbled before the Lord and malicious irreligion isn’t as popular now as it was a decade ago when Obama gave that pseudo-Christian race speech.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Every time you put up an effort post, I have to reluctantly censor it, for the reasons that I give you at length whenever you make an effort post.

                  Don’t do those things. Don’t tell us what we are thinking, don’t tell us what Moldbug says, don’t tell us what Carlyle said, don’t hang Marxist frame on your interlocutor.

                  Whenever someone says something that flatly and directly rejects Cultural Marxism or whig history in the plainest and bluntest possible fashion, you proceed to “misunderstand” him and ask him a bunch of “questions” that presuppose he cannot possibly have said what he said, but must be saying something Marxist or progressive which he has somehow phrased in a confusing fashion. Don’t do that.

                  Make arguments from evidence, rather than the presupposition that there is universal consensus on progressivism and cultural Marxism, that cultural Marxism and whig history is true and uncontroversial, and so universally agreed to be obviously true that it is entirely unnecessary for you to provide evidence and arguments for it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  I would have allowed your argument had you not attributed it to Moldbug.

        • Koanic says:

          I fail to see what is wrong with “Feminist” and “Nigger-lover”.

          • jim says:

            Concedes the progressive frame that by noticing hate facts, we are hating Jews and blacks. We are not.

            Israel rightly does not allow people with dual US and Israeli citizenship in the top levels of its government. We should not either, and most Jews are effectively dual citizens or not psychologically citizens. That is not hating Jews, any more than Israel not allowing American citizens in its government is Israel is hating Americans.

            Australia does not allow dual citizens to be elected to its parliament. Does this mean they hate everyone?

            We would not call someone who favored allowing American citizens to be elected to his country’s parliament a Yankee lover. We would call him something that implied he was nuts.

            Judaism is a religion of exile, and Jews are aliens everywhere. Not only do Jews need to go home, gradually, with their assets, and bearing arms, Judaism needs to go home. They need to build the third temple. Build a Cathedral of steel and stained glass, three times the size of our biggest cathedral. It will help Jews hear the voice of the holy spirit, the still small voice that Ezekiel heard on the mountain. Mountains and forests help people listen, and a cathedral helps people listen.

            That is not hating Jews. That is noticing hate facts that are getting in our faces.

            • Koanic says:

              I don’t hate niggers any more than I hate monkeys. I do hate nigger-lovers, and if hippie faggots were trying to bus my kids with chimps, I would also hate chimp-lovers. Loving niggers is low status.

    • Goy Rogers says:

      Equalitard

    • Alrenous says:

      On one hand, 15 is also when rape peaks. And if you’re going to rape a bitch anyway, why would you choose a fugly one?

      On the other hand, they seem to like traps. A bit. Which suggests a deviant sexuality and thus not a representative sample.

      • alf says:

        She’s no fugly, she’s the cutie next door.

        Any anon board goes with a certain level of paranoia, so that they fear a trap does not surprise me. The way they respond seems pretty natural to me: they think she’s cute, because for a 15-year old she is pretty cute, her interest is piqued, but because they are unconfident NEETs they screw up the very first shit-test.

  19. Reactionary Ghost says:

    Jim, what’s your take on letter 199 of St Basil, an early church father?

    http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3202199.htm

    I ask because I have heard people say that XXVI is a prohibition on shotgun marriage. I don’t think that shotgun marriage was much of a thing in Basil’s time, because it existed before modern feminism, and so it is a means of preventing sneaky fuckers from stealing women, thus protecting patriarchy.

    Am I reading Basil properly? It’s difficult to find Christians who aren’t Leftists.

    • jim says:

      I don’t see any mention of shotgun marriage in XXVI.

      It prohibits illegal marriage, without telling us what makes it illegal.

      So, to figure out what is illegal, lets read some context:

      XXII is purple pilled: Says that marriage by abduction or seduction is invalid, and the father alone shall decide if the marriage shall stand – but not so blue pilled as to suggest that the daughter’s opinion on the matter should be taken into account. If she is abducted, and the father does not want to do anything about it, because she has lost her virginity and might well be pregnant, then the marriage shall stand regardless of her opininion.

      So, in the event of abduction or seduction, marriage is up to the father to decide.

      Which means that by XXI she is forbidden to leave her abductor.

      XXI is red pilled enough:

      If a man living with a wife is not satisfied with his marriage and falls into fornication, I account him a fornicator, and prolong his period of punishment. Nevertheless, we have no canon subjecting him to the charge of adultery, if the sin be committed against an unmarried woman. For the adulteress, it is said, being polluted shall be polluted, Jeremiah 3:1 and she shall not return to her husband: and He that keeps an adulteress is a fool and impious. He, however, who has committed fornication is not to be cut off from the society of his own wife. So the wife will receive the husband on his return from fornication, but the husband will expel the polluted woman from his house.

      So if a woman sleeps with a man, and her father decides she damn well will get married to that man, she is stuck with that man even if he sleeps with other women as well.

      In the event of abduction or seduction, shotgun marriage at the father’s discretion.

      He takes for granted a red pilled or purple pilled social order, so you have to read XXVI in the context of the social order that he endorses and takes for granted in the preceding paragraphs, not in the context of the post 1972 social order.

      • eternal anglo says:

        If a man living with a wife is not satisfied with his marriage and falls into fornication, I account him a fornicator, and prolong his period of punishment.

        What is the Jimian/Jacomist position on male fornication in a reactionary society? Is the state or the church to force a man to be faithful to his wife, in addition to cherishing and loving?

        And I suppose it is best left ambiguous where we are merely restoring ancient, tried and tested Christian patriarchy, and where we have decided to be even more redpilled than the Church Fathers.

      • Reactionary Ghost says:

        Thank you for clarifying things. Your articles extend to your comments sections, which is what makes this blog unique.

        I heard about XXVI being against shotgun marriage from someone who gave me this article: https://scottnevinssuicide.wordpress.com/2014/12/14/canons-concerning-rape-in-the-orthodox-church-1-canon-67-of-the-holy-apostles-st-nikodemos-the-hagiorite/

        I get a sense that the above article is either purple or blue pilled, but am unable to pinpoint exactly where and exactly how.

        If the article is indeed entryist, it might lend a valuable insight into the language of infiltrators into more Rightist churches. Valuable at protecting the little we have left.

        • Tietonian ☦️ says:

          That website only exists to target traditional Orthodox monasteries and the people who support them. Not a legitimate source of any info except as a study of how leftists attack reactionary Christian groups. They could not infiltrate anything.

          • jim says:

            Entryism: Like Carlylean Restorationist, they dig through ancient documents and force fit them to twenty first century cultural Marxism, progressivism, and whig history, with casual disregard for their clear and plain meaning. Except that while Carlylean Restorationist tells us that our heroes were actually commies, and indeed we are commies also, that website tells Orthodox Christians that their saints were commies, and they are commies.

      • The Cominator says:

        “XXII is purple pilled: Says that marriage by abduction or seduction is invalid, and the father alone shall decide if the marriage shall stand”

        This should be the rule up until say the age of 20.

        Why shouldn’t the father be able to veto an unsuitable man up until a certain age?

  20. Anonymous Fake says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Repeating yourself. Also, presupposes Marxist class theory, and that capital rules. From here, on, deleting repetition unmarked.

  21. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      I tell you and the world why I censor the posts that I censor. Further complaints that my real reason for censoring you is because I conceal the self evident truth of Marxism will be silently deleted without explanation and without repetitiously telling the world.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Again, you’re lying about what I said.

        You say that you censored because I claimed I was being censored on account of the self-evident truth of Marxism.

        That is a complete lie, and you know it’s a complete lie.

        Everyone who sees you do it knows that it’s a complete lie.

        I woke this morning with an urge to make peace among people who ought to be allies, and I’m going to try to do that. You may agree or disagree with what I’m about to say, but if you don’t censor it, it’ll be a gesture of co-existence that can finally lead to my disappearance (which you can firm up by applying a blanket ban if you think that prudent).
        The reason I’m here, I realised this morning, is this ‘Marxist’ stuff. I’m never going to concede that what I, an anti-Marxist, stand for, is Marxism, and so far you’ve shown you’re never willing to let up calling me it.

        Fine, there’s a way out.

        It occurred to me this morning (and I’m not going to blaspheme by saying it came from above: my rational faculty did and that’s enough) that there are many ways to oppose modernity.

        I look at society under rule by globalism (characterise it as you will, with or without the words ‘capitalism’, ‘socialism’ or anything else: they can all be arguably included or excluded and everybody still knows what we’re all talking about – the current ruling élite permanent government – The Cathedral if you will, or the Blue Empire) and I see rampant gluttony (in the Thomasian sense), selfishness, short-sightedness, entitlement, pride (in the bad sense), sodomy (in the broadest sense) and usury (in whatever sense you like).

        Like Dante, I’m not ok with those things, NAP be damned. Others, like Catholic in good standing Tom Woods, insist that the NAP takes precedence. (Note that I’m not tying you to Tom Woods. Your degree of agreement with him is your business.)

        The difference in perspective is a subtle one. Jesus told us to fix ourselves first, and Jordan Peterson would say that’s where it stays: there’s no limit to how far you can self-improve once you’ve taken the first step of tidying your room. There’s truth to that.
        But Christ kicked over the tables when he saw something not in its proper place: we should forgive those who trespass against US, but not against God.

        There’s no hard-and-fast way of knowing when laws need to be passed to combat the forces of Mammon that move among us, creating mortal moral hazards for us and for those weaker than us.

        What I’m saying here is that while you favour letting merchants offer what they will, within reason, for sale and demanding caveat emptor, I favour a protector at the helm of the state ready to step in and defend the weak when they’re being led astray: a leader of the flock – yes a kind of priest if you insist.

        The state is to the church, by my reckoning, as the body is to the soul.

        I’m not 100% right. It would not be proper for the state to ‘assist’ when it comes to individual acts of gluttony, lustful thoughts and so on. We can all agree on that.

        I assume we can all agree also that it wouldn’t be proper for the state to sit back when it comes to snuff porn.

        The truth then is that we should indeed improve ourselves first, but that the extent to which the state should help us with that is an open question.
        I don’t need to further reinforce the level at which I think it should occur, and Tom Woods doesn’t need to either. We all understand that Tom Woods would allow supermarkets to sell crack cocaine whereas I wouldn’t allow them to sell “Don’t Stop Me Now” by Queen.

        If you can resist the temptation to declare my position, and any other position than your own “Marxism” then you’ll have increased the chances of the broadest coalition, because believe me, I’m not the only one who finds it hard to simply shrug his shoulders when he sees much of what modernity entails.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          By the way, to the theologians reading this, I’m not laying claim to originating the notion that the state is to the church as the body is to the soul.
          I gather that was Catholic doctrine for hundreds of years.
          I am not myself a Catholic in good standing, unlike Tom Woods, so I’m not laying claim to originality and nor am I laying claim to holiness. Indeed it’s my own fallen nature that makes the fallen nature of society so lamentable. That’s not an excuse, just an observation.

          • jim says:

            Whether we already agree that the reaction believes the same things as Marxism is on topic for this blog.

            Whether we already agree that Christianity believes the same things as Marxism is off topic for this blog, and I will delete all further comments where you pose as a Christian.

            Not because I want to defend Christianity from commies and progressives, though I do, but because off topic for this blog.

            Go back to pretending to be a Reactionary or a Nazi. That, at least, is on topic.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              A reactionary, broadly defined, is one who prefers the status quo ante, generally for ‘socially conservative’ reasons, though this could also include economic reasons such as objections to the central banking system or the welfare state for example. I certainly consider myself that way, and you too, and I think my conciliatory comment reflects that.

              It’s to your immense credit that you decided not to censor it. If you censor this, it means nothing: you have every right to do whatever you want, and as far as I’m concerned, the disagreement is over. Live and let live in the interests of more important objectives.

              I’ve never claimed to be a Nazi. I’m a third positionist, as arguably were the Nazis, but this is not the 1930s and it’s also not Hitler’s Germany. Those days and places are gone forever.
              I will assert however that since I value the use of the authoritarian state as a tool in achieving the goals I favour, and since the third position not only shares that belief but also the goals, I’m more than happy to include myself in the category of ‘third positionists’ and will never disavow other members of that group, including all the evil nazis you can imagine. Goebbels is an ally of mine. Whether he is of yours or not, I don’t much care.

              As for Christian, I’ve always been very clear: I accept science, not just up to Darwin but up to Hamilton/Trivers and Dennett too. I’m much less sceptical of the environmental stuff than you are, but I entirely share your concerns about the state of the scientific method and the scientific community with regards that topic and frankly all others too. Nevertheless, ‘eco-fascism’ is, to my mind, certainly not a slur but an assertion of virtue and beauty. I neither expect nor request that you agree with me on that.

              I’m certainly not pretending. I simply assert that to question the Buckleyite free market dogma does not constitute Marxism and does not disqualify one from seeking to radically reform the culture and structure of society towards an explicitly reactionary end.

              As the alt.right said to the libertarians coming down the ‘pipeline’, we can debate economics once the security of our people’s achieved and it’s only white people in the room having the debate.

              I predict something different than you predict, but let’s hope we find out some day.

              Thank you, over and out. Censor or not, it’s not important. Everything that needed to be clarified was clarified and I for one am certainly at peace with the idea that I gave enough of my case for not being a Marxist that it’s finally time to just stop.

              If people here remain entirely unconvinced that anything much at all is wrong with the consumer culture of globohomo, and that the problems lie elsewhere, well I did my best to make the contrary case and failed. That’s fine and perhaps you’re right and I’m wrong. Perhaps people, left to their own devices, but absent Cathedral propaganda, are more than capable of surviving an environment rich in moral hazard.

              That would be a WONDERFUL discovery and I hope it’s the case.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Christianity off topic, except where it relates to reaction (proper relationship of priests and warriors) or the red pill (Old and New Testament family law.)

              • jim says:

                > If people here remain entirely unconvinced that anything much at all is wrong with …

                And you then give us the option of two positions, both of which presuppose that we uncontroversially accept Marxist class theory and that capital rules, as self evidently true:

                If we are convinced of one position, we then all agree with Marxist class theory and that capital rules, and if we are convinced of the contrary position then we also all agree with Marxist class theory and that capital rules.

                > If people here remain entirely unconvinced that anything much at all is wrong with the consumer culture of globohomo.

                Which presupposes that we agree that capitalism causes globohomo, and that we could only support capitalism if we support the consumer culture of globohomo, and therefore presupposes that capital rules, and that the priestly class, of which you are plainly a member, and probably being paid by them to bombard this blog with crap, does not rule.

                When Gillette insults its customers, when Disney writers gloat that they are making fanboys cry, is that consumer culture?

                When rock music videos depict the mating dance as equal and symmetric, with males and female characters dancing interchangeable roles, without men leading and women following, without men conquering and women surrendering, without men performing for women and women choosing, is that consumer culture?

                A pimp can no more show himself in authority over and supervising his camwhore, than Shakespeare could use an actress to play a female character. Is that consumer culture?

                No matter what the ostensible topic of your comments, it is never the real issue, the real substance of your comment.

                The real issue of almost every comment, the real substance of almost every comment, the assertion you keep trying to slip in while no one is looking, is that Marxism is true, and everyone, including us, agrees that it is uncontroversially true: Argument by fake consensus.

                Since everyone supposedly believes this lunatic nonsense, obviously the reader should believe it.

                You never attempt to defend this lunatic nonsense, and you will never attempt to defend this nonsense, because you know perfectly well that it is indefensible, that it is transparently crazy, that it is a lie you are telling us in order to get into a position where you can murder us as you murdered the peasants and murdered the Popular Fronts using the same cynical lie in the same cynical way.

                Did you really believe that the peasant with two cows was an instrument of Wall Street?

                You might possibly believe that capital rules, but you cannot possibly believe that we believe that, after I denounced this idea so many times and yourself as murderer for advocating it. So, if lying about our beliefs, surely lying about your own beliefs.

                If you genuinely believed that capital rules, that capitalism causes globohomo culture, then after me denouncing this belief so many times, you would attempt to provide evidence and argument for this belief.

                You know that it is not true, for if you thought it was true, you would defend it by evidence and argument after I endless denounced your beliefs, and endlessly urged you to present evidence and argument for them. You cynically lie about your own beliefs, as you cynically lie about our beliefs, Christian beliefs, libertarian beliefs, anarcho capitalist beliefs, and Randian beliefs. Lenin, (in “What is to be done” when writing about “The Economists”) implicitly admitted that Marxist class theory, Marxists economics, and Marxist history is a cynical lie, and that any Marxist who takes it seriously is a fool for drinking his own Kool-Aid, which is why you will never argue for any of them, never present evidence for any of them, merely assume that they are true and that we already agree that they are true.

                > I’m a third positionist

                Over the past century there have been many supposedly third positionist groups and organizations. And every single time they revealed themselves as Marxists engaged in entryism against hostile groups, hostile organizations, and hostile ideologies. “Third positionism” has been revealed over and over again as a Marxist trademark used only for entryism.

              • barf says:

                See you next week.

        • jim says:

          You were telling us that you are a reactionary, and that we already agree that the principles of the reaction just happen to be the principles of Marxism.

          Now you tell us that you are a Christian, and that we already agree that the principles of Christianity just happen to be the principles of Marxism.

          You decorated yourself with random shibboleths snatched up from the reaction and Daily Stormer Nazism, without bothering to understand the ideas and belief system that they were shibboleths of, so you used them in a random and incoherent way that revealed lack of interest in the idea system that those shibboleths expressed.

          Now you decorate yourself with random shibboleths snatched up from Christianity, without bothering to understand the ideas and belief system that they are shibboleths of, so you use them in a random and incoherent way that reveals lack of interest in the idea system that those shibboleths express.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            I’m frankly not interested in shibboleths or any other Hebraic framework of thought.
            I entirely agree with the Judeo-sceptic theory and am unpersuaded by The Cominator’s NAXALT argument, as I’m unpersuaded by your genetic test results that your love of the Old Testament and the world described therein is a coincidence.

            I do sincerely believe that without a proper understanding of the mindset and motivations of a diaspora people – of which we may end up availing ourselves too at some point – it’s unlikely that anyone can properly understand the world we’re living in in these interesting times.

            That absolutely does not translate to a seething hatred of the Jews or any wish to do them (or anyone else) harm.

            We just desperately need an honest grasp on reality. There are already too many lies in the world to add more.

            The Christian God is first and foremost merciful. Come the day of victory, everyone on Earth will be glad.

            • jim says:

              > I’m frankly not interested in shibboleths or any other Hebraic framework of thought.

              Yes, you are frankly not interested in any of the Christian shibboleths you threw around so vigorously and so enthusiastically while pretending to be a Christian, pretending that Christianity has doctrines strangely similar to those of Marxism, and pretending that Christians cheerfully an uncontroversially agree with the doctrines that you attribute to Christianity.

        • The Cominator says:

          “There’s no hard-and-fast way of knowing when laws need to be passed to combat the forces of Mammon that move among us, creating mortal moral hazards for us and for those weaker than us.

          What I’m saying here is that while you favour letting merchants offer what they will, within reason, for sale and demanding caveat emptor, I favour a protector at the helm of the state ready to step in and defend the weak when they’re being led astray: a leader of the flock – yes a kind of priest if you insist.”

          Doesn’t work. Dysfunctionally low agency people need to be in the words of Hoppe “physically removed from society”. NRx errs in proposing slavery for such people. Its an error because

          1) The existence of slavery imposes externalities on free people and disrupts the market.

          2) Too many people who shouldn’t be slaves end up as slaves if its broadly legal.

          The best solution is to put them in special ghettoes give them a token dole and sterilize them.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              You presuppose progressive doctrine on race and that your interlocutor agrees with that doctrine.

              I get it now: If some one says that blacks are stupid, violent, and are not very good at human speech, he is not saying that “blacks are stupid, violent, and not very good at human speech”, because it is inconceivable that blacks could be stupid, violent, and not very good at human speech. He is saying “I hate blacks”. So you, of course, supposedly hate blacks twice as much, while taking it entirely for granted that everyone knows that they are not only equal to us, but more equal than us.

              Nah, we don’t hate other races and ethnic groups, rather, we are aware of the differences, and claiming to hate them twice as much as we do does not cause us to perceive you as one of us.

              • Mackus says:

                You might want to save some “hail fellow reactionaries” posts for later, for educational purposes.

                I for one, am genuinely curious how badly he mangled them.

          • Andre says:

            Children and women are dysfunctionally low agency people. Is that how you would handle them?

            • The Cominator says:

              Obvious strawman is obvious.

              I’ve said in detail my view on how the women question should be handled. Women who are not legally under the control of a man are not permitted (maybe with some flexibility for older widows). I dissent from Jim in think that marriage by abduction or elopment without the father’s consent should not be permitted before a certain age and that adultery should be a pillorying and horsewhipping matter not life and death.

              Other then that we are pretty much agreed.

              • Andre says:

                It was a rethorical question. Why do you accept guardianship over some and reject it over others? And why should I pay them welfare if I’m not going to consider them a real part of my society?

  22. BC says:

    Did the left singularity just pop?

  23. Andre says:

    “Neoreaction plans to be the priesthood, but we think warriors should be on top and should steal sufficient to fund the army and the state, that warriors should do warrior stuff, merchants should do merchant stuff, and priests priestly stuff.”

    Guess I’m not a neoreactionary then.

    • jim says:

      So, what do you think the classes should do?

      • Andre says:

        Exactly what they have done since the beginning of time. You seem to think the state needs a religion in order to get the stupid to go along with what the warrior elite decides. That is not how it works. Every state is the embodyment of a religion and warriors are nothing more than the enforcers of the priests, their interface with the human world of non-believers, while the merchants are their interface with the natural world of things. Priests always lead. You cannot escape this truth by pretending it’s a leftist thing. These three roles of priest, warrior and merchant, they are parts of the human psyche. The priest rules the psyche at the individual as well as the collective social level.

        Warriors don’t steal. The very concept of property is a priestly fantasy, subject to priestly rules. So no, I don’t think warriors should steal to fund the army and the state. That would mean they are my enemies, infidels. I think warriors should obey the priests, my priests. I think merchants should obey the priests, my priests. And I think priests should obey the priests, my priests. Call that a purity spiral, convergence towards priestly singularity if you want, I don’t care. That is how power works, always has worked, and always will work. You cannot think of taxes as theft, they are the voluntary sign of the allegiance of merchants to the priestly order. A tax evader is an enemy of the state; he is the thief, not the warrior.

        • jim says:

          That is not how Moses did it.

          That is not how it was done in First Temple Israel, not how it was done in the Holy Roman Empire until it started to fall apart.

          And when the priesthood successfully asserted their right to appoint Bishops rather Kings, then Christianity started to spiral into heresy and the Holy Roman Empire fell apart.

          And it is not how it done in Russian Orthodoxy today. The Orthodox priesthood serves Putin. Putin does not serve the priesthood.

          • Andre says:

            That is exactly how Moses did it, at least according to the Bible. Look you can point at this or that example and say “that’s not how they did it” but you are not actually showing that to be true by making the statement. I just don’t see things the same way you do. The priestly class is more subtle than just “the men in the official explicit church hierarchy”. It’s more subtle today with The Cathedral and it has always been more subtle. The priests are those who organize and lead the human imagination. Even if you call someone a king, if his rule depends more on theather and moral authority than on fear of violence, if the very capacity of said king to exercise violence rests on this theather and moral authority, then that is priestly rule, period. And it does, always. Because that is just how power works, always has worked, and always will work. In theory you could have so much control over logistics that this power alone can compel soldiers to obey the merchants; and to a degree this is the power that keeps armies together. In theory a big guy could intimidate a smaller guy to exercise violence for him. But none of that has staying power without the priests. It just doesn’t. And the priests aren’t a tool used by the warriors. It’s the warriors that are a tool used by the priests.

            As far what is done in Russian Orthodoxy today, I couldn’t care less. Russia is a degenerate failure of a nation that, unless things radically change, will be conquered by radical Islam or incorporated into some transhumanist future.

        • jim says:

          > Exactly what they have done since the beginning of time.

          That is fake Christian history, different from but analogous to, Marxist history and Whig history.

          What they have done from the beginning of time was usually warriors on top (King David, King Solomon, Emperor Constantine, Charles the Hammer, Charles the Great, Charles the Second, the tsars, and Putin.

          And when priests got on top, society and the state self destructed.

        • The Cominator says:

          “So no, I don’t think warriors should steal to fund the army and the state. That would mean they are my enemies, infidels. I think warriors should obey the priests, my priests. I think merchants should obey the priests, my priests. And I think priests should obey the priests, my priests.”

          A quasi-human spic with delusions of grandeur. You don’t have any priests and you never will. Priestly civilizations with the SOLE exception of China tend to be dysfunctional. India is typically what happens with priestly dominant societies.

          Europe until the progressive era (despite attempted Popish usurpation in the “High” Middle Ages) always been warrior dominated. Rome was warrior dominated and the Germanic kingdoms were warrior dominated.

          • Andre says:

            Why do you think Rome was warrior dominated?

            • The Cominator says:

              “Why do you think Rome was warrior dominated?”

              The Ruling families dominated the priesthood (rather then the priesthood being open entry and giving orders to high military officials) and the priesthood did not exert direct authority over the military magistracies.

              Lepidus was Pontifex Maximus during the 2nd Triumvariate yet still obviously the inferior partner of the three. Would be unthinkable in a priestly state.

          • jim says:

            East Asians are different from whites. Works, somewhat, for them. Invariably fails for us.

            But progressivism is difficult for them to handle, because whites are better than East Asians at using priestly methods effectively.

            That whites can easily outmaneuver East Asians in these tactics was hilariously demonstrated in the conference on the Rohingya rapeugee problem – though that conference also demonstrated that East Asians are rather more resistant to these tactics than whites. The combination of less ability to use the tactics and greater resistance to these tactics makes priestly states less deadly to them than priestly states are to us.

            Jews, unfortunately, have greater ability to deploy these tactics effectively than we do, and also greater ability to resist them. Inferior creativity though: Reflect on Jewish art.

          • Andre says:

            Let me be very clear here. It doesn’t even matter what I think “should” happen. I believe this is simply part of the structure of reality, it is a rule of human society and it is foolish and futile to want to change it. I’m not saying this or that society that you identify as being better was wrong to put warriors on top. I’m saying they didn’t. You are mistaken. Let me ask you this, can you show me a society today that has warriors on top?

        • jim says:

          > The very concept of property is a priestly fantasy, subject to priestly rules

          Nuts.

          Every man that owns stuff, owns it because he will defend it.

          Moldbug argued that the sovereign is the ultimate owner of everything, and in a sense he is the ultimate owner of everything, granting his subjects property rights that he could change his mind about. But you do not own your computer because it is registered with the sovereign. It is not registered with the sovereign.

          And still less do you own your computer because the official priesthood says so. Today’s officially unofficial priesthood tells you that you do not own it, which frequent declarations have very little effect.

          The official priesthood should regularize property by getting all property owners to agree that other property owners rightly own their stuff, but that is the opposite of what the current officially unofficial priesthood is doing.

          • Andre says:

            “Every man that owns stuff, owns it because he will defend it.”

            Uh… no. Property does have to be defended, obviously. And as I said, the priestly role is part of the human psyche, it’s not just a social role, so you can very well decide on your own “I am the legitimate owner of this”. The social role of the priests is to converge ideas within society, so that everyone agrees that “I am the legitimate owner of this”. Warriors and merchants cannot converge property rights because they are derived from ethics. They are a religious concept.

            “But you do not own your computer because it is registered with the sovereign. It is not registered with the sovereign.”

            It doesn’t have to be registered.

            “Today’s officially unofficial priesthood tells you that you do not own it”

            To the degree that they do that, and are effective in their preaching, I don’t. I mean obviously I reject them as my priests but if I can’t handle those who accept them, I can’t handle those who accept them. It’s not about what they do and do not tell me. Plenty of men have their homes and paychecks taken from them because the priesthood says those belong to their ex-wives, do they not? Plenty of soldiers and cops.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              [*deleted*]

              • jim says:

                Don’t tell us what Moldbug said. It’s not what he said.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for telling us what our doctrine is.

                  If you had made almost the same comment, but framed it as your interpretation of the implications of our doctrine of primary and secondary property rights, rather than flat out than attributing it to us, I would have allowed the comment and replied.

                  Your interpretation of Moldbug is quite reasonable if you take that one fragment and run with it, and ignore the fact that he then proceeded to give a different account of the implications.

                  In a sense, my post on “throne, altar, and freehold” contains a reply to your comment, since in that post I discuss the implications of that doctrine.

                  Also, your comment would be in context and more relevant as a reply to that post, rather than as a reply to “The reactionary program”, though I would still suppress your comment if, as usual, you failed to acknowledge that you were disagreeing with my account of the implications, and offering a contrary account, and instead, as usual, implied that we already agree with you.

            • jim says:

              As Darwin observed, even dogs and apes have property.

              A sovereign makes a big difference to property rights, a huge difference. Priests, not so much, except as they influence the sovereign. If priests made a big difference, we would be in bigger trouble than we are.

              • Koanic says:

                Territory is the first property, and that is what they have taken from us.

              • Andre says:

                Priests are the sovereign. And dogs do not have property. There is certainly a rudimentary sense of hierarchy and social status, which is what property essentialy is, but by those standards ants have property.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Ants are what true communism (within one colony) is. Ants and bees have communism not property.

                  Most species and certainly not humans are not like that though.

            • The Cominator says:

              “Plenty of men have their homes and paychecks taken from them because the priesthood says those belong to their ex-wives, do they not? Plenty of soldiers and cops.”

              Nobody here is arguing that Western Civilization is ruled by warrior types now.

              Warrior types have lost ground to priestly types since the progressive era (Jim would argue since the Crimean War but the loss was only slight) and in 1968 they lost ALL their power.

              • Andre says:

                Warrior types NEVER HAD ANY GROUND IN WESTERN CIVILIZATION. Not even in Sparta and Rome and certainly not in recent Britain or America, who have always been explicit theocracies. Julius Caesar ascended as a priest using leftist tactics, won the war, yet was overthrown by the supreme religious authority, the council of fathers. From then on the Caesars continued as religious figures, the supreme father, which eventually morphed into catholicism, the Roman Universal Church which continued to rule over Europe until the protestant revolution, which was obviously a conflict of priesthoods. That fatherhood was respected and martial values regarded as important did not make western civilization “warrior dominated”, it was just the continuation of the cult of Jupiter, the Heavenly Father.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Ahistorical claptrap.

                  Caesar did not become dictator because he was Pontifex Maximus (though he was and became so years before getting his Gallic command), he became dictator by winning a civil war with his army.

                  His assassins were not the supreme religious authority (that would be Caesar as Pontifex Maximus which made him stand at the head of all Rome’s priestly “colleges”) they were a bunch of selfish petty aristocrats who Caesar foolish spare Octavian was certainly right to hunt all of them down and confiscate all their families property. Octavian lacked Caesar’s brilliant grasp of economic policy unfortunately…

                  If Julius Caesar lived we’d have likely reached the stars by now.

                • The Cominator says:

                  During the “Second Triumvariate” Lepidus was Pontifex Maximus as I’ve mentioned.

                  His legions defected to Octavian and Octavian didn’t bother having him killed (and Octavian usual policy unlike Caesar was to show no mercy) nor did he ever have him killed.

                  He waited patiently for him to die of natural causes before making himself Pontifex Maximus.

                • Andre says:

                  Let me guess, you’re on the spectrum?

  24. IAMAgnostic says:

    [*Deleted*]

    • jim says:

      Irrelevant to this blog.

      Anyone who talks of Christianity on this blog without acknowledging that Christianity is forbidden in our society, that Christianity as it very recently existed is unthinkably and unspeakably reactionary, then his “Christianity” is off topic.

  25. IAMAgnostic says:

    Would that be 1950s Christianity, the same one that compelled American astronauts to recite the first ten chapters of Genesis when first orbiting the moon?

    • jim says:

      Your question presupposes and takes for granted, the progressive reframe of Christianity. Progressive “Christians” still today recite Genesis with as much enthusiasm as, and usually more enthusiasm than, any actual Christian.

      Progressives reject evolution through natural selection and survival of the fittest. They don’t care much one way or the other about mere evolution, and neither do old type Christians. See Saint Augustine on this issue.

      When a progressive “Christian” ditches the bible on marriage and family, he doubles down on his enthusiasm for parts of the bible that no one else cares about. Chapters five to ten of Genesis are boring and inconsequential, irrelevant to modern times, mostly consist of so and so begat so and so, and no cares about them, though chapter eleven is important, interesting, and very relevant to modern times. If its true that they read the first ten chapters, then they stopped just before the chapter than actual Christians do very care very about: that God intends men to live in many different nations.

      The genuinely non progressive Christian fantasy writer John Wright recently wrote a rattling good dystopian yarn set on a twenty first century earth where Babel was never broken and earth was one nation.

      • IAMAgnostic says:

        What do you mean by ‘recently existed’? What is your recent? I would have thought that’s the 1950s, you would say what year?

        Give me a date or spectrum of dates such as 1870 or 1700 or whenever you mean that shows what your Christianity is, and which society, the one you say is recent, forbidden and unthinkably reactionary.

        1890 England?

        • jim says:

          Decent sized pockets of Christianity still held out till about 1960, 1970, and old type Christianity was nominally dominant and still wielded a great deal of influence in England in 1931, but its collapse became evident in retrospect in 1911.

          • IAMAgnostic says:

            What are you referring to in 1911?

            How do you propose to prevent the next collapse?

            These collapses seem like a natural cycle, 1890 England generating more prosperity and opportunities for everyone, therefore naturally weakening the power of the aristocracy and tradition.

            Same with 1950s to 60s USA.

            So, 1890 England. You propose a return to 1800s England and the Anglican church of that time as a religious foundation.

            How was a church service different then?

            Was an Anglican service of that time more like a traditional Catholic service, what is now done by the SPXX, with Latin and ritual?

            • jim says:

              > These collapses seem like a natural cycle

              Nothing natural about it. It is like a mugging. You get old because its time, but you don’t get mugged because it is time:

              Plotters plot to take the state. To succeed, they need more people than can meet around a coffee table, and if they are all kin, it would be too obvious. So they need a synthetic tribe, which means they need to be of some heresy against the ruling religion. And, since the ruling religion does not allow such people, they have to pass as adherents of the ruling religion.

              Such a plot usually fails, but it sometimes succeeds, just as muggers lurk for a long time till they see their chance.

              And then you have a new ruling religion, thinly disguised as the old one.

              Sometimes the plotters fail to stabilize the new state religion against holiness spirals, or are unable to stabilize the new state religion against holiness spirals, then it is a natural process – in the sense that once cancer starts, then you are apt to die of it.

              The plotters tried in England in the late 18th century, and the King, who had the job of keeping the state religion stable, put them down.

              “Whig” at that time was primarily a religious designation, rather than political designation, and the whigs infiltrating the English state generally did not openly admit to being whigs, though they got retroactively classified as being whigs – first by their enemies, then by their successful adherents when those adherents gained power in the subsequent try.

              Unfortunately the subsequent King, King George the fourth, was a lazy fatass adulterer, who alienated the aristocracy by fucking their wives – always a disastrous move for Kings, and always done by a weak man. A strong King selects his mistresses from those whose menfolk he does not need and who are in no position to cause him trouble. A weak man gets manipulated by women he meets socially – and if you are King, such women are apt to be the wives of men that are vital to yourself and the state.

              And then, it became widely known that his Queen was massively cuckolding him with numerous men, thus discrediting him as a man. If he could not make his wife obey him, no one needed to obey him. There was no one capable of stabilizing the state religion against its enemies.

              Then the plotters made their move, and eventually came out openly as whigs, and as always having been whigs. And then Christianity was doomed, though it still retained a substantial grasp for over a century. It took until 1911 for the disease to become obviously terminal, until the 1930s for Christianity to lose all power, and until the 1960s for the remaining groups of Christians to disappear almost completely.

              If King George the fourth had had a better wife, or if he had selected his mistresses instead of allowing them to select him, or if he been more inclined to get off his oversized ass and do some Kinging, or if he had had a better tailor, the power of Kings would have lasted a lot longer, and we would probably still have Kings, and we would still be Christian.

              Why a tailor, you ask? Because a major factor inclining people to start ignoring him, was that he snubbed Beau Brummell, and because Beau Brummell was popular and better dressed than he was, it was as if Beau Brummell had snubbed him. Beau Brummell held frame perfectly as always, and his frame suceeded, while the King’s frame failed. If Beau Brummel could snub the King, anyone could insult the King. And they did.

              • IAMAgnostic says:

                In the Old Testament if rulers became overly corrupt or oppressive there was only one solution: Contesting them by prophets.

                • jim says:

                  Jehu was no prophet, and was anointed King in secret by a young and inconsequential priest in training – or at least that was his story. Who can know if he was anointed at all.

                  Jehu was the solution, the prophet was not.

                • alf says:

                  I guess it depends.

                  As a rule of thumb, king is in charge, high priest advises. If high priest takes charge, will have to behave as a king, will need a new high priest. Same with monkeys: you cannot rule without kingly silverback behavior. That’s just the way things work.

                  At the same time, what about Jesus. He was a prophet, not a king. He spoke truth and was crucified for it; not exactly the typical succesful high priest story. Yet he is arguably the most succesful high priest of em all. So sometimes, the prophet is the solution.

                • jim says:

                  The prophet breaks the rules when the rules need to be broken, and the King gets to decide exceptions to the rules. Normally the King should not appoint the high priest, except when he should. Prophet, obviously, tends to be a more dangerous position than King.

              • IAMAgnostic says:

                After Jehu did his slaughter:

                Then the Lord said to Hosea, “Call him Jezreel, because I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel, and I will put an end to the kingdom of Israel.”

                Hosea 1:4

                Jehu was anointed by one of a company of prophets who wanted to eliminate Jezebel for her actions against the prophets.

                The prophet Elisha had to give the anointment. There was an established line of prophets.

                You have no Elisha. You can’t get a minor appointed prophet without an appointer.

                You have no warrior class waiting for an excuse to appoint a king.

                It’s clear that Elisha, Hosea, and all the other prophets are central to the creation of nation or a king, and the Lord goes after the excess bloodshed of Jehu, it’s clear that the only Biblical way to confront modernity’s wretched corruption is with prophets.

                • jim says:

                  Problem with your story is that Elisha did not give the anointment. It was given in secret by a student priest.

                  Thus Jehu was on top, and prophets not on top.

                  Consistent with Solomon being on top, high priest not on top, having been appointed by Solomon while the blood of predecessor was still fresh.

                  And, similarly, Charles the hammer and Pepin the short – who treated Saint Boniface, head of their Frankish Church, as an instrument of policy. Charles the Great then extended the same treatment to the Bishop Rome, making the Bishop of Rome into the Pope and head of the what was to become universal religion of the Holy Roman Empire, becoming a distinct religion from Orthodoxy.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  Oh you meant Recent as in 800 BC! And here I thought you meant the 1950s.

                  Remember the Lord spake thusly about the actions of Jehu:

                  “…I will soon punish the house of Jehu for the massacre at Jezreel…”

                  Prophets granted power even if through a student. Perhaps breaking the chain with Jehu, which the warriors wanted an excuse to do, lead to the Lord’s reproach later.

                  From prophets Elijah to Elisha to one of the sons of the prophets, a blood priesthood:

                  1 And Elisha the prophet called one of the sons of the prophets, and said to him, “Get yourself ready, take this flask of oil in your hand, and go to Ramoth Gilead. 2 Now when you arrive at that place, look there for Jehu…”

                  2 Kings 9:1-2

                  What was given by a student priest was from the flask of oil given by Elisha the prophet.

                  You still need a legit prophet to give the oil.

                  Priesthood by blood.

                  No exceptions.

                  Solomon was regarded as a prophet and a builder of the Temple which he dedicated to Yahweh. Also he prayed for wisdom, not military power. Wisdom is for the prophets.

                  King Solomon was also a prophet.

                • jim says:

                  A student behind closed doors is not effectually granting power.

                  Similarly, when Solomon was anointed King by a high priest that he had just appointed after killing the high priests predecessor.

                  Similarly, when Charles the Great was crowned Holy Roman Emperor by a pope he had just installed in Rome, as Charles the Hammer installed Saint Boniface head of the Frankish Church.

                • jim says:

                  > You still need a legit prophet to give the oil.

                  No, you don’t need a legit prophet. You need a high priest, like the high priest who anointed King Solomon, and the Pope who crowned Charles the Great. And, should the need arise, you appoint that high priest, possibly after creating a vacancy by killing his predecessor as King Solomon did.

                • IAMAgnostic@gmail.com says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Your comment presupposes, as obvious and uncontroversial, without attempting to argue or explain, that the bible says something radically different from what Christians have for two millenia understood it as saying.

                  That is argument from fake consensus: Not a legitimate form of argument. I don’t allow it from troofers, I don’t allow it from Marxists, and I will not allow it from heretics and apostates against Christianity.

                • Koanic says:

                  Yeah, here’s how anointing works: Anointing tells the guy who’s going to be king, that God says to try to be king. Then his success at trying to be king, shows everyone else, that God says he is supposed to be king. And nobody lifts a hand against the anointed, unless God says otherwise.

                  Barack was a coward because he did not go when anointed. What faggots American “Christians” have become, to see something other than a weakling bastard in that son of a whore.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  Koanic, it’s clear how anointing works in the Bible.

                  Jim is openly declaring legitimate succession of prophet power to anoint kings is not necessary.

                • jim says:

                  Solomon did not become King by legitimate succession of prophet power, but by legitimate succession of Kingly power. He was anointed by Zadok, not by the prophet Nathan. He then executed the previous high priest, and made Zadok high priest, as Charles the Hammer made Saint Boniface archbishop of the Franks, and Charles the Great made Gregory Pope.

                • IAMAgnostic says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Christianity and Satanism off topic for this blog, except as they relate to politics – which they usually do, but not when you are trying to reconcile the bible with gnosticism.

              • calov says:

                wikipedia says of beau brummel: “Eventually he died shabby and insane at Caen.”

                lol! One can tolerate dying insane in France, but dying “shabby” is intolerable.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Spent 5 hours in front of the mirror” this is one of those instances where I have to admire the Puritans who have executed such a person for homosexuality…

                  Such an effeminate should never have been allowed to become an officer much less be anywhere near the king.

          • Koanic says:

            Yes, I was raised in one of those pockets, which had dwindled to the size of a nuclear family, more or less.

  26. vxxc says:

    Warriors need Priests to be inspired to fight and win.

    We have a priesthood: Lawyers. Complete with ritual war- the rules of engagement. The Laws of war, the lawyering of war.
    The same actual priesthood that regulates every aspect of our lives, especially money and sexuality. They don’t fail to inspire.
    They retard war into defeat.

    We fight plenty. Lots of combat experience now.
    We have tactical victory and strategic defeat.

    Now true warriordom and victory are to be had, but you have to become a contractor aka PMC. Mercenaries are illegal. So they’re contractors.

    We have a priesthood in line with our society and its fucked.
    But we have no shortage of priests.

    Really few here serve but you can’t read our blogs?
    Our social media postings?

    As far as a working civil religion its the Constitution.
    Helps to have our guy as President.

    Jim has referred to this before re The Federalist society.
    You could save a lot of bandwidth working with what you have as opposed to searching for a replacement for Christianity that doesn’t exist.

    You could also use the loathing for the legal priesthood that is universal.
    Most of you haven’t suffered from ROE. (Rules of Engagement).
    Surely however you have suffered or fear Family Law.

    As far as a Dictator you are overlooking that we’re a Federation.
    America isn’t a Constitutional Republic, its a Federation of many Republics.
    A glaring error in the Progressive calculus and yours.

      • jim says:

        Your link:

        > “Military Defeat as a Financial Collapse Trigger

        is very informative.

        I had assumed that Obama and Hillary were consciously and intentionally arming and funding ISIS, but the picture he shows is more corruption, incompetence, and self delusion at every level of government, and double agents at the lower level. Most of that half a billion wound up funding ISIS, buying arms for ISIS, and supplying those arms to ISIS, and what did not get to ISIS stayed with double agents.

        I conjecture that the double agents were facilitated by the Major Hasan problem – affirmative action Muslims openly hostile to the US being promoted into positions for which they are grossly unqualified.

        The business about financial collapse is unlikely. The Trump tax cuts brought taxes on the rich down the Laffer limit, and as a result the debt to GDP ratio has stabilized, at levels that are alarmingly high, and give us no buffer against the unexpected, but at levels that do not in themselves amount to crisis, but he is full of interesting information on corruption, incompetence, treachery, and delusion.

        He is wrong about fracking. It is highly profitable. He is wrong about debt, but he has lots of data on the military and CIA, which fits together.

        A fish rots from the head. The Democrats are the party of government as interest group and Harvard as a religion, and Harvard is very deluded and somewhat corrupt, and the Democrats are somewhat deluded and very corrupt. And the CIA is deluded and corrupt, feeding delusion back upon itself to their masters.

        • The Cominator says:

          “And the CIA is deluded and corrupt”

          And it gets worse all the time as the CIA has always tended to recruit most of their people out of Ivy League Universities (ala The Good Shepherd) and the more they go to shit the more the CIA goes to shit.

          • The Cominator says:

            He is wrong about the reserve currency allowing Americans to rip off the rest of the world.

            The reserve currency is never a benefit historically its always a curse on any nation that acquires it.

            The dollar carry trade racket enriches a bunch of Cathedral/DC types, their pet banks and their hangers on but outside of the District of Corruption and a few universities and banks ordinary Americans get more ripped off in real terms out of the system then anyone. This was one of the issues Trump ran on and he was right.

          • Frederick Algernon says:

            As someone who actually studies the CIA… exactly. You are so right bro. Hollywood is definitely the best source for understanding the CIA. I mean, you nailed it. Like, perfectly. Gj.

            • The Cominator says:

              I know you are being sarcastic but where am I wrong about the CIA being recruited primarily from Ivy league Cathedral universities… and how was the Good Shepherd incorrect on that point?

              • Frederick Algernon says:

                1) I was responding to previous.

                2) The actual point of Good Shepherd (one of my favorite movies) is that the CIA was the OSS minus triage. Sure, it was predicated on a good ol’ boys network, but that ended in the 70s. 80s through 90s saw a pseudo-codification of norms (aberrant so useless) and that all went to shit in the 90s when the cold war ended. When Afghanistan started, SAD/SOG was about 40 dudes, almost all of them contractors. The Mille

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  [misclick]

                  …the Millennium Plot was foiled (google Crumpton) and no lessons were learned. 9/11 brought the Agency into the fore for basically 8 months before the wannabe cold warriors regained control.

                  Now, the Agency is staffed by boomer leaders and the few GenX that decided to Be Better + Mormons. The Op side of Agency cares more about “dip and Velcro” status than manipulation. The Ivy league is too busy gargling PoC ballsack to get involved with grinding out a GS10+ working wage.

                  If ever an institution was ripe for hostel takeover, it is CIA. Leaderless, aimless, all sizzle no steak.

                  Just my 2¢.

                • Oog en Hand says:

                  The Dutch BVD kept a close tab on Esperantists. Many American Christians have religious objections against learning Esperanto.

                • kony2038 says:

                  esperanto is srs bsns… shut down the guy who sold me pops some bad food… give me 1000$/mo… reserve currency is something or other but I’m sure there’s an A essay backing it… i was mommy teacher’s favorite, she called me a scholar once and i was so proud. the government should give mommy teacher a boyfriend. school shooters are the worst and kids should stop go to the guidance counselor if they have a problem otherwise stop talking in or out of class just do your homework, kids here really need to do their homework. someone should reread the latter-day pamphlets and write a retrospective, probably not cr, he’ll just repeat the carlylean restorationist perspective, he should be assigned mein kampf by the original econoqueer. cr would like to point out that carlyle wrote that kings are small men who should go along with the business of things and the greatest sham is the idea that shams must cease. actually he probably said something else but maybe i should read more sherlock holmes stories full of ineffable twaddle before getting bumptious enough to reinterpret carlyle. also idk how he managed to be so tl;dr in 18xx and considering “in the history of human things, which needs above all to abridge itself”

                  in 2007 it was politically incorrect to say windows isn’t gay, some sjws were recently criticizing some dude who was calling himself faggotron saying windows is gay back then, earlier fruit baskets were cool and everyone knew their contents are delicious and “excellent nutriment” as plato said about meat once to make some point or other. i would open my bananas in the natural way that zoo moneys open them if i ate bananas. it sounds like it would be cooler if brenton had snuck into a university daycare and put soy in the baby formula, srsly, the point of the nonviolent resistance meme is there is no actual target, from which we derive that we can cleverly criticize any target to assert that we’re not terrorists. our plan was always meta-accelerationism and we’ve driven tons of memes into the ground over the past decade

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  *deleted*

                • jim says:

                  I will not allow you to tell us what our position is. It is never accurate.

                  We know what Carlyle said, and we know what Moldbug said, and we agree with them – well we all agree with Moldbug, and quite a lot of us, myself among them, agree with Carlyle.

                  If you want to argue “my interpretation of the implications of so and so’s statement is such and such”, argue as your interpretation of so and so, argue your position, and acknowledge that we, including so and so, are unlikely to agree.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re in denial about economics. I was where you are now, a while back. It’s understandable: we were all raised to believe socialism was on the left and capitalism was on the right.

                  The idea that both are on the left is just too crazy for our mortal minds to comprehend.

                  I get it.

                  Nevertheless, the implications of a book like “Shooting Niagara” or “Chartism” take a while to crystallise in the reader’s mind.

                  I’d invite anyone who considers themselves an admirer of Carlyle just because Moldbug said he was a (very very strong: “I’m a Carlylean in the same way that some people are Marxists”) big fan.

                  I get that too: I didn’t read every book on Moldbug’s reading list while I was an NRxer….. but I read a lot of them and to my mind the message is very clear:

                  MY INTERPRETATION is that there are no Tories alive today, just a handful of strains of Whig.

                  I’m fairly sure you’d agree that today’s conservatives are yesterday’s far left. Moldbug uses the example of “A View From The Right” and says Larry Auster would’ve had to’ve called it “A View From The Left” a hundred years earlier.

                  Well that goes all the way back. When Bastiat was agitating, along with Proudhon, to destroy what remained of the old state power of the aristocracy, he was a far left radical.

                  That sounds insane to a modern reader because limited government and increased personal liberties is a Ron Paul far right ultra-libertarian idea nowadays. I don’t think many people who favour that worldview would be satisfied with Paul Ryan, for example, who claims you should be satisfied with him because he likes Ayn Rand. Even Paul Ryan’s on the right compared to many of the alternatives – by that way of thinking at least!

                  But it’s true. When the dust was settling from the various European revolutions, free markets were a left-wing cause.

                  The reason it changed, according to Moldbug, and I agree with him, is that once the left obtained power, why would they continue to be against power!

                  It’s like if the alt.right took power in America: would we still be championing free speech? Some would, no doubt, but by no means all. It’d be very easy to shift logically from “people should not be sacked from their jobs for having said ‘faggot’ in 1985” to “people going round talking about men chopping their dicks off in front of children should be silenced”.

                  The truth is, rule by principle instead of men is the HEART AND SOUL of Whiggery. Carlyle calls this concept “the rudderless boat” or “the phantasm-captain”.

                  The choice TODAY does very much seem to be between capitalism and Marxism, but there’s no reason at all why any individual human being should accede to that paradigm.

                  Anyway you allowed through a pretty clear statement before that proves to anyone with a brain that I’m not a Marxist, so since I’m not being slandered, I’ve no real reason to be here.

                  Just found the “tl;dr” comment interesting. People absorb modernity without really quite knowing why or how. Put simply, our friend who finds Carlyle too long-winded would’ve struggled with love letters and builders’ invoices in the 1860s.

                  Strike that: the 1960s too.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m fairly sure you’d agree that today’s conservatives are yesterday’s far left. Moldbug uses the example of “A View From The Right” and says Larry Auster would’ve had to’ve called it “A View From The Left” a hundred years earlier.
                  >
                  > Well that goes all the way back. When Bastiat was agitating, along with Proudhon, to destroy what remained of the old state power of the aristocracy, he was a far left radical.

                  At last, at last, you present an actual argument, instead of just confidently assuming that all agree that Marxist history and whig history is uncontroversially true, instead of just imposing Cultural Marxist frame on our ideas.

                  No, we have not always been moving left. It does not go all the way back.

                  We have been getting lefter for a very long time, but if you go back far enough, to the British civil war and the French revolution, you see today’s leftists all over again.

                  As Kipling’s poem “The Gods of the Copybook Headings” tells us, leftism expires over and over again in terror and slaughter, and the Gods of the Copybook headings return, over and over again.

                  Bastiat was considered a rightist then as now for the same reasons as he is considered a rightist today. The French Revolution was today’s left in power, much resembling Chavez and today’s Democratic party left.

                  You tell me Bastiat was a left winger at the time. But who is he attacking? He is attacking the left, for example he attacks Proudhon and pre Marxist communists – “communists” at that time being not a reference to Marx but a reference to the Paris commune, which was ultra leftist.

                  The French revolution instituted price control and the movement of goods by command. They lost, and price control ended with the final defeat of Napoleon. Bastiat is on the winning side, arguing against price control and the movement of goods by command, thus allied with the winning right against the defeated left.

                  The Paris Commune called back to the Red Terror, and saw itself as a reincarnation of the Committee of Public Safety of the French Revolution.

                  So, at the time that Bastiat wrote, his doctrines were not seen as leftist, but rightist, then as now, for the same reasons then as now, and he was looking back on a history that in his time, had moved dramatically right by his standards and ours – the communists being nostalgic for the Paris Commune and the Committee of Public Safety, the left, that we would recognize as very much today’s left, the Communists then looked back to the good old days when the left was in power.

                  Marxism and whig history tells the left the good news that history is on their side, that we have always been moving left. But history is not on your side. Leftism comes and it goes. Trees do not grow to the sky – rather, trees grow till they fall, and the time approaches for leftism to fall.

                  We moved left from Henry the eighth to Charles the first to the British civil war. After the King is beheaded, today’s left appears, horrifying and frightening Cromwell Cromwell halted the left singularity. General Monck and Charles the second rolled it back overnight. Leftism evaporated and nobody cared, like Sauron at the end of Lord of the Rings, like the Soviet Union. And since then we have been moving left again.

                  The French Revolution was a movement left, in part because it was anticapitalist and socialist, similar to Hitler’s socialism, today’s Venezuelan socialism and today’s Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming. They confiscated the property of merchants and farmers and frequently beheaded them. Its overthrow was movement right, in the same way and for the same reasons as Bolsanaro overthrowing the Venezuelan government would be movement right.

                  So Bastiat was attacking the left, a left quite similar today’s left. A left that called itself the left. A left that had been in power, and is today now in power again, but in Bastiat’s time was thoroughly out of power. We would today regard Bastiat as on the same side as Bolsonaro and against the side of the Venezuelan government, and the communists he refutes then had much the same incoherent economic doctrines as the communists we use his arguments to refute now.

                  Leftism has not been growing forever. It does not grow forever. Like a tree it grows for a time, but the tree eventually falls over. The French Revolution was today’s far left in power. In the British civil war, more like the moderate and sane left of the 1950s in power, but todays far left was visible and frightened Cromwell.

                  The murderous attack on merchants, farmers, butchers, and bakers by the French revolutionaries was then as now, left wing anticapitalism, today’s left. The hippies of the 1960s consciously recognized themselves as a revival of the diggers of the 1650s that so frightened and angered Oliver Cromwell. In their confrontation with the military they re-enacted the diggers confrontation with Cromwell’s military.

                  Outside academia, everyone knows that the cyclic history depicted by Kipling is true, because they read old books, even if only the bible (Pharaoh leftist, Moses rightist) while academics only read twenty first century academics lying about what is in old books. The ever more ludicrous ignorance of our priestly classes is undermining their priestly role.

                • Andre says:

                  It is noteworthy that in his writings on economics Bastiat always says “there may be good reasons to restrict economic freedom or have the government spend money on this, that is fine, it just won’t create wealth out of thin air as these nutjobs claim it will”..

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  CR-

                  You’re in denial about economics. I was where you are now, a while back. It’s understandable: we were all raised to believe socialism was on the left and capitalism was on the right.

                  The idea that both are on the left is just too crazy for our mortal minds to comprehend.

                  Andre

                  It is noteworthy that in his writings on economics Bastiat always says “there may be good reasons to restrict economic freedom or have the government spend money on this, that is fine, it just won’t create wealth out of thin air as these nutjobs claim it will”..

                  What’s really going on is that communism is on the left and a free market isn’t on the left or right – it’s just a feature of human relations – an outgrowth of man’s nature requiring him to have property to survive.

                  Here’s an analogy – saying a trannie is really a woman is left wing but saying he’s a delusional eunuch isn’t right wing – it’s reality.

                • jim says:

                  Leftists think that if they knock over the apple cart, there will be an abundance of apples, and for a little while, there is an abundance of apples. Not long thereafter, a mysterious shortage of apples and apple carts occurs. Leftists then search for the witches who are causing the entirely mysterious apple shortage, but no matter how many witches they burn, apples mysteriously fail to re-appear, demonstrating the continued existence of witches.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Yep, it’s a self-licking ice cream cone. The only possible reason for problems is insufficient leftism and leftism causes problems so the more leftism gets you more problems that justifies more leftism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  OK I’m not really here so if you censor this, that’s totally fine it makes very little difference to the article above, or to the topical digressions in the comments so it’s all good.

                  But, since there are some interesting comments here, I’ll indulge my gob for a bit and see what gets through…

                  Jim’s big post is the most important here but there’s also, from André I think, the standard libertarian canard that liberty is neither left nor right but something orthogonal, even though the left is (at least partially) defined by a certain economic mindset that also affects their social policies.

                  I’m going to both agree and disagree lol

                  Here’s what I’m responding to: ah it’s Steve Johnson, but touches on André’s previous post:

                  “What’s really going on is that communism is on the left and a free market isn’t on the left or right – it’s just a feature of human relations – an outgrowth of man’s nature requiring him to have property to survive.

                  Here’s an analogy – saying a trannie is really a woman is left wing but saying he’s a delusional eunuch isn’t right wing – it’s reality.”

                  I’m going to agree that free markets themselves, TODAY, are neither left nor right. The reason I say that is that you have broad agreement between on the left Jacob Hornberger, Sheldon Richman and Jeffrey Tucker, and on the right Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Lew Rockwell and Tom Woods. (Even if anyone argues about who goes in what category, eg. Jeff Tucker, who used to be very conservative, I hope most people will agree that the above people all largely agree with one another about free markets.)

                  I’ve said here many times that this wasn’t always the way. Bastiat wasn’t a negative campaigner against the socialist programme: sure he opposed it, and we might even all agree on principle that he was right to do so, since Marxian socialism is more egalitarian (in many ways that matter) than laissez-faire. Laissez-faire is about the possibility at least of equality of legal standing, whereas Marxian socialism is about (among other things of course) the possibility at least of equality of the wherewithal to command goods and services. (These aren’t rigid characterisations, more flavours, but I hope they’re not too controversial.)

                  So other than opposing the Marxists, what was the *positive* agenda that Bastiat and the other free market advocates were writing all those books about in the 19th century, and the classical economists before that? That body of literature from “The Wealth of Nations” to “The Pure Time Preference Theory Of Interest” was not simply a negative agenda of “please don’t do X Y and Z or bad things will happen”.

                  No, they were advocating for laissez-faire. Instead of nations applying protectionist tariffs, Smith proposed a system of free trade in which the international division of labour was respected as a fact of nature, and capital was free to flow across borders so that investment could be concentrated where it would do the most good, to the mutual benefit of all market participants.

                  The prior wisdom Ricardo et al were attacking was rather that even if it’d be more efficient and profitable, and hence genuinely better economically, sometimes it was better to maintain the status quo at home so that society’s orderly, coherent fabric could remain undisturbed.
                  I’ve been arguing for that view here for a long time. It was the Tory view, the view that radical change was always a bad thing, and that anything that protected the way things currently were was inherently to be desired, without prejudice to efficiency or profitability, and especially when the benefits weren’t guaranteed to accrue to the home team.
                  Call it a nasty, competitive mindset by all means, but the Tories of the 18th century wants English traditions and institutions to survive intact, for the benefit of the people of England, all of whom were connected across social classes and roles by a combination of duty and noblesse oblige.

                  Now if you want to say that this is a nod in the direction of the command economy, I agree entirely: we find the level at which sufficient housing, furniture, clothing, food, etc. is produced to meet the needs of the population as it stands, and make only tiny quantitative adjustments as the population changes in number and nature. Innovation can be restricted to a small number of fields: medicine, theoretical science (to a point but not beyond that point), the arts, and so on.

                  This is pretty much the opposite of the ‘creative destruction’ of the capitalist consumer world where your iPhone’s terribly out of date every ten years and perhaps it’s time to start using an ‘app’ to book a taxi or order a table at a chain restaurant rather than rocking up in person.
                  I’m also more than happy to admit that while the Tory order of the pre-Georgian era is a nod and a wink to the command economy, I personally would favour an even stronger version, mostly because of modern circumstances. There’s a LOT to change before we get anywhere near what Charles II had, economically – and by ‘economically’ I mean the stuff that went on in the economy, rather than any philosophical underpinning.

                  To be clear, it’s not that anti-laissez-faire Tories were opposed to particular theories of Say or Cantillon or whatever: it’s just they knew what was currently working, and they had this pessimistic suspicion that when you muck around with things that work, they quite often work less well. Their prejudice was, in other words, that their ancestors were not morons, while the Whig prejudice is that anything prior to the Current Year is completely stupid.

                  Remember Tom Woods loves the online gig economy, electronically provided homeschooling, clever advertising techniques and the dream of a world in which you wake up, press a button, then your workday’s finished thanks to automation.

                  There are no Tories alive today: I’d be shot as a dumb progressive revolutionary if the Tories ruled the world, and you guys OMG…….. lol

                  But a Tory alive today would hate all the above that Tom Woods loves. They’d be for shutting down Uber and Air BnB straight away because they threaten existing institutions. They’d hate the idea of some political activist connected to an elected politician producing educational materials for other people’s kids, and they’d be highly contemptuous of the idle hands produced by Tom’s future paradise of automation and maximal leisure. They’d anticipate terrible crime-waves, drunkenness and God knows what else…….. and if Ron Paul talked about legalising drugs, WOW JUST WOW, they’d make the audience in that old clip on YouTube look like Paul campaign donors and family friends.

                  At risk of this getting long, on to Jim’s comment:

                  “We would today regard Bastiat as on the same side as Bolsonaro and against the side of the Venezuelan government”

                  Yes.

                  Bolsonaro’s hatred of the Venezuelan régime is very strange. On the surface, both are independence-oriented administrations trying to focus on their own people rather than the global order, but then Bolsonaro’s very philo-Semitic and that leads him to see a larger picture from time to time.

                  At this point if I had to pick, I’d side with Maduro *in spite of* his crazy egalitarian economic policies. Respect for the self-determination of other nations is part and parcel of putting the interests of your own nation first, which means that Bolsonaro’s nationalism is imperfect as he focuses his attention to things that won’t benefit his own. I’ll grant you it’s not an easy situation, but national loyalty has to come first for the Tory/reactionary mindset.

                  Bastiat would see no dilemma at all: one wants the government to interfere, the other does not, so the one that does not is the goodie and the one that does is the baddie.

                  Do you see how, to the modern mind, the choice is always “the government will interfere in pursuit of equality” vs “the government will not do that”?

                  The Tory choice is off the table: “the government will interfere in pursuit of stability, order and the continued functioning of the things that are currently working”.

                  To frame it another way, focusing on the private rather than public sector, laissez-faireists favour “entrepreneurs will interfere in pursuit of efficiency and increase prosperity available, potentially, to every market participant” while the now extinct Tories favoured “entrepreneurs will not be allowed to interfere in the working of society”.

                  I’m still adamant that that latter attitude is not a form of Marxism. It’s implicitly hierarchical: we say what goes, you do not get to meddle. It has nothing at all to do with equality: there will still be plebs and smallholders and bankers and builders, tomorrow just as yesterday.

                  *usual disclaimer: there was always the possibility for individuals to better themselves through the grammar school and university system, perhaps supplying the personnel for the state bureaucracy, entering the priesthood or perhaps entering industry. Indeed the concept of ‘new firms’ was certainly not alien. It takes a lot to disrupt the functioning of a society: even under outright liberal progressivism, a lot remains intact today. Consider how many dominoes slowly fell since say the 1960s: by 1990 many of the dominoes that today have fallen were still standing thirty years on from 1960.

                  OK this is getting too long.

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive.

                  Instead of framing us and telling us what we think, you frame sundry politicians and philosophers and tell us what they thought. It is not what they thought and I will not allow it again.

                  Bolsonaro is for God, Nation, Family, and Property. Nicolás Maduro and Hugo Chávez are against them. It is not complicated.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m still adamant that that latter attitude is not a form of Marxism.

                  It is a form of Marxism because it presupposes that King Solomon and Queen Elizabeth the First ran command economies. It is a form of Marxism because it presupposes that the French revolution was capitalists taking power, rather than capitalists getting their property effectively confiscated as in Venezuela today, and getting beheaded, which is worse than Venezuela today.

                  It is also a form of progressivism and whig history, because it presupposes we have always been moving left all the way back, denying The Restoration and the defeat of the French Revolution.

                  And you argue for Marxism, progressivism, and whig history, by not by providing evidence and argument, but by imposing the frame on people past and present, that we agree with Marxism, progressivism, and whig history.

                • jim says:

                  > Bastiat wasn’t a negative campaigner against the socialist programme:

                  Lying about Bastiat. I will not allow any more of this.

                  Bastiat coined the famous phrase, “Sculptors in human flesh” to describe socialists, and William Bradford, the Governor of the Pilgrims, pushing back against the leftist singularity that happened four centuries before the present day leftist singularity, sarcastically described them as “Wiser than God” – which sarcasm implies that capitalism and the market economy was divinely ordained following the fall, and a multiplicity of nations divinely ordained in Chapter 11 of Genesis.

                  They attacked socialism for its arrogance and violence, not its egalitarianism, and the existence of these attacks show that we have already done many turns on this merry go round, that we get leftism similar to today’s leftism over and over again, as depicted in “The Gods of the Market Place”, and it usually ends in terror and slaughter, as the Gods of the Copybook Headings return.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive and repetitious.

                  You presuppose, rather than arguing, that gay marriage and such is the spontaneous result of markets and demand, that advertisers plugging couples and groups that grossly deviate from their customer profile and likely customer profile are the spontaneous result of markets and demand.

                  It is not.

                  In your previous post, that I allowed, you presuppose that various past figures agree that it is a spontaneous result of markets and demand. They did not.

                  Queen Elizabeth the first suppressed actresses without interfering in artistic freedom the way progressives do today, and she suppressed piracy that adversely affected British trade without interfering in the raw and bloody capitalism of the merchant adventurers the way progressives do today, and the same is true to some considerable extent of everyone else that you discuss in that post.

                  Our current problems reflect policies of the priesthood, which policies are implemented in substantial part through the suppression of capitalism and markets. You blame the crimes of the priestly classes on the spontaneous demand of the masses, the advance of technology, and the natural outcome of markets.

                  I allowed your previous post, but not this post, because it is a new claim. Instead of an evil plot by our capitalist rulers, you claim that leftism is spontaneous.

                  And instead of imposing Marxist frame on everyone, you are imposing progressive frame on everyone.

                  But from here forward, you are going to have to argue for the progressive story with evidence, rather than by imposing progressive frame on everyone else, the way you previously imposed Marxist frame on everyone else, and the way you imposed progressive frame on all the opponents of progressivism in your previous post.

                • jim says:

                  I allowed this claim once. I replied to it.

                  If you want to continue with this claim, respond to my reply. Not going to allow you to continue to repeat it while ignoring rebuttals.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Repetitious and unresponsive.

                  Reply to my arguments, don’t reframe them as accepting Marxism, progressivism, and whig history, and merely disputing minor irrelevancies.

                  To argue that because Queen Elizabeth had power, and exercised it, therefore not capitalism, presupposes that Capitalists today have power and exercise it, that capitalism is a system of government and that we already agree that capitalism is a system of government. Capitalism is not a political system, not a system of rule. It is what happens when people are able to have property. If no terror and mass murder, market economy. If market economy over an area larger than is ruled by a single patriarch and occupied by his quite small clan, some specialists in the market economy get quite wealthy, hence capitalism.

                  Trade tends to be restrained by the boundaries between one ruler and another, because goods protected by one sovereign have to transferred to the protection of a different sovereign, which necessarily involves the sovereigns with each other and with the merchants. This does not make what happens within the area protected by one sovereign any the less capitalism, unless the area is so small and trade between sovereignties so difficult that specialists in the market economy cannot get rich, for lack of scale, as tends to happen in areas that are protected and occupied by single patriarchal and patrilineal clan.

                  If you want to argue it is a system of rule, going to have provide evidence and argument, rather than imposing that frame on everyone, including me.

                  You demand answers to a bunch of question that I already answered at length in the plainest possible fashion, but your questions presuppose that in my previous replies I acknowledged and accepted Marxist history, Marxist economics, and whig history, and that thus that my replies were internally inconsistent and incoherent.

                  You demand proof of things that are uncontroversial to anyone except Marxists. If I answered, you would ignore the evidence, as you have ignored all my previous evidence. Your objective is not to find the facts, but to present Marxism as a mainstream view that everyone accepts.

                  My previous replies were inconsistent with the frame you impose on those replies, because the actual frame was: that that the French revolution was twenty first century socialist leftism, that socialism had been militarily defeated, and that Bastiat, by condemning socialism with savage, vehement, and magnificent writing, was endorsing the victors and condemning the losers.

                  Bastiat was telling the sovereign he should make it easier to transfer property from the protection of one sovereign to the protection of another sovereign. He is not telling the sovereign he should permit capitalism, because he took for granted that after the leftist singularity had been militarily defeated, of course the sovereign permitted capitalism. Only crazy and evil sovereigns suppress capitalism, though sovereign weakness can result in property being protected small area by small area by a single baron or a single patriarchal and patrilineal clan, with the result that the area is so small that specialists in the market economy cannot get rich.

        • vxxc says:

          Agents on the take likely aren’t Muslims.

          They’re likely White Boys of modest means dazzled by the splendor and opulent corruption of the Orient who foolishly take whats on hand.
          They have no natural resistance or moral antibodies to all this – like the Spartans who took the dazzling Persians silver coin.

          The Ivy League certainly wouldn’t have prepared anyone for moral tests.
          These Fish do rot from the head down.

        • Koanic says:

          > I had assumed that Obama and Hillary were consciously and intentionally arming and funding ISIS, but the picture he shows is more corruption, incompetence, and self delusion at every level of government, and double agents at the lower level.

          This satisfies my skepticism 100%. Tinfoil hatters BTFO’d.

          • Vxxc says:

            Yes to Koranic: corrupt and incompetent.
            Huge competency gap: understanding religion and religious people.
            Staffers who come from families who had religion notice the entire long war a complete blank spot regarding God, religion, Islam.

  27. vxxc says:

    The Duffleblog (military The Onion) is also informative and useful.

    Really.

    https://www.duffelblog.com/2019/03/russians-training-pudgy-tattooed-honeypots-to-target-enlisted/

  28. vxxc says:

    Up NZ!

    • Simon says:

      He was an Aussie mate, the only Anglos with stones left.

    • Obadiah says:

      Can’t dent the Brent

      • vxxc says:

        Up AU in NZ then.
        NZ suddenly not looking so tempting for flight methinks.

        I refer to my pre-NZ incident post: I am observing.
        Note there were multiple attackers.
        They aren’t crazy. They just committed.

        Really it’s just Human Nature winning.
        Whites are openly targeted for demographic extinction in their own lands.
        The Diverse invaders bring their intrinsic violence excited by Liberal betrayals into dreams of conquest that are tantalyzingly within their grasp.
        So they grasp for conquest drawing our blood.
        As the Left wing Ruling Priesthood offers only Holy submission to genocide some begin to fight. More are coming.
        If you think its starting to get loud now wait until the voters swing Left again and they will.
        If Brevik can be lionized and he is in many quarters such as the remarks below then so can Tarrant.

        The Will to Survive will win.

        As for dismissing as fantasy the Hills crawling with Crazies – I’m from the Hills. Not crazy but hard nosed practical and their done crawling.

        As for false flag: No. You’re False Flagging yourself.
        Then again Steel doesn’t burn either….

    • The Cominator says:

      Shooting rank and file diversity is not the right kind of blaze of glory if you intend that sort of thing (don’t worry FBI I don’t), although I don’t delude myself to think that mosque going Muslims in Western countries are innocent people (and normally when some “screw your optics” dumbass does this sort of thing they mainly get innocent people). If you are attending mosque only need only a little motivation to become an Islamic terrorist and most of them were probably already supporting Islamic terrorists financially.

      The right approach is to target politically ultra elite shitlibs the way Brevik did.

      • Koanic says:

        You’re not wrong. Matador, cape. Kill the ones scared of dying. He’ll be canonized regardless.

      • Andre says:

        “I don’t delude myself to think that mosque going Muslims in Western countries are innocent people”

        Innocent people… relative to who are these muslims “not innocent people”?

        • jim says:

          All Muslims who take Islam seriously provide a friendly and supportive environment for terrorists, and give terrorists high status.

          No Christians who take Christianity seriously provide a friendly and supportive environment for terrorists, or give terrorists high status. At best, Christians think them nuts, and even if sympathetic an on the same side, still give them low status and a not very friendly environment.

          • Andre says:

            Why should islamic terrorists have lower status than soldiers in the employ of the USG?

          • Andre says:

            Why should islamic terrorists have lower status than abortion doctors?

          • Andre says:

            Why should islamic terrorists have lower status than cops enforcing “domestic violence” and “child support” laws?

            • jim says:

              Because the cops are doing what the state tells them to, and when the state instead tells them to return runaway wives and daughters to fathers and husbands instead of telling them to evict fathers and husbands from their homes, they will do that, and be much relieved to be doing so.

              A good warrior obeys orders, even when they are bad orders.

              The warrior ethos was famously exemplified by the Charge of the Light Brigade. Lord Cardigan knew someone had blundered horribly, and protested, but followed orders anyway, taking the greatest danger upon himself, to reduce the danger to those following him.

              And that made him a great warrior.

              • Andre says:

                Islamic terrorists are also doing what the state tells them to. It’s just a different state.

                • jim says:

                  Most Islamic terrorists target their own state first, and are targeted by their own state first. Islamic terrorism is a big problem for Islamic states, and has been since shortly after Mohammed died. Islamic states fund Islamic terrorism that is in some other state.

                • Andre says:

                  No Jim. Islamic terrorists don’t target their own state at all.

                • jim says:

                  Isis does little else but target existing Islamic states, usually states that their members were citizens and subjects of, and born and resident in those states.

                  The only good example of a terrorist organization not targeting its own state was Al Quaeda, which targeted neither Talibanic Afghanistan nor Saudi Arabia nor Pakistan. And Saudi Arabia, the Taliban, and Pakistan, had substantial cutouts between themselves and Al Quaeda, which makes those terrorists doing bad things different from cops and soldiers doing bad things.

                  Osama bin Laden wrote and heavily promoted a lengthy Islamic argument that doing state like things without state approval was legitimate. One cannot imagine a senior Christian cop or soldier doing that.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  >It’s just a different state.
                  Exactly. Therefore they should expect to have high status in that state, and we see that they do. They are the avowed enemies of both our current Progressive Western states and any hypothetical wished-for right-wing successors, so both would be wise to lower their status as far as possible.

              • Andre says:

                -“warriors should be on top”
                -“a good warrior obeys orders”

                Pick one. You can’t have both.

                • vxxc says:

                  Very True.

                  Good warriors are on top.
                  Good SOLDIERS always obey orders.
                  They don’t always win wars.

                  Warriors these days tend to migrate to PMC/merc.
                  Soldiers who are or were warriors serve on doing what they can to mitigate despair (me).

              • bxxc says:

                The Other advantage of the cops is they are readily accessible as they are local and answer locally.

                They certainly don’t like Progressives, who harm them.

          • Andre says:

            Why should islamic terrorists have lower status than tax collectors in the service of western governments?

          • Andre says:

            I am not a muslim because I do not believe Allah is the only God and Mohammad was his messenger. I believe in Jesus Christ. But islamic terrorists are fighting a corrupt civilization, they are fighting my enemies, they are not fighting my civilization. I don’t know how christian the christians that ISIS persecutes are, so maybe there they are, but they are still more distant enemies than western normies.

            • jim says:

              Nuts.

              Progressivism cannot stand any deviation, and Islam cannot stand any deviation.

              • Andre says:

                I have no idea why you think that is a relevant reply.

              • Andre says:

                Let me be clearer. Throughout western society, people provide a friendly and supportive environment for people that engage in bad behaviour. To put it simply, some people don’t like cops but they’ll back up abortion doctors while some people don’t like abortion doctors but they’ll back up cops. The cops are actively enforcing the feminist laws. They are the ones who carry the disobedient man to jail under threat of death. Soldiers in the employ of the USG in Iraq fought to impose women’s suffrage. Why are muslims who befriend islamic terrorists less innocent than the average normie in western societies? I don’t believe they are.

                • Frederick Algernon says:

                  You must be aware that you are using a microscope for one and a wide angle lens for the other. The police in the US absolutely do enforce feminized bullshit laws. The muzzy terrorists absolutely do incorporate reactionary elements in their “civilisations.” But is this all they do? For one, you say “see? not 100% perfect ergo Bad” and for the other you say “see? 1% ok ergo Good.” You are a female brained dipshit.

                • jim says:

                  > The muzzy terrorists absolutely do incorporate reactionary elements in their “civilisations.

                  With the striking exceptions of Isis, the Taliban and Boko Haram, they absolutely don’t enforce reactionary elements in their civilizations.

                  Osama bin Laden swallowed the left wing anti imperialist critique of our civilization. Isis was reactionary, but Al Quaeda was not.

                  And, in any case, none of them, except perhaps Boko Haram, are attacking us for social decay, feminism, and leftism. They are attacking us for not submitting, and if we install a highly reactionary official state religion to replace the currently unofficially official state religion of progressivism, none of them will care, and few of them will even notice. Boko Haram will notice, but will not care all that much.

                  All of them will continue to attack us. In Syria, they all agreed on genocide against Alawites, and the US was happy with that because the Alawites were insufficiently progressive.

                • Andre says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Provide evidence and examples, not mere confident assertion.

                • Andre says:

                  Evidence and examples of what? Fred seems to think western civilization as it exists today isn’t 100% perfect but it’s mostly ok, therefore we should side with it against the islamic takeover, thus muslim “normies” not innocent but western normies innocent. I am not of that opinion. I will defend a reactionary west against radical islamists. I will not defend a progressive west against radical islamists. The west as it exists today hates me more than it hates the radical islamist. This is the literal truth. To normies, I am a monster.

                • jim says:

                  Trouble is, Islam hates you more.

                • Andre says:

                  Not really.

                • jim says:

                  Unresponsive. If you disagree, provide evidence. Given the Islamic propensity to drive trucks into people, and suchlike, it looks very much as if they hate us even more than progressives do. Progressives denigrate husbands and fathers from the pulpit. Muslims kill husbands and fathers and take their wives and daughters.

                  Similarly a Jew is apt to find a strangely creative interpretation of a promise or a contract, but a Muslim will say he will keep the promise or the contract, “God willing”, and surprise surprise, God is never willing.

                • Andre says:

                  “Given the Islamic propensity to drive trucks into people, and suchlike, it looks very much as if they hate us even more than progressives do.”

                  I find that a very strange argument. Muslims say “ally with our group or be treated as an enemy”. That they drive trucks into crowds of their enemies tells me nothing. The USG killed a ton of people in its multiple crusades for progressivism around the world.

                  Progressives say “ally with our group so we can jump off a cliff together”. The muslim promises a somewhat decent life if I join their group. The progressive promises hell on earth. That makes the muslim an honorable enemy, and the progressive outright demonic.

                  “Progressives denigrate husbands and fathers from the pulpit. Muslims kill husbands and fathers and take their wives and daughters.”

                  Progressives don’t just fucking “denigrate husbands and fathers from the pulpit”, they destroy husbands and fathers, they take everything they have, drive them to suicide, kill them if they resist, and then laugh about it. You have a very strange notion of what progressives are doing. They do kill husbands and fathers and take their wives and daughters.

                • jim says:

                  > > “Given the Islamic propensity to drive trucks into people, and suchlike, it looks very much as if they hate us even more than progressives do.”

                  > I find that a very strange argument. Muslims say “ally with our group or be treated as an enemy

                  Not what they say: They say “Submit to our religion or we will kill you.”

                  That was the problem in Burma and it is the problem in Thailand. Have the Burmese intervened in the Middle East? The boundaries of Islam are covered in blood, mostly the blood of people and peoples you have never heard of.

                • Andre says:

                  “Ally with our group or be treated as an enemy.” and “Submit to our religion or we will kill you.” are just different ways of saying the same thing. They do not always kill those who do not submit, they are pragmatic, but killing is part of the range of ways you treat an enemy. Progressives are not meaningfully different in that sense. The difference is that if you join Islam, you stand a good chance of having grandkids. If you join Progressivism, you stand a good chance of seeing your grandkid be castrated, drugged, and made to dance in a cage in a gay bar, and have to pay for all of it.

                • jim says:

                  > “Ally with our group or be treated as an enemy.” and “Submit to our religion or we will kill you.” are just different ways of saying the same thing

                  Allies are equals. People who submit are merely enemies too contemptible to be killed in the event of failure to convert.

                • Andre says:

                  And you really can’t ignore the fact that Islam is itself being subverted by progressivism, that radical Islam is a reactionary movement (though it sometimes takes a detour into fascism/nazism instead of tradition, just like in the west), and that most of the muslim world is made up of low IQ populations. The islamic world seems kind of crappy, but it is actually very similar to latin america, which is mostly catholic. It’s mostly just a low IQ problem. Why are they low IQ? It’s possible that some elements of Islam caused this but I’m entirely certain that progressivism is going to crash IQs in the western world much faster.

                • jim says:

                  > It’s mostly just a low IQ problem.

                  No, the trouble with Islam is not just a low IQ problem. Other low IQ peoples don’t have bloody borders, and when Islam conquered advanced peoples, those peoples regressed.

                • Andre says:

                  If you convert you are an equal. That is how any civilized group operates. There is nothing at all wrong with that aspect of Islam.

                • jim says:

                  > If you convert you are an equal.

                  In the end, we may have to do that. But Islam sucks. When a higher technology, higher mathematics people, are conquered by Islam they lose it. The Damascus steel swords that so impressed the crusaders were rare heirlooms owned by aristocrats, having been made by an India that lost the ability to make them soon after being conquered by Muslims. Similarly Persia.

                  Islam is inimical to science and technology. Partly it is an effect of the God too big problem. God needed to be flogged through the streets of Jerusalem to allow room for human flourishing. Partly it is a side effect of the anti innovation measures they implemented after their tenth century leftist singularity to prevent further leftist singularities. Needed to limit religious innovation. We also will need to limit religious innovation, but we will do so by an inquisition that only restrains scientists in quasi statal jobs, and having plenty of non statal science jobs by outsourcing military logistics.

                • Andre says:

                  I’m not saying “Yay, Islam is so cool, I love Islam!”. I’m saying “Stop demonizing muslim normies while giving progressive normies a pass. You are being manipulated into hating them because the muslims run trucks over progressive normies, while the progressives drop bombs on the muslim normies and then point the finger at you. And they aren’t entirely wrong, because it is often the most conservative in the west that are dropping the bombs in order to further the progressive crusades.” This is the big fucking problem, the elephant in the room. You people keep ingrouping your enemies, and as a consequence of being sincere instead of blatant hypocrites like them, you outgroup those who pose the greatest danger to them and act as their fucking shield. Meanwhile the progressives laugh. Like the feminists say, a conservative becomes a feminist as soon as brown people come into the picture. So what do they do? They side with the brown people, of course! Because they hate YOU more than anything. And like fucking idiots, you do exactly what they want, which is hate the brown people. You worry about building a wall instead of purging your own society of the traitors seeking its destruction.

                • jim says:

                  I don’t give normies a pass. But you were arguing that Islam is on the same side. Islam is it is own side, and it is even more hostile to us than progressivism.

                  The problem is that progressives are seeking alliance with Islam, and apt to delude themselves that they have succeeded, as with Obama’s infamous moderate Muslims in Syria, the infamous Free Syrian Army (he should have realized something was funny when they had an English name) and his propensity to import large numbers of rapeugees to marginal federal electorates. We should not make a similar error.

                  Russia is also its own side, but we could have alliance with them, and it would be great to do so. Everyone that makes alliance with Islam gets burned.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Islam is not really even its own side. Pretty sure most of them are funded / backed indirectly by the Cathedral, most blatant example being Xinjiang. ISIS is hardly reactionary given that a key selling point of it is socialist health care, even being to the left of the NHS. In any case, leftism is worse, but it just takes a coup to get rid of them, so far nobody has fixed a conversion to Islam.

          • Vxxc says:

            Christians absolutely don’t support fighting.
            Holiness wise Diversity > Christ.

            Christendom Illicet.

            So consistently we see the appeal to the older gods of paganism just as we saw in Germany. Again.

            And will see again.

            I don’t care. Whoever fights can win. Whoever doesn’t fight can’t win as they’ve eliminated the possibilty.

  29. BC says:

    NZ is a false flag. The trend that started with the 2018 election will only accelerate from here on out.

    • Obadiah says:

      Quite possible. I’m waiting for more info to roll in.

    • jim says:

      As yet, no verified cases of false flag attacks using guns – though they do tend to improve the optics of an actual attack with crisis actors.

      • Koanic says:

        Agreed, that was what threw all the tinfoilers off.

      • The Cominator says:

        I’m quite sure the official story on the Mandalay Bay shooting is not the whole truth.

        I’m quite sure that Paddock was not a professional video poker player because that is mathematically impossible and if he claimed income from that… he was laundering money. I’m quite sure that there is casino footage related to the shooter that was covered up.

        I’m not sure what the truth is but I’m quite sure that there is something close to False Flag there. Also strange is the lack of loudmouth crisis actors… almost like someone wants it forgotten about.

        • Koanic says:

          Yeah he was probably a Deep State Boomer making a pro- gun control, anti Republican statement, as a way to escape personal life failure. True believers. You can’t talk to them, you just have to kill them all.

    • alf says:

      Judging from the shooter video and what I read of the shooter manifesto, seems real. The video was Professional, as if to say: ‘look, this is how we white people do mass sbootings. We film them in high quality, we park our cars smartly and we double-tap.’

      If NZ was a false flag, better than any real flag I’ve yet seen.

      • yewotm8 says:

        Also judging from the video, the shooter was untrained. He was prepared to the best of his own ability, but he lacked the tactical background that a proper asset would have had.

    • Frederick Algernon says:

      Maybe try and qualify a statement like that? I watched the livestream. I will probably read the manifesto. If it is a False Flag, que bono?

      I think these 88ers are convinced that they will set off a chain reaction. In this way, they have much more in common with the SPLC in terms of fantasies about the hills being crawling with people on the wrong side of history.

      • Vxxc says:

        I’m from the Hills.

        They’re there and there’s many Them there and they are done with crawling.

        • Frederick Algernon says:

          Haha I know you jest. The hills are completely safe for liberal transit.

          Kidding aside, the biggest signal to me that there is no “standalone complex” is how tactically abysmal the few incidences are. I watched the NZ attack. Terrible methodology, terrible kit, purely amateur across the board. To me, this says two things: pro-LARPERs are capable of delivering fairly devastating attacks (so why so few?) AND it isn’t a real movement until territory is taken and held.

          Understand, I’m not discussing sides, morals, or aspirations. Rather, I am making the counterassertion that there is no international, coordinated WN movement. Yet. This is in response to the MSM scaremongering that was going on in the NZ wake.

          A final comparison with completely made up placeholder numbers:

          A muzzie inbred hats up and shoots a bunch of people in a non-muzzie nation. Of 100% of muzzies polled, 5% say “snackbar and continue mashallah,” 25% say “I something something violence BUT the West is the real aggressor so inshallah,” 50% say “not all muzzies iselamulakum,” and 20% No Comment.

          A white wannabe hats up and shoots a bunch people in a white country. Of 100% of whites polled, 80% say “Sorry and I will work harder to [boilerplate],” 10% say “[encrypt: genocide white males], and 9% say “how terrible. Terrible things are terrible. We should un-terrible the world somehow.” 1% say “HDNW.”

          • The Cominator says:

            “I am making the counterassertion that there is no international, coordinated WN movement.”

            Nor will there ever be, whites are wolf to whites.

            Synthetic tribe with multiple languages distributed across the earth that is also supposed to be based on an inorganic ethnicity (whiteness) rather then religion.. WIGGA please.

            • Pseudo-crhysostom says:

              >Nor will there ever be, whites are wolf to whites.

              The first step to denaturing leftism is to not find yourself possessed by modes of thought coherent or compatible with leftism.

  30. vxxc says:

    AU Senator sparks outrage over remarks that it’s due to immigration.

    https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/new-zealand-mosque-shooting-outrage-as-farright-australian-senator-fraser-anning-links-massacre-to-a4092421.html

    I am unable to see the Maori reaction but I’ll make a prediction: they’ll stick with the whites. Just as our Blacks will stick with us.
    History is full of Bad Marriages that work.

    If you forgot I’m not racist. Too practical in my cold way to throw away allies or their potential.

      • yewotm8 says:

        They’re clamouring for charges to be pressed against him for defending himself against a hit to the head from behind. Regardless of whether or not it was with an egg, the little shit needed to be socked in the face, and it happened. I can’t imagine the level of cuckery that would be required to view the Senator’s reaction as unjustified.

        • Cloudswrest says:

          I submit that anybody who is not truly emotionally gratified by the Senator’s response is someone who can not be trusted. They have an alternate psychology.

          Claire Lehmann, founder of the Quillette and member of the “far right” media approved “Intellectual Dark Web” (along with Ben Shapiro) was “ashamed” by it. See tweet below. I wonder how’d she react if, while publicly speaking, someone walked up and gave one of her breasts a good squeeze.

          https://twitter.com/clairlemon/status/1106815114064199680

        • calov says:

          I love that he hit the kid more than once. That little shit needed to begin his education by having an older man whip his ass on tv.

  31. vxxc says:

    Robert Reich says Red Alert !!

    Neglecting to mention who is exactly supposed to alert that isn’t already hysterical or who alerts besides lawyers, academics and reporters.

    https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/commentisfree/2019/mar/16/donald-trump-breitbart-interview-white-supremacy

    Now that humors done I’ll make my main point: Fear works.
    They’re afraid for good reason.

    Some here are afraid without any real reason at all.
    The consequences of their positions begin to manifest and they run for the hills – ignoring that the very hills eyes are opened now by the very words written here, at UR, at Outsideness.

    I said real reasons. Attempting to run from yourselves will not work.

  32. waynecolvin says:

    Hi Jim. Have you heard of Atavisionary’s new blog aggregator and chat group? (I made one too, see my link.) What is that guy up to? I had to quit his chat group tonight…

    • jim says:

      Not following him. Probably should. He is trying to build a red pilled reactionary community, primarily about our most popular issue: Sex.

      Maduro is preventing people from getting food, medicine, and dentistry. Progressives are preventing men from having sex, wives, and children.

      • Glaze of the Hyperborian Gigachad says:

        You are a Boomer to the bone.

        Venezuela has oil coming out of its ears. More oil than anyone else in the world, including Saudi Arabia.

        Your “socialism” hand wave is maximally moronic. It is literally incapable of “preventing people from getting food, medicine, and dentistry”. It could issue a monthly stipend to everyone in the country, a stipend in value exceeding the per capita income of most first-world countries, and STILL have more money than it could find ways to spend, at the gov-corp level.

        Venezuelan shelves are empty because its banking is frozen and it’s under an unofficial embargo.

        IN OTHER WORDS, it’s under assault by US because we need to secure its oil in order to withdraw from the Middle Eastern clusterfuck.

        INTERESTS OVER IDEOLOGY

        • R7 Rocket says:

          You should stop putting ho’s on pedestals before challenging Jim…

        • jim says:

          Nuts.

          If socialists were capable of pursuing self interest, they would be pumping their oil and mining their gold. And if socialists were capable of pursuing self interest, they would not be socialists in the first place. If a government is socialist, probably trapped in a holiness spiral.

          If the evil capitalist overlords were allowed to pursue their self interest, they would, after the style of old East India Company, put the ludicrously weak and incapable government of Venezuela to the sword, and pump their oil and mine their gold.

          The Venezuelan famine is as artificial as the French Revolutionary famine, the Cambodian autogenocide, and the Holodomor.

          Socialism stops people from getting food and medicine because that is what socialism is: Socialism is simply people like you stopping people like me from getting food and medicine because you are holier than we are and therefore have more right to our property than we do. You are going to use my property to help the poor, but actually using it to help the poor turns out to be far more complicated than expected, so the net effect is as if you set it on fire, which frequently you do. You kill the cows of the peasant with two cows and confiscate the seed corn.

          If an ordinary Briton has a toothache in Britain, how long does it take him to get a filling? He cannot get his tooth fixed in time, and the tooth dies, after a long and painful time, unless he goes overseas to some place without socialist medicine.

          It is you, not the evil capitalist overlords, who are killing is tooth and leaving him in pain, because you are holier than he is. You will not permit him to make a deal with the dentist that would make both of them better off, because then dentists would make too much money and would be able to ignore the supervision of their betters.

          • eternal anglo says:

            Nobody who thinks capital is the villain has been able to explain to me why in Rhodesia, the streets of Salisbury used to be washed with water every morning, to keep the city free of dust, whereas now, people wash their clothes in muddy water in meter deep potholes in the same streets.

            Nobody who thinks capital is the villain has been able to explain to me why I have to do my homework in candlelight, because in South Africa we get power now only sixteen and a half hours a day.

            • calov says:

              To be fair, that’s less about capitalism v. socialism, and more about rule by whites vs. rule by blecks, isn’t it? Harare still had paved roads in the 90s, but Zambia had no paved roads in the 90s, and only paraffin and kerosene in the petrol stations.

              • The Cominator says:

                Capitalist rule by blacks without socialists fucking it up gets you places like Trinidad.

                The infrastructure is bad and the economy is low skill but people don’t starve and basic services work.

                Socialism otoh results in starvation and electricity not working consistently because even high iq populations like the North Koreans and Germans can’t plan an economy all that well and the longer it goes on the more things break down.

                • calov says:

                  Yeah, socialism is bad, but having had relatives in Rhodesia I don’t think it’s just a matter of getting rid of socialism. It’s also about blacks being brought up to speed with modernity, which colonialism was, at least by some accounts, trying to do. But as the chinese guy in the documentary tells the African, the blecks ruined all the infrastructure left by Europeans even while getting humanitarian aid gibs from Europe. If socialism was the sole problem, China would still be a basket case. Ask eternal anglo what it means when an African in Zimbabwe says he will be at work at 8 am.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  Well, when you want to hire a reliable black in Souf Effrika, he’s often a Rhodesian, Nigerian or Nyasaland black. I think this is because it requires a modicum of forethought, sense and drive to make it down here to look for work.

                  What I was getting at is that we know why the US civil war happened, we know why Rhodesia was crushed, we know why the lights are going out in South Africa. The third positionist “corporations are sacrificing white nations for profits” people have no explanation for these events. Whose bottom line did that serve?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If socialism was the sole problem, China would still be a basket case.”

                  Before Deng Xiaoping it was a basket case.

                  Deng Xiaoping made the Chinese economy in many ways less socialist then ours prior to Trump… though lately (as Spandrell has said) they’ve been moving in the other direction. Likely if they keep moving back towards socialism China will become a basket case again.

                • calov says:

                  The point I’m getting at, Cominator, is that if you spend any time around whites from say Rhodesia–missionaries, for instance, who love black people–they typically also are very clear sighted about the differences between Africans and whites. An African says he will come to work tomorrow morning and means he will get there anytime between 9 and 1 in the afternoon. I thought everyone had seen at least clips from this documentary:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzyaa2tfwBk

                  Nations fail not simply (or probably even primarily) because the dominant economic or political ideology in them is faulty, but because of the vices of the people in them. People that don’t want to work hard or aren’t disciplined enough to do so are poor; and then if they compound the sin of sloth with the sin of envy they put communists and socialists in power, who lie to them and say they’re poor not because they’re lazy but because they’re being oppressed.

                  Yes, Deng moved away from a totally controlled economy to one more like the fascist or national socialist model, but that alone doesn’t account for China’s growth, I don’t think. At any rate, we have to acknowledge the great difficulty Africa has with governing itself. Somewhere–in Moldbug’s recapitulation of Carlyle–I thought I remember reading that Carlyle said that those who can’t rule themselves are destined to be ruled by others. That is clearly at least part of the problem in Africa. It’s a part of the problem for the American underclass also. No matter how good your economic philosophy or political philosophy, those who can’t defer gratification are going to be behind those that can.

                • jim says:

                  > Nations fail not simply (or probably even primarily) because the dominant economic or political ideology in them is faulty, but because of the vices of the people in them.

                  China is composed of smart industrious people, failed horribly until Deng.

                  China had been going downhill ever since the Song Dynasty fell. China, not Africa, used to be the synecdoche of third world poverty.

                  Khmer Rouge Cambodia used to be composed of smart industrious people, until the Khmer Rouge killed them all, including the Khmer Rouge themselves.

                  Race makes a big difference, but misgovernment makes a bigger difference.

                  Compare Haiti under the Duvaliers, with Haiti under the NGOs following the earthquake. Rule by high IQ white Harvard graduates with piles of aid money was vastly worse than rule by mulatto thugs.

                • calov says:

                  I’m not even saying it’s a matter of racial inferiority; I’m not convinced the average iq of a race can’t improve with literacy over generations. It seems to have in the west. I’m saying when certain vices are entrenched in a group of people it often makes them weak and poor regardless of other factors. I think you can attribute to the inferior work ethic of mediterranean/catholic countries, and the tolerance of corruption there, their consistent economic and political weakness relative to northern Protestant Europe.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “China is composed of smart industrious people, failed horribly until Deng.

                  China had been going downhill ever since the Song Dynasty fell. China, not Africa, used to be the synecdoche of third world poverty.

                  Khmer Rouge Cambodia used to be composed of smart industrious people, until the Khmer Rouge killed them all, including the Khmer Rouge themselves.”

                  With all respect Jim this is a pretty ridiculous comment.
                  1. Without going too far back (Ming ran a huge trade surplus vs Europe), industrial growth rates under the late imperial government and Chiang (pre-Japan invasion; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanjing_decade) were double digits. The post-Deng regime may be an improvement on the Cathedral, but it’s ridiculous to say that a government which originated from communist banditry and promotes fiat money, feminism, SOEs (30% of the economy), affirmative action, extensive regulation, and spends 30% of GDP is an improvement on its reactionary predecessors. At most, Deng restored (a fraction) old China’s superior government.
                  2. Khmers are neither smart or industrious. I’m sure you’ve been to Cambodia, and everything there validates that their IQ estimate in the high 80s.

                • jim says:

                  China was a synecdoche for backwardness and poverty during Victorian times, and it was a synecdoche for poverty when Deng came to power.

                  Therefore, backwards all the way from the Song Dynasty to Deng.

                  Cambodia had its IQ permanently lowered by its left singularity. Before the Cambodian autogenocide, they were fine. The same may well happen to white people in our left singularity if it goes all the way to massively autogenocidal before it gets its Stalin its Cromwell, or its Sulla. Google was very smart, is now fairly ordinary compared to the average engineer, perhaps a bit dim compared to the average successful engineer. The best engineers were laid off from Google. The way the wind blows, in a few years, the best engineers may well be murdered, though the wind is apt to change when you get that close to infinite leftism in finite time.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Capitalist rule by blacks without socialists fucking it up gets you places like Trinidad.”

                  Trinidad is 38% Indian. Pretty sure this is not a good example.

                • jim says:

                  If capitalism allows a competent minority to supervise an incompetent majority, pretty good system for black people.

                  Right now a lot chinese are moving to Africa to perform that role.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “China was a synecdoche for backwardness and poverty during Victorian times, and it was a synecdoche for poverty when Deng came to power.

                  Therefore, backwards all the way from the Song Dynasty to Deng.”

                  Song Dynasty to Victorian times is 800 years, you can’t just generalize all that using one anecdote. During most of that time Chinese were exporting large quantities of manufactured products to Europe (check out any museum exhibition), hardly a sign of economic backwardness. Do you have proof that Victorians saw China as especially poor compared with Africa, India (regular famines) or even Eastern Europe?

                  In any case, I did a quick look and saw that old China’s share of world GDP as of 1870 was the same as the PRC now, keeping in mind these estimates are not that reliable. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_regions_by_past_GDP_(PPP)). In any case, even if the comparison gets pushed back to early 1800s at most the Deng regime got China’s economic weight back to its original place.

                  Cambodians did get screwed over by the left singularity but given that pre Pol Pot the sino khmers were already dominant economically (and these were people who couldn’t make it in China), I doubt their IQ was that high. Pretty sure the left singularity that happened at Angkor had a bigger impact than Pol Pot.

                • jim says:

                  I said China in decline since the Song Dynasty, and only recovering under Deng.

                  It was not steadily in decline, but it never recovered to Song Dynasty levels, and the recovery from 1913 levels is impressive and promising and suggests it will recover imminently.

                  > In any case, even if the comparison gets pushed back to early 1800s at most the Deng regime got China’s economic weight back to its original place

                  But now it is headed in the correct direction and fast.

                  > Cambodians did get screwed over by the left singularity but given that pre Pol Pot the sino khmers were already dominant economically (and these were people who couldn’t make it in China), I doubt their IQ was that high

                  Maybe the reason that Cambodia was doing OK before the Khmer Rouge was their Chinese minority. But the Khmer Rouge did not specifically target the Chinese, the way they targeted the Vietnamese. They killed off all the Chinese as a side effect of killing off all the smart people.

                  Emigrants tend to be higher IQ than the stay at homes, because emigration is difficult. The more difficult the emigration, as for example Africa to the US, the greater the selection effect.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If capitalism allows a competent minority to supervise an incompetent majority, pretty good system for black people.”

                  Yes exactly. Capitalism if not disturbed among low IQ populations allows for capital to be managed by higher IQ market dominant minorities.

                  So blacks in Carribbean non socialists countries have a lot of their businesses and nearly all their higher level infrastructure engineering done by whites or asians and as a consequence things sort of work.

                  Rhodesia would have continued working pretty well if not for Mugabe. South Africa did okay economically under Mandela (though crime skyrocketed) because he mostly backed off socialism… now though the same thing is going to happen to them as happened to Rhodesia.