The way through to the other side of the left singularity

We continue to move left, faster and faster. But trees do not grow to the sky, nor do they stabilize at some limit. They grow till they fall over. Leftism will not stabilize. It will suffer radical collapse, the question being, how soon, and how many of us will it kill in the process. We have been down this path before, many times. We are now at the stage that preceded the civil wars in Russia, Spain, and France, and the coup in Chile. If we lose the civil war, then, as in France and Russia, the red terror, unless a Cromwell stabilizes things before the red terror. Usually a Stalin or a Sulla stabilizes things after the red terror, rather than before, taking advantage of the precedent set by radical leftists to deal with radical leftists.

Cromwell murdered the King, but then saved England from becoming revolutionary France or revolutionary Russia, and then leftism quietly died a natural death for lack of new applecarts to knock over and a lack of shiny apples rolling about. Stalin saved revolutionary Russia from becoming Khmer Rouge Cambodia, and then leftism quietly died a natural death for lack of new applecarts to knock over and a lack of shiny apples rolling about, but that is a long, slow, and painful path through the left singularity. Not to mention that losing the civil war really bites.

The left always continues to move left faster and faster. This always happens. No one expected anything different. For it to stop, it has to become at least as dangerous to be too far left as too far right. Which is mighty dangerous.

The left always falls over eventually, usually killing very large numbers of people in the process.

Our existing right wing politics, like our existing Christianity is not stable. It has been following the left leftwards for two centuries, and is now attempting to hold a position that twelve years ago would have been considered over the top ultra left madness, a parody of radical leftism.

The only system that can endure is the system that endured for millenia. Center right is now attempting to hold, but cannot hold, a position that is intolerably evil and insane, that daily grows more evil and insane, and which grows daily less endurable. We have to reinstall the old operating system for society, because this one is broken. Most recent working version is England around 1800 or so.

We did not vote our way into this, and cannot vote our way out of this. Leftism always collapses sooner or late, usually killing a great many people in the process.

There will be civil war. There always is. Leftism always leads to civil war. Perhaps this election, perhaps the next. Civil war this election is looking increasingly likely.

If we lose, there will be mass murder and we will have to wait for the left to devour itself as in revolutionary Russia and France. If we are lucky, we get a Cromwell or a Stalin who halts movement ever leftwards, with the result that the left slowly fades away, leaving the regime a hollow shell that falls apart at a tap. But the fading away takes a while.

If the left wins the civil war, and no Stalin then puts and end to movement ever leftwards, the left kills everyone, as in Szechuan province. Or or if we get lucky they kill each other first, as in Khmer Rouge Cambodia, but by the time that finishes, they will have killed everyone with an IQ above room temperature.

So our best option is winning the civil war.

If we win, as in the Spanish civil war, we will have not yet won, because the left will still hold the institutions of large scale cooperation.

If they continue to control pretty much the entire media, education and most of the other institutions, they can’t lose a long term struggle. If they lose the civil war, they will, as in Spain, just fall back and regroup.

For us to win, Harvard, Yale, and the Judiciary will have to be cancelled, deplatformed, and demonetized. The prosecutorial system will have to be depoliticized, which will require removing most existing prosecutors to the gulag. It has to become as dangerous to be too far left, as it is to be too far right.

Then the left stops moving ever leftwards, ever faster, and leftism quietly hollows out and evaporates.

Deplatforming the judiciary seems like an unthinkably radical measure, but it is not. The judiciary always goes quiet and strangely fails to notice when its power is ignored or bypassed. When Tony Abbott, frustrated by courts finding that each and every illegal immigrant was entitled to live in Australia on crime, welfare, and voting for Tony Abbott’s political opponents, started mass imprisoning illegals without due process and just plain keeping them locked up, and/or deporting them to third world places, frequently third world prison camps, the courts just quietly shut up, indeed turned around and stopped all lawfare on the question dead in its tracks, perhaps out of fear that lawfare would expose their impotence, irrelevance, and unpopularity.

I was in Davao when Duterte was mayor. His death squad solution was hugely popular. I did not see anyone opposing it, except people who probably needed killing.

Every time someone in power bypasses the judiciary, the judiciary silently fall into line rather than ruling it illegal.

To roll up Academia, take down the center – which is Harvard and Yale.

Either level it with tanks, or install old type Christianity in charge. Except that you make sure that those in charge are males with faithful wives and well behaved biological children to avoid the risk of the lavender mafia, which has always been a terrible vulnerability of old type Christianity.

Everyone then sees on which side their bread is buttered, and leftism slowly, quietly, and silently evaporates everywhere in the entire American hegemony.

Plan A for academia: You fix the funding for academia, so that instead of the money flowing through an incestuous maze of incrutable committees, it flows through president of the board. Then you fix the board if needed, but they will probably fall into line when they see which way the wind blows. Then the top academics fall into line, or get relocated behind the water heater in the basement. Then the schools fall into line. Create an academia where the people at the top are married men with faithful wives and well behaved children, who give at least lip service to old type Christianity and country. Then everyone else falls into line.

Every tenured academic everywhere in the world abruptly changes position overnight when the wind from Harvard and Yale changes. They will abruptly change their position and forget they ever held a different position, as they have changed and forgotten so many times already.

Or, if there is substantial resistance, Plan B: send the tanks into Harvard and knock down their newer and uglier buildings. Confiscate their limited circulation libraries, the stuff that they make difficult for anyone to read who has not been approved as politically correct, scan them, and put them on the internet. (Thus crippling their power to revise history and present reality. “Who controls the past controls the future”.) Then you will find that plan A goes more smoothly.

Once Harvard and Yale is rolled up, the schools will roll up. We have seen abrupt changes in the line before. Another abrupt change in the line will hardly be noticed. Every Academic everywhere will chant “Four legs need guidance by two legs” with the same enthusiasm as every academic everywhere formerly chanted “Four legs good, two legs bad”, and scarcely notice that their chant has changed. I have seen it happen before, it can happen again. Every single academic everywhere in the entire western Hegemony did a U turn on Darwin overnight, and every single academic everywhere in the entire western hegemony did a U turn on Cambodia overnight. The enemy has one throat that can be cut in one slice. The enemy pretends to have decentralized and dispersed power, but its power is in fact highly centralized and concentrated, and thus highly vulnerable to a small amount of precisely targeted violence.

451 Responses to “The way through to the other side of the left singularity”

  1. Strannik says:

    Wow, President Trump absolutely shellacked Biden.

    Maybe it’s too early to call it, but I think the Liberals will not even bother pissing and moaning about this election much, or in voting Biden in.

    • Pooch says:

      It oddly felt like a normal debate, not one that would predicate civil war.

      • BC says:

        The left is losing faith in winning. The we won the debate posts were all shills on reddit.

        • Pooch says:

          I still see them acting fairly confident their Color Revolution will succeed.

          • Strannik says:

            Their frontman Biden basically shit himself all over the stage. One example was his looking down at his watch, at least once. Miss his meds, got better things to do with his time, what the hell?!!

            They’re fucked. It reminds me again of how Mark Anthony turned tables on the killers of Caesar, made them look not only evil and corrupt in the eyes of the people, but weak. And they proved it by their silence and their running off.

            Right is Might.

          • jim says:

            They are self enclosed in a bubble – which I also observed the remarkable uselessness of Hillary Clinton’s far flung spy organization.

            Selecting for shared belief in blatant lies, selects for poor reality testing.

  2. The Cominator says:

    https://www.govexec.com/management/2020/10/stunning-executive-order-would-politicize-civil-service/169479/

    Trump seems to think he can take direct control of the civil service without SCOTUS stopping him. This would indeed make him King Trump I if he can finagle staying in office for life.

    • Strannik says:

      After all, if a federal employee makes political decisions, and yet holds no elected office, they should be held accountable by those feds that do hold elected office.

      This was how the Republic ran until the 1880’s, as the article mentions, with the Pendleton Act.

  3. Pooch says:

    https://www.revolver.news/2020/10/brandy-zadrozny-dox-trump-supporters-glamorize-pedophiles/

    If we win, it’s starting to become obvious some women may need to be burned at the stake for evilness that is beyond the pale. I thought they could just be pressed into ownership, but some of this evil is going to be irredeemable.

    • jim says:

      Give her what all women want, and she will instantly forget what she believed.

      Though in her case, I think a bit of waterboarding would be advisable as part of the transfer of authority.

    • The Cominator says:

      Women with specific media and political functions will join the men on the helicopters but the vast majority should be enslaved (on a non hereditary basis) lest the ratio get too bad…

      • BC says:

        All that’s required to convert a women is a bonded male group gang raping her. This is the pattern observed with every hunter/gather group both old and new. Of course if she’s beyond child bearing years she’s better off dead. Leaving evil insane people alive is just asking for trouble.

        • Karl says:

          No, gang raping won’t help at all. One male only doing the deed and thereby taking possession of her might succeed in converting her, especially if he is part of a powerful group.

        • Pooch says:

          Yes I would think the leftist women committing truly evil acts are beyond childbearing years.

          • Not Tom says:

            Did you guys look at the photos in the article? Her most flattering one looks well into her thirties, but based on the first one, I’m pretty sure she’s over forty. This one’s not making any further contributions to the gene pool.

            • Jon Dough says:

              Nice manly jaw. Excess testosterone in the womb. Thank goodness I read Heartiste.
              Even if she could pop one out, it’d be a mess. Wood chipper for her.

  4. The Infinity Banker says:

    Holy shit, you are so scared, lol.

    “How based would someone be if they took Jim’s ideas to their logical conclusion?”

    Here I am, boomer. Debate me.

  5. Anonymous 2 says:

    Instead of censoring [a degenerate piece of art], we must instead give it pride of place in a Museum of Degenerate Art, where the public can see and ridicule it.

    A shitty idea must be suppressed by evidence of its shittiness, rather than driving it underground and attracting rebellious elite youth to it.

    Seems like a bad idea in itself. We won’t need museums of pornography, homosexuality, satanism, heresy, or suchlike.

    Rebellious elite youths who cannot be shown the error of their ways and be set to serve the God-Emperor, perhaps in some dangerous and glorious way suitable for the restless, are handled by loss of status, loss of voice and decimation.

    Furthermore, punish their families too, by loss of status and privileges, since they are elites but lack judgement.

  6. The Cominator says:

    Jim your moderation is getting heavy handed again.

  7. The Cominator says:

    https://twitter.com/SVNewsAlerts/status/1318695629154078723?fbclid=IwAR0tuXfg_xk-srnKojpBCxv5curWuEAx8BRXeSsbwvc_QR7j3FVSQzGsJMw

    I know its a muh anticoncept but lots of people don’t feel that way and this isn’t some random Qtard saying this but Giuliani himself.

    Stick a fork in Biden hes done, I think even his MSM and glowjogger friends will run for cover now.

    • BC says:

      The child abuse stuff is going to make people less likely to believe it because it’s too over the top. Putting it out there is a mistake.

      • BC says:

        It’s also likely to be Hunter bangging 14-16 year old girls. No one gives a fuck when the media’s not using it to destroy someone.

        • The Cominator says:

          Apparently it’s also his niece lol…

          Some people will care.

          • BC says:

            Hunter Biden isn’t Joe.

            • Strannik says:

              Hunter wouldn’t take a shit without Joe knowing. The story is gaining traction with the Establishment;

              https://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2020/10/20/wsj-editorial-board-joe-biden-must-answer-questions-about-hunter-biden-and-china/

              • BC says:

                Again, it only works if it results on Hunter being arrested which we are very unlikely to see. Otherwise people won’t care enough to really look into it and it will effect their view of Joe Biden that much.

                The corruption angle is much more damaging because it implicates Joe Biden, not just Hunter.

            • The Cominator says:

              Swing normies decide the election Joe has no chance of winning now. They will care…

              • Strannik says:

                That’s what I have been trying to say, but some here have a more naturally jaundiced view. But this is how most people think these days, and understanding them will go a long ways on both the strategic and tactical levels.

                I have no doubt that Trump understands this, and understands very well the ”normie” mindset. Quite well.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Pedo hysteria as relating to teenage girls isn’t how normal people think, it’s how normal people say they think when they know that Big Brother is watching. Just like normal people say they’re voting for Biden. Both are lies told in fear.

          • Strannik says:

            Hunter left his wife to fuck his dead brother’s wife, and possibly her daughter his niece too. A grand-daughter of Joe Biden’s that Joe has kissed full on the lips numerous times caught on camera publicly.

            This might be a ”bridge too far” for even some Liberals. They’ll not be enthusiastic about making him President.

            • Not Tom says:

              Have you learned nothing from these past four years? Nothing is a bridge too far for the left, no matter how supposedly moderate.

              Hunter is not Joe. We need to know about how Hunter acted as the intermediary for Joe taking bribes from China, Russia, Ukraine and anyone else who could pay. We need the files and emails on Hunter’s laptop that link Hunter’s illegal activity directly to Joe.

              Because otherwise every liberal will shrug and say, yeah but that’s just his son, lots of politicians have degenerate relatives so whaddya whaddya? And we know they will say that because they are already saying that! And more importantly, the DoJ is not going to haul in Joe because his son fucked some teenage whores and the praetorians are not going to rally and hold the line because Joe’s son is in possession of some creepy pixels relating to his niece.

              What’s so hard about this? Literally everything on that laptop that is not directly connected to Joe is irrelevant, stupid, boob bait for bubba, not going to make any difference. The emails are important because they implicate Joe Biden, not because they make Hunter Biden whom we already know is a crackhead look a little bit worse.

              • Strannik says:

                You’ll see. Check this out, the Chinese are now weighing in on this;

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X9Nm10065uM

                • Strannik says:

                  Granted it’s a raw video and I don’t quite get all the context of course, but it appears that the Bidens are being hung out to dry, by everyone, Ukrainians too.

                • jim says:

                  Which indicates an insider expectation that Trump is going to win. Though the Ukrainians have been wrong before. During the impeachment, they expected a successful Democrat coup. This time around they are expecting a successful Trump coup.

                  It is, of course, absolutely obvious that Trump will get the majority of real votes. Biden rallies are not only hilariously under attended compared to Trump, they are hilariously under attended compared to Hillary. But whoever wins, it is going to be a coup in which the successful coup maker gets to count the vote after the coup.

                • Mike says:

                  Not saying Biden is more popular than Trump, but a large part of the reason his rallies look dead is because his supporters are terrified of COVID while Trump supporters know its bullshit. So they don’t want to gather in public spaces while Trump supporters do.

                • Pooch says:

                  The same supporters that march arm-in-arm for BLM?

      • Pooch says:

        Yeah it’ll just be ignored by MSM and it’s Hunter not Joe anyway. It’s good to keep it in the news cycle, but the corruption and pay-for-play is more damaging evidence to normie voters, that is if voting matters.

      • Not Tom says:

        Yup. Styx pointed that out too a few days ago. Every damn time there’s a hot story, some idiots on the “right” have to ruin it by linking it with stupid bullshit rumors that no one would actually care about even if they were true, most often sinister pixels or banging teenage sluts.

        Can’t we go even one week without our putative allies blowing their loads way too early? It’s almost as if half of them are either shills or infiltrated by shills, but I’m sure that can’t be the case.

    • Strannik says:

      Right, because we’re dealing with perception not necessarily the full reality. I suspect that if it’s bad enough to send the campaign scurrying into Biden’s basement until thursday, it’s pretty bad even by Washington standards.

      You don’t basically suspend your campaign for almost a week over a nothing, but a something, that will take time to figure out whatever to do about it from Biden’s campaign staff.

      • Strannik says:

        It’s worse; it’s photos of a female minor relative, with Hunter Biden;

        https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/10/report-topless-photos-minor-hunter-bidens-laptop-relative-photos/

        • Not Tom says:

          Gateway Pundit is generally trash, and no one cares about this.

          The public needs to know about Joe Biden selling foreign policy favors on the black market as the VP, not his crackhead son’s sexual fetishes.

          It’s so goddamn predictable, every single time the cucks make a beeline for the sinister pixels while the normies and the left yawn and close their eyes.

          Stop. Taking. The. Bait.

          • BC says:

            If it actually led to Hunter being arrested it would be worth it, but it won’t.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            @Not Tom

            Amen.

            I’m tired of the TradCucks and their gender-neutral garbage.

            Nobody cares about Hunter Biden fucking teenage whores.

            What the praetorians care about is the Bidens’ Chinese bribes, treachery, and any opportunity to take down the anti-cop Biden family.

          • Strannik says:

            Again. Perception. The fact that this is coming out-whatever else you and others may think about it-shows that the Biden camp is not operating with impunity, the illusion that nothing they do can effect the positive outcome they hope for.

            Nobody is going to work too hard to help these pieces of shit win.

            That’s the bottom line.

            • Not Tom says:

              shows that the Biden camp is not operating with impunity

              Quite the contrary, it foreshadows the really serious crimes being covered up by distracting the public with salacious feminine tabloid gossip. That’s essentially impunity. If the cucks don’t reverse course on this very soon, they are going to blow an enormous opportunity. But then maybe that’s their intent.

              • Strannik says:

                Who is voting for the Liberal politicians, come rain or shine, in most cases, their most loyal voting bloc? White feminist women.

                The financial scumbaggery is an added bonus. Now they have ”permission” to not feel compelled to vote for people that they would ordinarily burn with fire if they didn’t happen to be a Democratic politician.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It didn’t work with Bill Clinton and it’s not going to work with Joe Biden. You are actively failing the red pill test.

                • Strannik says:

                  You said;

                  ”It didn’t work with Bill Clinton and it’s not going to work with Joe Biden. You are actively failing the red pill test.”

                  This is on a whole other level, and has nothing to do with being red-pilled on women. In fact, this is a failure of a culture that in not keeping women in check, allows them to fall prey to degenerate freaks.

                  Besides, as a said this is a tactical situation where it places any somewhat sane democrat in a moral bind. They might not vote for Trump, but they will stay home.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The hardcore Democrats will not stay home.

                  Fashionably anti Trump Karens and muh decorum beta cucks appalled by Trump not acting like a weak politician will in some cases stay home.

                • Not Tom says:

                  In fact, this is a failure of a culture that in not keeping women in check, allows them to fall prey to degenerate freaks.

                  Women are not prey. Women are not victims. Women need to be kept in check, not because they might meet evil men, but because they sow evil and chaos themselves when men are unwilling or unable to keep them in check.

                  Have you been a tradcuck all this time, just deflecting onto issues of religion and demographics?

                  The other tradcucks also feel the need to keep bringing up “OMG he fucked his dead brother’s widow” as if this wasn’t actually required in the old testament (look up levirate marriage). OK, so he didn’t marry her and he’s not religious but it’s hardly obscene or beyond the pale if his brother was already dead.

                  All this shit is the epitome of looking a gift horse in the mouth. We’ve been wasting days and days of pre-election news cycle gibbering moronically about Hunter’s bizarre sex life instead of talking about Joe’s connection to the pay for play scheme. As far as I’m concerned, anyone who amplifies the fake scandal instead of the real one is working for the enemy.

    • Javier says:

      Sadly they won’t care. As long as someone somewhere in the MSM says it’s bogus they’ll ignore it. Blue checkmark people are conditioned to ignore any information not from official sources. They’ll never hear or see this, even if you strapped them to a chair and forced them to read it Clockwork Orange style. Their brain will literally fail to see it. You can tell them the sky is blue and they won’t believe you.

  8. suones says:

    @Not Tom and @Dave

    Re: Joint family/caste society vs consanguinous marriage.

    There is a big difference. Given a large enough population, it is perfectly possible to marry within one’s community and caste yet have a non-consanguinous spouse. Hindu arranged marriage rules provide for no common ancestry between bride and groom till at least seven generations past, and caste Hindus are obligated to maintain records of the same. That puts paid to any potential consanguinous marriage. Moreover, it is also prohibited to marry within one’s own “gotra” (a larger social grouping), if known. Any consanguinous union is considered either rape or incest, and punishment involves the lynching of one or both parties concerned. A Hindu can not only not marry his cousin, but will be killed if he tries.

    It was only in the 2000s that massive propaganda offensives by progs managed to cut down lynchings of incestuous couples, but they still happen from time to time.

    As for “meeting girls,” this is ridiculous bullshit. Boys are encouraged to become men and focus attention on productive aspects of life, while suitable matchmaking is attended to by elders in the (extended) family. This is how India has such a large population of nerds. The average man/woman has no incentive to defect on marriage, and defectors are put to death. Nerdism is not a barrier to sexual selection in Hindus at all.

    Consanguinity is only prevalent among Indians (Pakistan) corrupted by Baphomet, who commands his followers to marry their sisters for maximum (literal) degeneracy.

    • The only confusion I’d like to clear about is that “gotra” is not a social grouping, but the family tie to your ancestral Guru. If you’re ancestral Guru (gotra) is the same as somebody else, then you’re considered their brother or sister. So marriage within the same gotra is prohibited, so there’s no question of marrying one’s cousin.

      Gotra is different from the caste system, and the caste system is not the same as “Varna” which is the ancient Hindu classification of society into Brahmanas (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaisyas (merchants) and Shudras (manual labourers).

      • suones says:

        Re: gotra

        Yeah gotta keep it short for benighted folks. The major readership here seems Western/Western affiliated.

        Re: Varna

        The (re-) founder of modern Western Reaction (or neo-Reaction), Mencius Moldbug, has quite an interesting take on the Varnas, especially for a Hindu to read. You must read Moldnug’s corpus. (It lives at https://www.unqualified-reservations.org).

        Finally, congratulations on the new blog! I really like your formulation “adharma is repelled by dharma.” It is a very succinct summary of why Leftism (an adharmic religion) finds common ground with Baphometanism (another adharmic religion) but is viscerally repelled by Dharma.

        • jim says:

          It is striking that so many shills have failed the demon worshiper test.

          I think it is the demon inside that stops them, rather than their supervisor. A genuine atheist, or a genuine Jew, would surely have no problem passing.

          • BC says:

            When the governor of MI smiles all I see is a demon grinning at her future victims. So many on the left just look demon possessed.

          • Strannik says:

            It’s the Demon stopping them. They have an intelligence greater than any man who has ever lived, and think faster than any man can too.

          • Jehu says:

            Yes, if a demon has any say, the demon would stop them. Laid out clear as down in 1 John.

            From 1 John 4:1-5

            Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

            2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

            3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

            4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.

            5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them.

            • jim says:

              From 1 John 4:1-5

              1. Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

              2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

              3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world

              That is almost exactly my demon worshiper test, which I arrived at empirically by experiment and observation, observing the contortions that shills went through when their “hail fellow Christian” frame was challenged.

              I did not intend to test for demons, did not even want to test for demons, I am agnostic on the literal existence of demons. I was and am constructing shill tests: Someone says “Hail fellow X”, and I want to know if he is actually an X, or an enemy entryist seeking the destruction of X. But my shill test for “hail fellow Christian” shills somehow, as a result of experiment and observation, turned into a demon test, to my surprise.

              • Jehu says:

                Lower case o orthodox Christianity has had a shill problem for a very long time, this is one of the earliest Christian shill tests.

                What’s amusing to me is that even most Russian atheists never lost their belief in the devil, or his grandmother, even as they denied the existence of God.

                • suones says:

                  > Devil’s grandmother

                  Would that be Baba Yaga? How do Russians reconcile such obviously pagan mythology with ostensibly “Christian” beliefs?

                • jim says:

                  Whenever Christianity goes overboard purging local ethnic paganism, it goes mad and evil, and soon thereafter abandons Jesus, and eventually God. If the state religion of Russia forbids believing in Baba Yaga, it will go mad and evil.

                • Sam says:

                  People believe in ghosts despite not meshing with ‘people go to an afterlife when they die’.

                • Jehu says:

                  Christianity never had issue with the existence of witches, even really powerful ones like Baba Yaga. It says they should not be suffered to live, which is kinda silly if you don’t believe they exist. The spirit of Samuel gets summoned up by a witch in Saul’s employ in the OT, and he’s none too happy about it. So ghosts are fair game too, and Jesus and the disciples cast out more demons than you can shake a stick at.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Because going mad forbidding people belief in nature spirits and such is not Christian, because such spirits are spoken of in various parts of the bible the bible implies some are benign and in service to the lord and some are evil and are not.

                  Only graven images of veneration and prayers of worship to such spirits are forbidden belief in them is not.

                • suones says:

                  > > If the state religion of Russia forbids believing in Baba Yaga, it will go mad and evil.

                  > You answered the question I felt in my spirit. When we see people “converting” to Christianity and/or “Islam,” both of which are obviously fake rationalisations for Imperial power, we don’t see actual gods.
                  >
                  > If Baba Yaga is the one preventing Russians from going evil and insane, then it is Baba Yaga who is a true god of Russia, not Jehovah/whoever.

                  But Baba Yaga is demonic. Which is why Christian Kings conquered the pagans. A state that is Christian and ruled by a Christian elite cooperates better, and thus is apt to conquer states whose religion is demon infested. It is hard to put together large scale government, and hard for large scale government to hang together and act as one, if the religion is demon infested.

                  England was unable to put a large scale government together, except under the Christian state religion founded by King Alfred’s ancestors.

                  It is often said that the British empire was not so much conquered, as picked up in a fit of absent mindedness.

                  The East India Company’s business was trade. It was empowered to make war and peace because trade was obstructed by piratical locals, and other piratical trading companies. The East India Company on the whole preferred peaceful trade with orderly polities, but the polities were just not that orderly, so it wound up engaging in a great deal of mobile banditry, piracy, and extortion. Victorious, it transitioned, without entirely realizing what was happening, to stationary banditry, providing order and good government. A handful of British troops conquered India.

                  > Old gods are like that. You cannot really eradicate them with priestly memetic power.

                  No you cannot. But some old Gods create disorder and destruction, and need to be disempowered and cast out. The rest can absorbed into Saints, as Quetzalcoatl was absorbed.

                  Christianity won because Christian kings with Christian elites cooperated better.

        • Finally, congratulations on the new blog! I really like your formulation “adharma is repelled by dharma.”

          Thanks. I hope to write more in the future. Your comments and suggestions are most welcome.

      • jim says:

        One weakness I see in Hinduism is that, being polytheistic, Demon worshipers can genuinely claim to be Hindus, as for example the thuggee cult.

        Is there anything in Hinduism that can stop demon worshipers cold, the way the name of Jesus Christ does?

        Can we have a civilized debate, if we avoid the frame “You are going to hell, infidel”, and hold the frame “How effective is this religion in holding the sovereign, the state, society, and family together”?

        Clarifying my own position: Attempting to convert India is a violation of the peace of Westphalia. India should exclude non Hindus, including progressive converged “Hindus”, from state and quasi state office, Israel should exclude non Jews from state and quasi state office, and America should exclude non Christians from state and quasi state office.

        England did OK when it required conformity to Anglicanism, and when the socinians engaged in entryism against Anglicanism, they had to perform elaborate intellectual somersaults so that they could say the name of Christ while meaning something other than Christ, so that they could mouth Anglican words without feeling that they were going to catch on fire. The name of Christ was a major obstacle for them. I am not aware of any similar obstacle in Hinduism.

        Christianity conquered largely through Christian Kings being more successful in maintaining cooperation within the elite that their enemies, as for example King Alfred unifying a chaotic and violent England, and Constantine establishing a New Rome some distance from the dysfunctional and disintegrating Old Rome.

        And a handful of British troops, back when genuinely Christian Anglicanism was the state religion, conquered India in very similar fashion to King Alfred unifying England.

        The crude Christian position that all pagan deities are simply demons is obviously silly, and I don’t think too many Christians ever took it seriously. On the other hand, the more sophisticated Christian position that some pagan deities are demons, for example all the Aztec gods except Quetzalcoatl, and that many pagans worship demons under the name of their Gods, is obviously true, and I think it goes a long way to explaining the poor performance of Hindu India in its conflict with the British back in the days when Anglicanism was Christian.

        • Mike says:

          >Can we have a civilized debate, if we avoid the frame “You are going to hell, infidel”, and hold the frame “How effective is this religion in holding the sovereign, the state, society, and family together”?

          You could reasonably argue that most major religions (other than Leftism obviously) have sufficient levels of success in ordering society. Hell, even Islam knows what it is doing in regards to the woman question. This does not mean that they’re all going to get along.

          Also, the point on Polytheism doesn’t entirely check out. While it is true that pretty much all Polytheistic sects today are jokes (consisting of mostly African or Native American tribes) the Greeks and Romans were Polytheists and created one of the greatest civilizations in the history of man. Perhaps that has something to do with how their Polytheism was rather more centralized (the high priest in the form of the Pontifex Maximus, the Imperial Cult of the Emperor, the Oracle at Delphi).

        • The Cominator says:

          Hinduism can plausibly exclude demon worshippers by emphasizing the Monotheistic Trinity within its Polytheistic pantheon (and yes Hinduism has this) and requiring its affirmation (something I think which would exclude demon worshippers of Kali) the way the Roman pantheon I believed emphasized that all Gods were in some sense merely an aspect of the Captoline Jupiter.

          • Mike says:

            >The crude Christian position that all pagan deities are simply demons is obviously silly, and I don’t think too many Christians ever took it seriously.

            Depends on what Paganism it was of course, but this certainly was true in regards to classical mythology. Although there was still a huge amount of virulent Christian polemic against the Hellenic Pagans (their temples and shrines are gone today for a reason) it is clear from the Father’s writings that massive influence was carried over into Christianity. Hell, by the High Middle Ages it went even beyond mere influence over Christian doctrine, Dante was literally putting Pagans in Purgatory in the Divine Comedy.

        • The best way to sort out the non believers in Hinduism is to ask them to affirm the supremacy of the Vedas and their faith in Sanatana Dharma which is the core of Hindu belief. I haven’t yet formulated a proper question for it though. Most modern “Hindu” liberals simply cannot accept the vedas.

          • jim says:

            There is no end of stuff in the Vedas, and your enemies can cut and paste fragments from them like a ransom note to tell whatever story they want to tell, just as they do with the bible.

            But to my recollection, though I know considerably less about the Vedas than about the bible, they are tales of violent patriarchal warrior kings, warrior aristocrats, and warrior priests (what we call paladins)

            Taken as a whole, hard to interpret as the story your enemies want to tell. But they are not going to take them as a whole.

            I have two tiny fragments of the bible that demon worshipers seem to reliably choke on, which two fragments encapsulate the central story of Christianity. We shall see if you can do something similar with the Vedas.

            • You’re right but asking someone to affirm their faith in Vedas is a pretty strong entry level test. Most liberals quoting selectively from the vedas only to attack Hinduism cannot accept the authority of the vedas.

              Unfortunately I’m not well versed in sanskrit though I can read Devanagari script and understand Hindi reasonably well.

              Also studying the vedas is to be done through a Patashala (vedic school) immediately after the sacred thread ceremony for young Brahmacharis in the best Guru Sishya tradition. Sadly this tradition is dying out in modern India.

              I will have to read some traditional scholarly work on vedas to get some idea on this.

              • jim says:

                Then you have a big problem.

                Nobody reads the bible, except a few people like myself, and no one should read the bible, except for a few people like myself. But the key core ideas of Christianity are well known, and the biblical narratives on which they are based are well known. So anyone, not just me, can instantly see that a shill who says “hail fellow Christian”, and yet fails the demon worshiper test is no Christian – because Christians have been running something very like this test for two millenia, making the ideas of the test well known. I don’t know much about Hinduism, but if you need to research arcane ancient languages to find an answer, it gives me the feeling that Hindus have not been running an equivalent test.

                Hinduism has a demon worshiper infestation, and Christianity has a demon worshiper infestation. Christianity has tools to deal with it, which tools, alas, have been little used for two centuries. As far as I know, paganism lacks tools to deal with it, but you know your paganism far better than I do.

                • It’s not really a problem, because Hinduism is not really paganism or a polytheistic religion. The core of Hindu belief is “one ultimate God – many manifestations”. Actually the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures are pretty authoritative on that point. There *is* a core Hindu philosophy that we Hindus instinctively know (but lacking scholarly research, cannot easily put in words) but nonetheless it exists.

                  If the goal is to keep out “shills” from debating Hinduism, posing as a Hindu, who want to interpret Hinduism from their progressive frame, asking somebody to affirm the authority of the Vedas as a whole is going to work as an entry-level test, because no progressive-infected Hindu is ever going to admit the authority of the Vedas, and in fact, will be repelled by the very thought (much like devil worshippers).

                  The real answer to devise a more foolproof test of course, is to read a thorough scholarly commentary on the Vedas that is written by a real Hindu scholar and not by progressives. There surely would be something there of use.

                • jim says:

                  > There *is* a core Hindu philosophy that we Hindus instinctively know (but lacking scholarly research, cannot easily put in words) but nonetheless it exists.

                  Needs to be put into words – words that progressives and demon worshipers will be unable to say, and, being unable to say, will be unable to plausibly pass as Hindu.

                  A never ending problem with Christianity is that the Christian faith generates a creed that stops the current crop of entryists, and then a new crop of entryists show up, who, like the Socinians, can say those words. You are always going to need new antibodies against the new antigens of new diseases. But you should be able to find words that will out the current crop of entryists.

                • ten says:

                  A Honest Indian,

                  Appreciate the indian perspective!

                  I think european paganism and polytheism shared that feature of hinduism, evident in texts like “The Divine Pymander of Hermes Mercurius Trismegistus” as well as present in the hierarchical structure of the pagan panthea, although a few millennia distant to the common source from the common impulse of the vedas and europaganism. We still call that paganism and polytheism, don’t think there is an exclusion.

                • Mr.P says:

                  Nobody reads the bible, except a few people like myself, and no one should read the bible, except for a few people like myself.

                  That’s it. Right there. An ocean of learning in one crystal of sand.

              • Oog en Hand says:

                “Unfortunately I’m not well versed in sanskrit though I can read Devanagari script and understand Hindi reasonably well.”

                Sanskrit and Old Church Slavonic are closely related…

            • Karl says:

              What are those two tiny fragments of the bible?

              Jesus is lord? What else?

              • jim says:

                The enemy can pass “Jesus is Lord”. They can, and do, say “Jesus” all day long, because they refer to a Jewish community organizer who pointed the way to Obama the lightbringer. And they can say they follow “Jesus” because they follow Obama the lightbringer, who stilled the rise of the Oceans and brought world peace.

                The critical verse, the “what else” that weeds them out is Jesus saying “Before Abraham was, I am”.

                John:

                1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
                2. The same was in the beginning with God.
                3. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
                4. In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
                5. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
                6. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
                7. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
                8. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
                9. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
                10. He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
                11. He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
                12. But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
                13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
                14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
                15. John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
                16. And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
                17. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

                You have to get the guy claiming to be a Christian to say “Jesus Christ”. The shills and the demon worshipers can and do say “Jesus” all day long. The Socinians snuck into the Church of England by redefining “Christ” to mean something other than Christ, so that they could say what sounded like the right words, without, however, the right meaning, so you have to get them to affirm both the humanity and divinity of Jesus Christ, mortal and eternal, fully God and fully Man, born in Bethlehem, died in Jerusalem, and is, is from before the beginning of the world.

                These days however, most demon worshipers do not know the Socinian escape hatch, so “Jesus Christ is Lord” suffices to catch most of them.

                • Strannik says:

                  Well said. Those potential entryists into the Orthodox Priesthood go entirely mad because of shibboleths like these that they must recite every day in things like the Divine Liturgy, and they then become useless to the Enemy.

                • neofugue says:

                  I notice that shills have no problem saying “Lord, have mercy on me a sinner,” but that shills have a problem saying “Lord Jesus Christ, son of God, have mercy on me a sinner.” Entryists can redefine “Lord” and “Jesus” into something else, but “Lord Jesus Christ” seems to burn them.

                  1 Corinthians 12:3:

                  “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”

                  In concordance with going mad, Progressive entryists into Orthodoxy cannot hide their demonic possession. This Archbishop below looks like death; look at his eyes:

                  https://youtu.be/9Wuk-eLVvEA?t=394

          • suones says:

            My empirical test skips the Vedas.

            @Jim:

            I use a simpler test. Ask the suspicious Hindu to affirm this:

            I believe Sri Ramchandra is the Lord and Eternal King, who is at once an immortal avatar of Sri Vishnu as well as a mortal who was born in Ayodhya that lies on the bank of the Saryu river, and died by immersing himself into the same river; who united the country from the Himalayas in the North to Lanka in the South, and whose sons and descendants conquered lands to the West (Hindu-Kush mountains are named after his son Sri Kush) and East (there is New Ayodhya in Thailand). I believe that Sri Ramchandra is the model of all just Kings, and Ram Rajya is the epitome of a just rule. I believe that his loyal servant Sri Hanuman, the immortal Monkey God, is the friend and guide of anyone who prays to Sri Ram, and the implacable enemy of those that would harm him.

            I have never ever met a pseudo-Hindu who was able to affirm this (in English or vernacular). This is also the proto-shill-test I gave to Honest Indian, which he immediately passed with flying colours. Baphometans and anti-Hindu seculars are particularly revolted by the idea of Ram Rajya. I have no idea why this is, but as Honest Indian says, it may be as simple as “adharma being repelled by Dharma.”

            The legend of Sri Ram the God King is extremely entrenched in Hindustan. Even though the original Epic, Ramayana, is in Ancient (as in, very difficult) Sanskrit, the story has translations in to every Indian vernacular, written or spoken. It has also been the subject of a tremendously popular TV series in the 80s, that was re-telecast on National TV during COVID lockdown, and again broke ratings records. His life and times are the subject of a nine-day-long theatre display (at every possible production-quality and community resource level) every year preceding Dussehra, a major Hindu festival. The festival of Diwali literally celebrates and commemorates the return of Prince Ramachandra to Ayodhya to ascend His rightful throne.

            No ancient Scripture needed, no metaphysical reasoning, no philosophy. “Jai Siya Ram” (Long live Seeta and Ram) can be affirmed by everyone from the lowest IQ menial worker to the High Brahmins of Varanasi.

            Note: The test doesn’t apply to Baphometans, for example. They will outright deny any divine existence apart from their moon demon. It weeds out “holier than Ram” fake-Hindus.

        • ten says:

          Daemon did not originally imply evil, just spirit. Eudaemon vs cacodaemon.

          From that perspective, all gods are demons, which is fine.

          And probably, it originally implied in particular a human (collective rather than individual) ancestral spirit.

          From that perspective, plenty of gods are not demons, since pagan gods were quite arbitrary, like the lesser hindu gods.

          (I know what you mean with the word demonic, which i head-translate to caco-demonic.)

          • suones says:

            This is a consequence of imposing a single “The God” on disparate people.

            Once you elevate “a god” to “The God,” the _other_ “gods” must now be referred to by different terms — demigod, or demon (corresponding to eudaemon and cacodaemon). Every human tribe has its own deity, and “The God” is actually just “God,” the deity of a tribe that grew powerful, established a (probably Semitic) Empire, and tried to impose its own deity-worship upon foreign people, with various levels of success. This is also the reason why the early “Christian” territories fell so quickly and utterly under the sway of Baphomet as soon as the Imperial State power propping up Yahweh/Jehovah weakened. Sol Invictus 2.0.

            The First Commandment is the root of the mother of all holiness spirals, where the Jewish God is universalised over all “mankind.”

            From another PoV, Yahweh is also a “daemon,”

            — far more powerful than Baal and Moloch (though the latter is immortal and very powerful!),

            — far more powerful than Odin and Thor (whose lands he conquered and forced them to sleep for millennia),

            — of greater power than Baba Yaga (whose lands he nominally conquered but failed to subdue completely)

            — of equal or lesser power than Baphomet — this is debatable as both are winning in different coalitions. Baphomet allied with Moloch is winning in America and Europe, while Yahweh aligned with Baba Yaga is winning in Russia. Singly, a Yahweh vs Baphomet fight can go either way, as in Christian->Muslim->Christian Spain, or Baphomet can win outright as in Byzantium->Turkey and countless others.

            What is beyond doubt, however, is that all these gods/demons (Yahweh, Moloch, Baphomet — the Unholy Trinity) are 1) power hungry, and 2) amoral. They will gladly sacrifice their votaries for their own glory and world domination. Baphomet and Yahweh are prone to direct attack and total domination, while Moloch works insidiously and destroys from within. Baphomet and Yahweh are also traditionally natalist, where the latter has been losing ground to Moloch. All of them are also Semitic, FWIW.

            On the other side lie the Old gods that still have power and protect their people. Chief among them are Sri Brahma the Creator, Sri Vishnu the Protector, and Sri Shambhu the Destroyer. They have resisted the onslaught of numerous demonic forces through the ages, and have historically BTFO Yahweh completely, fought and beaten back Baphomet, and are currently locked in a stalemate with Yahweh, Baphomet and Moloch together. I’ll be the first to admit that this is an existential fight, but I like our performance given how terribly and absolutely the three demons have destroyed everything they’ve touched.

            Their power protects directly as well as through avatars. Sri Buddha (avatar of Sri Vishnu) protects China, Japan, and the Far East. China may be nominally “atheist,” but they worship Sri Buddha and his loyal servant the Monkey King (remember Sri Hanuman?)[1] The Monkey King has BTFO Yahweh, is currently fighting Baphomet and winning. Sri Vishnu completely BTFO Baphomet from Burma, while Baphomet won in Afghanistan.

            Of all the demons we’ve faced, the most damaging one is undoubtedly Moloch. The others fight directly, but Moloch is the one you cannot see.

            [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_King

            • jim says:

              I think by Bahomet you are referring to Islam.

              Islam is on the way up, due to the internal collapse of Christianity, but that is not our immediate problem.

              • suones says:

                > Baphomet

                I’ve come full circle in my views on this. At first I thought this was yet another Templar stupidity born from ignorance. My people have had exposure to these cultists for over a thousand years. It is hard to refute a supernatural force acting as their liege and protector. Many Hindus hold this force in awe. Many converted as a result. It is real[1]. As for whether it’s a god or demon? By their fruits ye shall know them. And the fruits of this cult are poverty, war, and death. It cannot possibly be a god (in our understanding).

                Muhammad really did have a spiritual experience in that cave, but it was Baphomet that found him, guided him, and protected him. The Knights Templar somehow uncovered this secret, but it is too esoteric to explain to the common man. I myself found it hard to accept, but supernatural interference on behalf of the cultists is very real, and historically documented. The Templars later got what was coming to them. Philip of France saw to it.

                That said, Baphomet is considerably more GNON-aligned than Moloch, and a completely Baphomet-ruled world is very possible. Moloch destroys his votaries, Baphomet causes them to multiply.

                Yahweh is completely bonkers though, driving his votaries to insanity (Talmud/Kabala) or into the arms of Moloch. It basically required an arch-Prophet, a divine being in His own right, to mould the Yahweh cult into shape. You identify that Divine as the Logos, Jesus Christ. The original Yahweh-cultists, however, would much rather ally with Baphomet than accept Christ. Also, they believe he’s boiling in a vat of excrement (Christ, not Baphomet). Some scholars consider Him to have been an avatar outright. This is a topic for more research (which will not be done because academies are Moloch territory now). Current Yahweh cultists have degenerated to the extent that half of them are now effectively Molochites.

                > Islam is on the way up

                I see Baphomet’s star waxing and waxing (with a few interruptions) for 1400 years.

                > due to the internal collapse of Christianity,

                You say “internal collapse,” I see the defeat of Yahweh at the invisible hands Moloch. Even the Pope himself is a Molochite now. A lot of good your Logos did them. This is the reason so many, like Alf, are blackpilled about Christianity. I despair for Arab/Syrian/Coptics — trapped between Baphomet without and Moloch within.

                inb4 Russian Orthodoxy (Strannik and others): It is Baba Yaga who protects you now, as she has always done. If/when the hag falls, then you get to face the real Evil. Yahweh is out of the fight. At least Strannik truly believes and respects the Saints. I’m not sure about the rest. I believe as long as you defend Mother Russia, you’re safe from Baphomet. He has no power in the Winter, for now.

                As for us, we face Baphomet, Yahweh, and Moloch’s combined forces. When your dear leader[2] speaks of “religious freedom,” he actually attacks us on behalf of Yahweh. When he speaks of “minorities,” he attacks us on behalf of Baphomet. When he speaks of “sexual preference” he encourages us to sacrifice to Moloch, and our Supreme Court obeys. Baphomet is strongest, of course, but overall it is Moloch who is the most dangerous.

                > but that is not our immediate problem.

                Of course. America is under siege by Moloch, which is the pressing problem for you, by far.

                [1] As in, its effects are real.
                [2] Trump has cut down on Baphomet rhetoric, yet he paid obeisance in Saudi. He’s very gung-ho about Moloch otherwise. I personally believe that it is the Deep State acting on its own, but I could be wrong. Obama was …, well ;).

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @suones
                  suones on the “internal collapse of Christianity”:

                  “You say ‘internal collapse,’ I see the defeat of Yahweh at the invisible hands Moloch. Even the Pope himself is a Molochite now. A lot of good your Logos did them. This is the reason so many, like Alf, are blackpilled about Christianity. I despair for Arab/Syrian/Coptics — trapped between Baphomet without and Moloch within.”

                  The internal collapse of Christianity is obvious. Not a single pastor or priest in America will touch the RedPill on Women nor even do what Bill Maher and Joe Rogan can do… ask the question, “how did our divorce laws came to be this way?”

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  I guess it makes sense for an Hindu to be this disrespectful of other religions and nations, but you’re completely delusional.

                  Both Orthodox/Zionist Jews and Christians have outperformed your people in every possible measure, except the ones where you don’t want to be remarkable at, like shitting on the streets.

                  And Buddha an avatar of a God? Most grossly misrepresentation of a figure ever. Don’t try to leech off the successful civilized Asians to LARP about your Gods and don’t insult Buddha’s teachings with your garbage.

                  Support your own religion as much as you want, but don’t start pointing fingers or talking about others.

                • suones says:

                  @Atavistic Morality

                  > I guess it makes sense for an Hindu to be this disrespectful of other religions and nations, but you’re completely delusional.

                  On the contrary, we believe in respecting all gods and methods of worship, and this has cost us dearly. I’d rather say that the Hindu Kings who generously donated land for cemeteries and churches, then later for mosques, were delusional. They should instead have sunk the ships. Respecting missionary Christians was a mistake, and respecting Baphometans was an even bigger one.

                  The only nation who’ve proven to be our valuable friends and loyal allies in the modern era have been Zionist Jews and their home state of Israel. I suppose when you have a five-thousand year history to look back upon, your perspective becomes less … impatient. I have no doubt we will enjoy good relations with China once they get out of the Communism trap, while being neighbours and competitors.

                  > Both Orthodox/Zionist Jews and Christians have outperformed your people in every possible measure

                  Funny how you attribute the success of Aryans (European/Ashkenazim) to religious cults they were (co-incidentally) part of. By this logic, sending a man into space was only possible because Soviet Communism outperformed US Capitalism. By all actual measures, Christianity has been a disaster wherever it found a non-Aryan stock. Ethiopia and Nigeria are also “Christian” countries, and so is the entire Middle East, oops, I mean was Christian. Alf says the Ottomans were fools to think that Christian social tools that required 120IQ Byzantines could work with 90IQ Turks, and I’m inclined to agree.

                  If your argument is that GNON+Logos formulation of Christianity is particularly useful for a high-functioning Aryan society, I would agree. But it is a power-tool for people of good stock. Otherwise it is Sol Invictus 2.0.

                  > And Buddha an avatar of a God? Most grossly misrepresentation of a figure ever. Don’t try to leech off the successful civilized Asians to LARP about your Gods and don’t insult Buddha’s teachings with your garbage.

                  This is so bad it’s not even wrong. Please, at least read Wikipedia pages on Sri Buddha, Samrat Ashoka and the spread of Buddhism, Monkey King, Angkor Vat, Kebatinan. Also ponder that the only remaining Asian monarch, the King of Thailand, Maharaja Vajiralongkorn, has a Sanskrit name (Longkorn->Lamba Karna->another name for Sri Buddha (long-eared)) and holds the Regnal Name of “King Rama X” (the same Rama whose temple is being built in Ayodhya, India, as distinguished from Ayutthaya, which is in historical Thailand). NB: The Thai monarchy is under vicious Cathedral attack at present.

                  I seem to remember you being a Spaniard. If so, I pay my humble respects to your ancestors who drove out Baphometan defilers from your sacred Motherland and re-established ancestral Law.

                  But I will not respond kindly to foolishness.

                • jim says:

                  > I’d rather say that the Hindu Kings who generously donated land for cemeteries and churches, then later for mosques, were delusional. They should instead have sunk the ships.

                  Hindu Kings lacked the capacity to resist because they were too busy murdering their brothers and abducting women, not because they were too tolerant of Christianity.

                  I recall one incident.

                  East India company had a trading monopoly with some Hindu Kingdom, not because the East India company was apt to pirate the ships of competing companies, but because the locals were. The King murdered the men in the East India trading post and abducted the women, not to resist the monopoly, but for some silly reason. Maybe he just wanted to steal anything not nailed down, maybe he wanted one of the women. East India Company pays him a visit, kills him, loots and pillages, and then forgets about the place for some considerable time. They were not interested in conquering, at least not on this occasion, they just wanted their traders to be safe, but wound up conquering as an often almost accidental side effect of creating the law and order that made trade possible.

                  Hindu Kings cooperated with Christian missionaries and were generous to them because they were trying to get favor with an East India Company that frequently engaged in piracy, brigandry, and extortion, not because of Hindu doctrine of tolerance. The underlying motive was to get favor with the East India Company when they murdered their brothers and quarreled over women.

                  In another incident, the East India company depopulated a large area, because the locals, being too apt to murder each other and murder traders, were impossible to do business with. They just cleared the place out. Rather than creating order, they made disorderly people go away – possibly to the grave, since they seem to be rather shy about saying what happened to the locals.

                  It is the way Christianity always spreads. Christianity is better at maintaining large scale cooperation among the elite, so a Christian elite conquers a non Christian elite: Constantinople, Charles the Hammer and Charles the Great, King Alfred. That is how Christianity won.

                • suones says:

                  @Jim

                  Re: East India Company

                  EIC were the last honourable Western agents we encountered. They were after money, and power only as much as needed to secure and protect their wealth. We paid them off, they did their own thing, we all got richer as a result. The Hindu middle-class, in particular, owes its existence to the EIC. Company word was good as gold, for friend and foe alike (as those who double-crossed them soon found out).

                  Some accuse EIC of having gotten too greedy, but I don’t fully understand the dynamic between EIC and the British crown from 1830s onward. The official history is that Indian sepoys in the Company Army mutinied over some religious issues, then rapidly coalesced around the ageing figurehead Mughal Emperor and overthrew Company rule, then the British Crown got involved and sent over the victorious British Army veterans from the Crimean War that conquered the (now) Mughal Army and won the Crown of India for Queen Victoria.

                  I suspect the EIC might have been framed by the British Crown itself, as the Company Army was twice the size of the regular British Army, and the Company commanded the resources of an entire sub-continent. In an alternate history, EIC might’ve become self-aware and founded an Empire of its own, but Company men were too honourable for that.

                  After 1858 and the proclamation of Empress Victoria of India, though, it was an unbroken stream of insufferable bureaucrats, meddling missionaries and carpetbagging proto-SJWs all the time.

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so.

                  Your history of the East India company is spot on.

                  But I would say the rot came from within, with East India Company officials coming to believe in their civilizing mission as bringing light to the benighted natives, rather acquiring gold in a mostly honorable, or at least not too dishonorable, fashion.

                  See my summary of the Afghan war.

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  because Soviet Communism outperformed US Capitalism

                  Soviet Russia kidnapped German nazi scientists at gunpoint and used its massive slave empire to slightly and momentarily outperform in one and only one single task the already decadent US while massively failing in everything else including feeding their own people or surviving as an institution. If you build a narrative that has nothing to do with reality you’re not making an argument, you’re spinning us tales like progressives do. It’s also not Christianity’s fault that niggers are too stupid to make even a perfectly tried and tested social technology work.

                  Please, at least read Wikipedia pages on Sri Buddha

                  Yes, you should indeed do this, let us know when you find among his teachings and his life the part about being the avatar of your god, thanks.

                  But I will not respond kindly to foolishness.

                  Says the retard that spent a huge wall of text insulting everyone who isn’t an Hindu. Shut the fuck up street shitting curry nigger.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Funny how you attribute the success of Aryans (European/Ashkenazim) to religious cults they were (co-incidentally) part of.

                  Every enduring tribe eventually develops a religious cult, AKA a religion, AKA an arrangement of interlocking social technologies, that work for that tribe. When that religion is proven to work for other, similar, nearby tribes, or when the tribe grows large enough to permanently defend some significant territory, it becomes a nation. No tribe ever really grows into a nation without social technology – without religion.

                  To the extent that one nation’s religion works for other nations, it tends to be less effective than on the founding nation, but may still be more effective than whatever the converso nation developed. For example, Africa is, was, and always will be a basket case without Christianity. To the extent that negroes are civilized at all in America, it’s because of their weird take on Christianity. When they pick up Islam instead, they become violent and self-destructive. And they can’t do Progressivism properly at all – they’re a good client, but when put into positions of influence, all they know how to talk about is their hair and their blackness, and the dumber ones just shoot and loot. So Christianity doesn’t work amazingly well on blacks, but it works okay and that’s better than anything they ever came up with on their own.

                  Hinduism works okay for Indians. I am not going to pretend that postcolonial India is a smashing success, but it’s certainly better than Africa or Pakistan. I have no idea if Christianity would work better for Indians because I don’t think it’s ever seriously been tried – or if it was tried, must have failed very quickly. So perhaps Christianity isn’t so great for Indian people. Certainly, Hinduism is not good at all for European-descended peoples. There is likely no chance of America and India ever sharing a common religion and really no reason there should be. We don’t have to find common ground on the nature of the cosmos.

                  But to circle back to the original point, the success of the Aryans was due to their religions, as much as it was due to their genes, because the two are effectively inseparable when considering the requirements of social cooperation at scale. To say that Europeans did so well because of Christianity is not necessarily to say that Christianity is a universal recipe for European-style success in any nation in the world; indeed, we can see from Africa that it cannot possibly be. However, we can observe that the same European peoples appear to be totally lost and self-destructive without their Christianity, from which we can conclude that it must indeed have been a key ingredient in their earlier success.

                  We’ve all seen the problems with Eurocentrism in the study of non-European civilizations, and I believe you’re very effectively demonstrating the mirror image in Indocentrism. Christianity doesn’t appeal to you or to your people, so instead of studying why it works for other people, you’ve invented a narrative in which Christianity is (a) just a lucky passenger along for the ride and (b) not actually Christianity at all.

                  It’s mildly amusing, but as others have pointed out, pretty short-sighted.

                • jim says:

                  > To say that Europeans did so well because of Christianity is not necessarily to say that Christianity is a universal recipe for European-style success in any nation in the world; indeed, we can see from Africa that it cannot possibly be. However, we can observe that the same European peoples appear to be totally lost and self-destructive without their Christianity, from which we can conclude that it must indeed have been a key ingredient in their earlier success.

                  Post Roman Britain remained in destructive violent anarchy and ever declining technological levels, until King Alfred the Great’s ancestors imported the successful religion of Constantinople, under which state religion King Alfred united Anglo Saxon England. Which is again confirmation that Christianity was an essential social technology for European peoples.

                • Mike says:

                  @Not Tom
                  >you’ve invented a narrative in which Christianity is (a) just a lucky passenger along for the ride and (b) not actually Christianity at all.

                  Except, if we’re going to continue following his argument’s reasoning, which seems to me to be that race/genes are more important than religion, he does have a point. As I’ve mentioned before, Europeans were enormously successful as Greco-Roman polytheists, so successful that Christians adopted a lot of their philosophy/culture wholesale into their own religion. Christianity did not produce Julius Caesar, Virgil, Homer, Aristotle, Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Augustus, Alexander the Great, Euclid, Archimedes, Pericles, Xenophon…..I could go on. If its such an integral part of our success, why were we already so successful without it? I mean, you can argue that the Slavs, Germans, and Slavs were pretty retarded at the time, but the Meds were doing just as well as they later would as Christians. As @suones said:
                  >It is a power-tool for people of good stock. Otherwise it is Sol Invictus 2.0.

                • Not Tom says:

                  As I’ve mentioned before, Europeans were enormously successful as Greco-Roman polytheists, so successful that Christians adopted a lot of their philosophy/culture wholesale into their own religion.

                  There are a lot of things wrong with this frame. To select just a few:
                  – European ancestry going back to at least the medieval period shares virtually no DNA with the ancient Greeks and very little with ancient Romans.
                  – Greek society may have produced some great thinkers, but it didn’t last very long and was horrendously pozzed, which suggests an America-like situation of burning up previously-stored social capital. Success is more than just producing a few great works; you also have to survive.
                  – Ancient Christians didn’t incorporate pagan beliefs because they made Christianity better, they did so because it helped them convert those pagans instead of having to kill them outright.

                  But all of this is beside the point anyway. I think you just skimmed my post rather than reading for comprehension, because I made the point several times that Christianity was part of that legacy of racial achievement and inexorably tied to their posterity. So it’s not a reply to say “they did fine before Christianity”, even if we gloss over the details and pretend that it’s the same “they”, for the same reason it makes no sense to say “white people did fine before computers”. In both cases, the obvious follow-up question is: yeah, but so what? Western civilization is heavily tied to computers now and we wouldn’t have much of a civilization without them, just as Christianity is (or was, until recently) an integral part of western civilization since the medieval era, and we are actively losing the civilization we built as it fades away or gets overtaken by poz.

                • jim says:

                  > Ancient Christians didn’t incorporate pagan beliefs because they made Christianity better, they did so because it helped them convert those pagans instead of having to kill them outright.

                  Ancient Christians incorporated Greek philosophy, because Greek philosophy was good stuff.

                • Pooch says:

                  European ancestry going back to at least the medieval period shares virtually no DNA with the ancient Greeks and very little with ancient Romans.

                  That’s not true at all. Before the Romans got race replaced they were Indo-European (Aryan).

                • suones says:

                  @Atavistic Morality

                  > USSR/Communism USA/Capitalism Space Race
                  > narrative that has nothing to do with reality

                  My Commie/Capi comparison was intended as a reductio ad absurdum attack on your position that attributes the demonstrable success of Aryan civilisation and accomplishments to Middle Eastern religions. My basic point was that USSR/Commie Space success was due to the ex-Nazi scientists’ human capital, not due to the Communistic ideology they were (nominally) following. As an aside, US success was largely due to the same reasons, as was the Nazis’ own success before that — human capital turned to State ends. Similarly, the success of European/Ashkenazim has more to do with their Aryan blood than religion.

                  I see this every day in life. The actual Aryan population of India is minute, and even then there is much admixture. But there is a vast difference in IQ, and several orders of magnitude difference in achievement between us, even though we all nominally follow the same religion. There is similar occurrence in Christianity and used to be in Islam — racial stock trumps religion.

                  > Buddha
                  > let us know when you find among his teachings and his life the part about being the avatar of your god, thanks.

                  Seriously? It’s right there in the middle of the page! Even the Chinese legend of the Monkey King has Him travelling West to retrieve Buddhist sutras. Guess what lies to the West of Himalayas from China? Hindusthanam, the birthplace (janma bhumi) and workplace (karma bhumi) of Sri Buddha, born as Sri Siddhartha Gautama, Prince of the Shakyas. Pilgrimage from (mostly) Far Easterners is a major source of Government revenue in all the areas graced by Sri Buddha.

                  There are numerous philosophical debates to be had about Buddhism and its similarities and differences to other Indian schools of Dharma (philosophy and theology), but I will only have those with a learned individual with good faith.

                  > *insults elided*

                  I know, I know! All your posturing about the Peace of Westphalia, throne, altar and freehold, good will among nations, is false. Somehow that didn’t apply to us in 1858, doesn’t apply now. When push comes to shove, Christians here always 1) ally with whichever anti-Hindu power is ascendant, first it was Muslims, now Cathedral, sometimes both; and 2) count on their allies in the West for support. I only count Zionist Jews among (so far) _our_ reliable allies, but they know because they’re also subject to continuous Cathedral attacks and surrounded by Muslim enemies, while ruling over a heterogeneous population (high functioning Aryan-blooded Ashkenazim at the top, low-IQ Sephardi and Arab Jews at the bottom).

                  This is my final post in this benighted thread. Inquisitive people are welcome to ask questions about any topic related to Hinduism. I don’t mind “tough” questions, but they have to come from a civilised frame -> You keep your Lord Jesus Christ, we keep our Lord Sri Ram. This completely denies the actions, past and present, of evangelical Christianity though, so I don’t know how you folks can manage it, but that’s my request.

                • Mike says:

                  >Crying about Christians owning you

                  Don’t make me tap the sign Suones: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EajDJjOUMAE7c5w.jpg

                • Not Tom says:

                  Ancient Christians incorporated Greek philosophy, because Greek philosophy was good stuff.

                  Sure, some of it was. I’d question whether all of it was; that’s more likely survivorship bias at work.

                  More important is what they chose not to incorporate: the Greek pantheon. These little nods to pagans were all in areas that didn’t fundamentally change the narrative or structure.

                  Before the Romans got race replaced they were Indo-European (Aryan).

                  This is now the second or third time I’m hearing it implied that both modern Europeans and the European diaspora are merely “Aryans”. I think it’s an insult to the uniqueness of the European nations, which is clearly reflected in their unique DNA. Yes, they “eventually” trace back to the Holy Roman Empire which “eventually” traces back to the original Romans, but there are over a thousand years of conquest and selection pressure involved. It’s not the same people.

                  Are you seriously going to ignore major genetic events like the Norman conquest and the Ottoman wars? Just pretend they didn’t happen and that Europeans are all Roman stock?

                • Pooch says:

                  This is now the second or third time I’m hearing it implied that both modern Europeans and the European diaspora are merely “Aryans”

                  When we talk about Aryans, we mean the Proto-Indo-Europeans (the common ancestors of all modern Europeans today as well as the ancient Romans and Greeks) who emerged from the Pontic–Caspian steppe and migrated throughout Europe during the 4th millennium BC.

                  I think it’s an insult to the uniqueness of the European nations, which is clearly reflected in their unique DNA.

                  They all derive from Proto-Indo-Europeans (“Aryans”).

                  there are over a thousand years of conquest and selection pressure involved

                  1000 years is not that long when we are talking about Proto-European-derived people conquering other Proto-European-derived people

                • Not Tom says:

                  the common ancestors of all modern Europeans today

                  This is motte and bailey nonsense. We all derive from some extinct form of killer ape, but that doesn’t mean we’re the same as Orangutans at the zoo.

                  There’s been reams and reams of genetic research, elaborate maps of gene flow published, highly detectable differences between the DNA of various European nations. When I say that we aren’t very much like the ancient Romans, I don’t mean that there’s no common ancestry, I mean that we aren’t very much like the ancient Romans.

                  Wasn’t it claimed here, at some point, that Ashkenazim are actually closer to the ancient Romans despite the levantine admixture because they left Europe a long time ago and have been endogamous ever since? I don’t know if it’s true or not, but regardless, saying that modern Europeans and Americans have a moderate amount of Roman mtDNA is not even close to saying that they’re roughly the same. We’ve all literally evolved since then.

                  We’re talking about a millennium, and it only takes a few centuries for major DNA changes even without admixture. Europeans aren’t Romans and definitely aren’t Greeks.

                • Pooch says:

                  Different races exist. Race is real. There is overwhelming evidence ancient Romans and Greeks were of the white race.

                • Pooch says:

                  *of the white race before they were race replaced.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Roman foundation myths said that their founding (Patrician) families were descended from those who survived the sack of Troy.

                  Sulla and Julius Caesar both of nearly pure patrician descent were more Northern European looking than Medish so make of all that what you will.

                • Pooch says:

                  The Southern Italian Med look (I’m half one) is from the considerable Middle Eastern DNA admixture due to the mass importation of Middle Eastern slaves (mostly from Syria) in late Rome.

            • ten says:

              You posted a long reply on a subject that interests me, but i will not reply in detail to your historiography, it’s too kooky.

              YHWH was a tribal god of the abrahamic bloodline, like many others, yet became more analogous to the indo-aryan godhead over time, and at the time of christ, and in later christianity, “the father” is identical to the indo-aryan godhead, in my opinion.

              God revealed himself to the jews in this form, and because he was born on earth as Jesus Christ within that tradition, Aryans picked up the jewish form and dressed their cult in its vestiges. There is only one Godhead/Brahman/Father, and we must have no other lesser gods above him or at his side.

              To a great extent the church solved the other gods by pinning them on saints, or making up corresponding saints, so noone would think “my patron saint/pagan god is ackshully greater than God”.

              There are plenty of other forms of pagan gods than tribal bloodline gods, in fact most of them are not of that kind, and gods of bloodline, gods of tribal consciousness, were also most often meta-tribal.

              The christian God did not destroy what it touched. It did destroy far more than i would have liked of european paganism, but in the empire, paganism was weak and ossified and degenerate, and in the outlands, it was hostile and barbarous. I wish there were european vedas, and there might have been if the church had lined its fist with more velvet. Oh well, shit happens, and it all turned out pretty well in the end, until our times.

              • Not Tom says:

                My thoughts as well re: interest vs. kook. I think there’s some value in hearing these things out, and I suppose they could make a lot of sense to someone coming from a genuinely polytheistic frame.

                But take away the mysticism and superstition and it is obvious that Gnon, or “the” God, is actually at the top of the hierarchy, because everything and everyone that tries to defy him eventually dies – and not in the sense of individuals dying, because of course everybody dies some day, but entire cultures and civilizations dying out.

                Civilizations completely foreign to the Hebrews and Christians may operate from a completely different frame and not acknowledge the Abrahamic God, but it’s hard to claim with a straight face that they defy him either. Generally speaking, Chinese/Japanese/etc. were patriarchal societies headed by warriors, they put almost all of the ten commandments into their laws, especially the prohibitions that are not universal to all religions such as adultery and covetousness.

                The pagan societies who refused to subordinate their pagan deities to God, tended to die by the sword. The secular societies who embraced covetousness tended to die by the elements and internal wars, and the ones who embraced adultery failed to reproduce. The rules may not always be very clear – and in order for humans to have free will, they must be open to interpretation – but at the most basic level the message of history is pretty clear: defy Gnon and die.

                The ancient Hebrews and Christians were by no means perfect, but they gave the “interpretation” part a pretty damn good try, and built a civilization that either crushed or leapfrogged all the others; and now, having abandoned Gnon centuries ago and openly defying him today, it too has started to fail and die. We can continue on that path or go back to what works. It’s not a great time to be embracing entirely novel polytheistic theories; maybe that’s good for Hindus in India, but over here it would just create a lot of confusion and disorder. We need to recover the old social technology first, then we can think about innovating.

              • suones says:

                @ten and @Not Tom

                > Kooky

                It’s highly disconcerting, I know. Such things are certainly not possible in reality. This is why I used Jim’s formulation — instead of describing constructive and destructive social processes and memes, I just gave them pithy names that enable easy discussion. What difference does it make if Moloch “really” exists or not, when his effects are the same anyway?

                Of course, once I substitute proper names everywhere, it starts reading like a Lovecraftian tale LOL. But it hits close enough to the soul to provoke a visceral reaction.

                > YHWH (god/eudaemon) vs The God of Christianity (TGoC)

                Are miles apart. The actual followers of YHWH today deny the existence of the latter, and hold Christ (whom they may call “Nazarene” or any name but “Christ”) to be a false Prophet who is eternally boiling in a vat of excrement, in hell.[1]

                > God revealed himself to the jews in this form, and because he was born on earth as Jesus Christ within that tradition, Aryans picked up the jewish form and dressed their cult in its vestiges.

                This is not how it happened. Aryans (that is, Romans and their Germanic enemies alike), saw in this new Middle Eastern cult a way to generate loyal elites, and made the cult their own. “Old type” Christianity is really more about Rome than about Jews.

                > There is only one Godhead/Brahman/Father, and we must have no other lesser gods above him or at his side.

                This is a Semitic obsession. YHWH (and his close cousin Baphomet) absolutely detest the mere existence of other gods, or even acknowledgement of their existence. Roman Christians papered over it by making “Saints” out of gods. Most Christians didn’t pray to other “gods,” but to “Saints” instead.

                > so noone would think “my patron saint/pagan god is ackshully greater than God”.

                A very valid point. Christianity and monotheistic cults have a facility for use as Imperial cults, which was used to great effect by Consantine and Alfred, for example. But, an actual Imperial Cult is a far, far, better solution. I’ve only read about this formally existing in Imperial China under the rule of the Son of Heaven. I consider the “Mandate of Heaven” an excellent social technology. A very similar formulation has been in use in Russia since at least Peter The Great, where the Tsar and Orthodox Church are always in perfect harmony (most of the time). Our own “avatar” concept works to reduce our vast pantheon down to a manageable Trinity.

                > The christian God did not destroy what it touched.

                Oh I agree completely. Also, YHWH is not the Christian God. TGoC is The Father+The Son+The Holy Ghost. This formulation proved to be GNON-aligned. I will defer to actual Jews and Christians for shedding more light on this.

                > It did destroy far more than i would have liked of european paganism, but in the empire, paganism was weak and ossified and degenerate, and in the outlands, it was hostile and barbarous. I wish there were european vedas, and there might have been if the church had lined its fist with more velvet. Oh well, shit happens, and it all turned out pretty well in the end, until our times.

                Hear, hear! Aryan gods sleep a deep sleep in Europe. But then what is dead may eternal lie. The main destruction wrought by Christianity has been in the Middle East and Egypt. From being the cradle of civilisations to shitholes, Baphomet has only finished what YHWH started. Christianity destroyed existing social technology, brought down any and all Chesterton’s fences in the region, and once Imperial support collapsed, Baphomet made short work of the area. You mourn the loss of Europe? I mourn the loss of Sumer, and Misr, and Bab-El. The latter were particular targets of YHWH, so I hope he’s happy now or something.

                [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzoah_Rotachat

                • jim says:

                  Stop pissing on other people’s religions. Indian religion was in a terrible condition back when actual Christians conquered the place and is in worse shape now.

                  I am going to suppress all future religious stuff from you discussing other people’s religions.

                • suones says:

                  @Jim

                  Right.

                • ten says:

                  Well, since you are now not allowed to discuss non hindu religion (jim, were his pissing really that severe?), this is just to give some final comments.

                  > YHWH (god/eudaemon) vs The God of Christianity (TGoC)

                  Are miles apart. The actual followers of YHWH today deny the existence of the latter,

                  Not miles apart, but still pretty correct. Stalk versus bloom. The jews who did not accept Christ failed to follow the revelation their eudaemon provided them with, as they had many times before, and are yet made to suffer for their failure, as many times before, perennially on a collision course with GNON (yes i juggle wildly between terms, forgive me.)

                  This is not how it happened.

                  I fail to see the contradiction, potato potato.

                  This is a Semitic obsession. YHWH (and his close cousin Baphomet) absolutely detest the mere existence of other gods, or even acknowledgement of their existence.

                  Well. The old testament deals plenty with other gods, where israelites suffer for worshiping them, but far from always are those gods portrayed as inherently detrimental. Christianity had an original religion to replace, and so was harsh, often equating the gods with demons or satan, but still lenient enough to convert gods to saints, retaining their cults and virtues.

                  And then there was the rennaisance, where kitsch variants of the gods had a resurgence, which also was accepted (even celebrated) as long as they held their proper place.

                  The bloom of YHWH transplanted onto the stalk of aryan paganism, in my opinion, and that is all good.

                  And original judaism didn’t oppose other gods as long as they kept outside of israel the nation, not the country. Doesn’t seem to do so today either.

                  The mandate of heaven is great stuff, and i like the chinese, but they do things in scary ways (not to sound like a sissy, but the bottomless cruelty and effectiveness of nine familial extermination is something i am happy to have had on the other side of the planet. Court intrigue with ambitious noblemen fucks shit up. Wat do? An entire court of eunuchs! Didn’t solve the problem perfectly, but still very effective, and very monstrous, all for the greater good, of course.)

                  I wish to ask you to expand on this christian destructivity in the middle east, but i suppose you are not allowed to answer. As far as i know, they were doing somewhere between ok and fine. They shattered a bunch of cults and temples and massacred a bunch of people in the transition, and that was bad maybe. The civilizations that fell to islam were not destroyed, were not shitholes, just weakened by constant assault until the final one. They weren’t that great at resisting assault at any previous time since the start of civilization either, endless waves in all directions.

                • jim says:

                  > Well, since you are now not allowed to discuss non hindu religion

                  On a reactionary blog, Hindus should not be trying to convert Christians in America, nor Christians trying to convert Hindus in India.

                  Suones is welcome to discuss religion within the frame of the effectiveness and success of religion at maintaining cohesion between and within sovereign, state, society, and family, which is entirely on topic.

                  Suones is welcome to discuss religion within the frame that progs are trying to destroy the all old religions of all nations, and impose a single new religion on us all, which religion is theoretically materialist, but is in fact substantially supernatural with extensive demonic themes, and some demon worship, which worship is presented as ironic or artistic rather than literal, but which frequently displays characteristics strongly suggestive of literal demon worship and is frequently accompanied by psychological disorders and forms of abnormality that used to be considered indicative of demonic possession.

                  But attacks on a traditional national religions from within the frame that one religion’s gods are true and the others are false gods or demons is not going to be allowed. (Except that Mohammed’s visions were of a demon, literal or metaphorical, or both, inside him or outside him or both)

                  There is one supreme God, and his logos is manifest in world and in the natural order.

                • repa sa says:

                  Jim, are you sure Muhammad was demon possessed?

                  The Prophet said: “I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.” It was asked, “Do they disbelieve in Allah?” (or are they ungrateful to Allah?) He replied, “They are ungrateful to their husbands and are ungrateful for the favors and the good (charitable deeds) done to them. If you have always been good (benevolent) to one of them and then she sees something in you (not of her liking), she will say, ‘I have never received any good from you.”

                  Sahih al-Bukhari 29

                • jim says:

                  I am agnostic on the literal existence of demons.

                  So rather than discussing what is unfalsifiable and beyond mortal comprehension, I will stick to pointing out that Mohammedans conquered a lot of civilizations, some of whom had accomplished great things, and after each such conquest, they all immediately turned to shit.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  In terms of what Jim calls Logos, Christianity holds a unique advantage: the incarnation. For physical laws of the world to be consistent, need God. For world to be knowable, need God-With-Us.

              • The Cominator says:

                I sort of liked suones framing what he considers bad religions in terms of Baphomet and Moloch. Its interesting as an abstraction whether its literally true or not.

                Baphomet being the Islamic demon – It produces societal failure through having if you will having vices of TOO MUCH T and not enough intellect. It reproduces but it drags everything down to a level of savagery and without the immediate prospect of external enemies it would collapse in on itself in bloody wars.

                Moloch is the progressive demon – It empowers women, it creates a society of soulless demotivated “bugmen” and to the extent it reproduces its reproduction patterns resemble idiocracy.

                Now this is not to say that Hinduism doesn’t have both plagues in it or that his criticisms of Christianity are valid, but I like the abstraction.

                • jim says:

                  Suones knows even less of Christianity than I know of Hinduism. A debate on the validity of these religions would be unprofitable, so I am shutting it down because it would generate heat rather than light.

                  It is clear that at the time of the East India company, Hindus lacked a cohesive elite, let alone a friendly elite. Discussing that would be profitable.

                  He thinks that Indians were wronged by the East India Company, and they certainly were. But the reason that they were wronged is that the chaos and violence made it difficult to trade with them.

                  Munshi Abdullah argues that the piracy, extortion, and mass murder of the East India company was a major improvement on what they were busy doing each other. He lived through both, and he was smart guy, and, among other things, a spy and information collector, so he should know.

                  His first encounter with the East India Company was them showing up to destroy stuff and ravish the women – he saw what was going on from both ends.

                  The East India Company’s major source of revenue was (monopolistic) trade, not extortion and piracy. They wanted peace, order, and law, so that they would have goods to buy, and people with money to sell to.

                • suones says:

                  @The Cominator

                  > I sort of liked suones framing what he considers bad religions in terms of
                  > Baphomet and Moloch. Its interesting as an abstraction whether its literally
                  > true or not.

                  The abstraction is not due to me. I lifted Moloch from Jim and Scott Alexander.
                  I saw the striking similarity with Baphomet->Islam, and added that. There is no
                  way to prove whether these “demons” literally exist or not, but the Templars
                  were clearly on to something.

                  Baphomet doesn’t provide for too much T, however. You seem to not have much
                  exposure to his acolytes. They are among the worst dregs of society. Even the
                  “suicide bombers” have to be hopped up on drug cocktails to try to make them
                  brave.

                  As for demons in Hinduism, there are untold numbers of demons in Hinduism, and
                  untold number of cults that worship them. But our demons would be as unfamiliar
                  to you as our gods. Our civilisation is contemporaneous with ancient Rome, the
                  crucial difference being that we have survived for > 5000 years, did not suffer a
                  Commie takeover, and are the only ancient civilisation (apart from China) to
                  have our own nuclear umbrella against Moloch. Which is to say, even our demons
                  are ones whose cults have managed to survive for thousands of years, so are not
                  _that_ destructive. Our Aryan population is quite small (percentage wise) and
                  mixed, but was never completely replaced. Due to the massive natalism of our
                  gods and demons alike, however, we have more Aryans (in absolute terms) than
                  almost any European country. We are rapidly ceding ground to Moloch though.

                  > Now this is not to say that … his criticisms of Christianity are valid,

                  ;^)

                • suones says:

                  @Jim

                  Suones knows even less of Christianity than I know of Hinduism

                  Don’t be so sure :). I can’t give out personal details to prove otherwise. Christianity has a strong presence in my country. My perspective may appear jarring because Christianity to you is like water to a fish, while I provide an outside view. One thing I can share is that Christians (in India) are continuously engaged in “proving” that the old religion is invalid, that the Old Gods are false. They’ve been at it since at least 1900 years, and they’re at it now, supported by money, status, and resources from what most Hindus see as “Christian” lands, but what you and I know to be Cathedral territory.

                  The reason I became attracted to “NRx” is because of your position that the Peace of Westphalia also extends to us. “Hindus should not be trying to convert Christians in America, nor Christians trying to convert Hindus in India.” This latter part is objectively false, has been false for almost two millennia, and is false today. You cannot expect me to give quarter while your nominal co-religionists continue to fight us in our own homeland.

                  … the frame that progs are trying to destroy the all old religions of all nations, and impose a single new religion on us all …

                  s/progs/Christians/g I have no idea how you square your offer of the Peace of Westphalia for all, with the beliefs and activities of Evangelical Christians who you are bound to support due to electoral politics.

                  He thinks that Indians were wronged by the East India Company, and they certainly were …

                  Whoa, what? That’s the frame of our progs/swine right, not mine. I called the EIC the “last honourable Western agents we met.” I would love to deal with a modern EIC. They wanted power only as much as it enabled them to secure and preserve their business, and said business made all of us richer. The Hindu middle-class owes its existence to the EIC. Post EIC British were inveterate villains, though. They not only destroyed our country, but literally destroyed their own Empire as well. Your article on the Anglo-Afghan wars pointed out heavy prog influence by the 1840s.

                  Meta: An attack on EIC is almost always an attack from the left. Anti-colonialism, Anti-imperialism, prog shibboleths all. Most Hindu counter-attacks on Christianity are attacks from the left too, because they are powerful attacks proven against Christianity. Attacks from the Left are like blood magic, however. They are powerful, but drain one’s own strength disproportionately. Unsurprising, because they are powered by Moloch, who demands his (heavy) price.

                  My attack on $WHATEVER is always from the right. If that attack is successful, I achieve victory, but crucially, even if the attack doesn’t achieve immediate success, it leaves me more powerful than before, unlike Moloch-based attacks. Surprisingly, Knights Templar were way ahead of me here too. There is a reason why “Deus Vult!” sends a chill down your enemies’ spine, and why Baphometans and their Molochite allies spill so much ink attacking “Crusaders” even though there have been no actual Crusades for centuries.

                • jim says:

                  > s/progs/Christians/g I have no idea how you square your offer of the Peace of Westphalia for all, with the beliefs and activities of Evangelical Christians who you are bound to support due to electoral politics

                  Not seeing this state support for Christian missionaries. There certainly used to be state backing for Christian missionaries,

                  The East India Company came to trade, and there was no peace, which made trade difficult. The East India Company conquered more by accident than design, and generally refrained from imposing on its conquests the state religion from which it drew its cohesion.

                  Then, from about 1840-1850 or so, there was indeed state support and East India Company support for Christianity – a Christianity that was already mutating into today’s proggism, which having become first holier than Christ, then holier than God, has now dropped its thin Christian veneer. But it kept a Christian protestant veneer all the way to 1950 or so. From 1840 or so to 1950 or so, there was no separation between imperial imposition of “progress”, and Christian missionary activity. The progressive empire backed the Christians, and the Christians backed the empire.

                  Today, however, there is such separation.

                  Once the Socinians took over the Anglican Church, the Church of England, 1832-1840, The Anglican Church ceased to be Christian, even though inertia and habit meant that the vast majority of Anglicans continued to be Christian, and in substantial part still are. Much as most Roman Catholics are still Catholic, even though the Pope worships demons. (The Gaia of the Greenies is a demon, being hostile to humanity and all human activity, in the style of the Aztec Gods)

                  So if you were seeing imperial Christianity in that period, pretty sure we would not have supported most such activity, nor considered it Christian.

                • Not Tom says:

                  s/progs/Christians/g

                  That would be like us saying that Indian progressives in America are trying to convert Americans to Hinduism.

                  Progressivism derives from Christianity, but it isn’t Christianity, because it denies all the substance of Christianity while preserving only some of its forms.

                  We here acknowledge that Progressivism is the holiness-spiraled version of Christianity, rather than the assorted ridiculous theories about it being Jewish or simply nonreligious; however, do not expect to get away with calling them the same thing. That’s politically false, culturally false, demographically false and theologically false. It’s an unusual and novel form of gaslighting, but no less outrageous than the claim that capitalism was invented in the 1950s.

        • neofugue says:

          While it is prudent to uphold the Peace of Westphalia during these times, there is a points to be made regarding Christianity and Paganism.

          In Christianity, all Pagan Gods are either at worst demons or at best fictitious. The term “prelest,” spiritual delusion, is an Orthodox Christian term where the believer interprets all spiritual experiences as demonic unless confirmed by an established clergyman or monastic. “Babi Yaga” is a nice piece of Pagan mythology, but she is not to be taken seriously. If someone has an experience in which he sees Babi Yaga, it is a demon masquerading in his mind.

          The term for someone who thinks otherwise is “heretic” or “anathema.”

          If one wishes to keep Pagan traditions such as Christmas trees, Halloween, the Easter bunny, ironic “Babi Yaga,” ironic astrology, it is harmless and good fun. I am a Gemini, for example. However, if you wish to incorporate Pagan Gods unironically into Christianity, it won’t work, it never worked, and there is a place for Pagan entryists after death.

          This discussion shows what Pagan entryism into Christianity used to be. It shows the importance of the Apostles’ Creed. “I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and Earth and of all things visible and invisible.”

          • jim says:

            > In Christianity, all Pagan Gods are either at worst demons or at best fictitious.

            Cortez’s men seemed to have believed the Aztec gods were real, but were mostly demons. Aztec Gods are for the most part unambiguously depicted with demonic behavior, appetites, and appearance.

            After they conquered the place, the Christian priests identified Quetzalcoatl’s human incarnation to be a Christian saint who had visited America in the flesh long ago, and a few others as Christian saints who were present in spirit. So they did not think that all of them were demons. Just nearly all of them.

            • Mike in Boston says:

              Anyone sane and decent, whether he be a Christian, a Hindu, an atheist, or whatever, would root for Cortez and shudder in horror at the Aztecs after reading about the time Montezuma gave Cortez a tour of an Aztec temple:


              On the left hand stood another figure of the same size as Huitzilopochtli. Its face was very much like that of a bear, its shining eyes were made of tetzcat, the looking-glass of the country. This idol, like its brother Huitzilopochtli, was completely covered with precious stones, and was called Tetzcatlipuca. This was the god of hell, and the souls of the dead Mexicans stood under him. A circle of figures wound round its body, resembling diminutive devils with serpents’ tails. The walls and floor around this idol were also besmeared with blood, and the stench was worse than in a Spanish slaughter-house. Five human hearts had that day been sacrificed to him. On the very top of this temple stood another chapel, the woodwork of which was uncommonly well finished, and richly carved. In this chapel there was also another idol, half man and half lizard, completely covered with precious stones; half of this figure was hidden from view. We were told that the hidden half was covered with the seeds of every plant of this earth, for this was the god of the seeds and fruits: I have, however, forgotten its name, but note that here also everything was besmeared with blood, and the stench so offensive that we could not have staid there much longer. In this place was kept a drum of enormous dimensions, the tone of which, when struck, was so deep and melancholy that it has very justly been denominated the drum of hell. The drum-skin was made out of that of an enormous serpent; its sound could be heard at a distance of more than eight miles. This platform was altogether covered with a variety of hellish objects,—large and small trumpets, huge slaughtering knives, and burnt hearts of Indians who had been sacrificed: everything clotted with coagulated blood, cursed to the sight, and creating horror in the mind. Besides all this, the stench was everywhere so abominable that we scarcely knew how soon to get away from this spot of horrors. Our commander here said, smilingly, to Motecusuma: “I cannot imagine that such a powerful and wise monarch as you are, should not have yourself discovered by this time that these idols are not divinities, but evil spirits, called devils. In order that you may be convinced of this, and that your papas may satisfy themselves of this truth, allow me to erect a cross on the summit of this temple; and, in the chapel, where stand your Huitzilopochtli and Tetzcatlipuca, give us a small space that I may place there the image of the holy Virgin; then you will see what terror will seize these idols by which you have been so long deluded.

              The fact that our modern “progressives” and “multiculturalists” instead root for the Aztecs and shudder in horror at Cortez tells you that they are neither sane nor decent.

              • Strannik says:

                Cortez had it right, and it’s the fault of ”Christians” who apologize for what is right that sicken me more than any ”progressives” or ”multiculturalists”. Indeed; ”neither sane nor decent”, for what was clearly the worship of the Devils and the Prince of Devils.

          • Oog en Hand says:

            “In Christianity, all Pagan Gods are either at worst demons or at best fictitious.”

            Pagans, be they Germanic or Slavonic, do not believe in turning the other cheek. Shall we consider That Man to be a jotunn or a þuris?!

            Maybe your lord is in a place for Christian entryists after death…

  9. Shelby says:

    [*deleted because Shelby has not finished the Mueller test*]

  10. Shelby says:

    [*deleted because Shelby has not finished the Mueller test*]

  11. Strannik says:

    Joe Biden, the Muslim ”Trojan Horse”;

    https://www.jihadwatch.org/2020/10/joe-biden-vows-muslims-would-serve-at-every-level-in-his-administration

    And I for one believe him this time. After all, he’s not likely to win, and the Muslims will have some more time after 2020 to complete the transition to a Muslim party being the second of the two-party system

    • BC says:

      Dems have strongly signaled they won’t allow another party once back in official power. They’re just planning to use Muslims to do the dirty work of slaughtering whites and Christians. Of course a cohesive warrior class that Islam produces might soon replace the Cathedral all together.

      • Strannik says:

        The Democrats are but children in these plots and conspiracies, the Muslims have had over 1400 years to perfect their forms of warfare and deceit.

        And when the time comes the Liberals will only get the option the ”Polytheists” get when defeated by Islam; conversion or the sword.

        • Yul Bornhold says:

          Fantasy.

          90 IQ mohammadans can’t match 120 IQ progs. Muslim ‘plots and conspiracies’ only work when the progs let them blow up and taqqiya the rednecks.

          • BC says:

            The 120 IQ progs are old and about to die. Their replacements are sub 90 morons.

            • jim says:

              Limp wristed moron faggots, facing morons prepared to kill and die.

              • Yul Bornhold says:

                A generous assessment. My military friends used to say that the insurgents in Iraq had to dope up their suicide bombers on drug cocktails to get them to kill themselves. These same insurgents’ most effective tactic was to leave bombs on the side of the road. Neither of these descriptions makes me think of Mohammadans as more fervent warrior-fanatics than antifa.

                • Pooch says:

                  It’s not about being fanatical. Antifa is clearly fanatical. It’s about having enough testosterone flowing through your veins to make you a competent warrior.

                • BC says:

                  @Yul Bornhold

                  Think of ISIS, not the insurgents in Iraq. Those were cohesive warriors with full T production because they were living as real men should under Islam.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  ISIS formed from the veterans of the Iraq insurgency. They were capable of beating Arabs and Kurds. Not terribly impressive.

                  I’m not making any novel assessment when I say Arabs have no ability at modern warfare because modern warfare relies upon cooperation (trust) between multiple forces and logistics. The religious cohesiveness of the Caliphate gave ISIS the ability to thrash the other locals but they weren’t tested against even a soy Europe army.

          • Pooch says:

            IQ matters not when Testosterone is at female levels.

          • Yul Bornhold says:

            Even before Attaturk, the Ottoman Empire and the Khedive in Egypt were subject to European liberalization in the form of limited monarchy. Probably in other forms as well, though I’m far from an authority on the subject. Attaturk very much represented the importation of European secularism and wasn’t at all a devout man himself. For decades, the Cathedral continued to replicate in the Muslim world. Islam resisted but not too successfully. The Islamic Republic of Iran is, after all, a republic with a feminist view on women.

            Still, Islam’s counterattack continued to gain momentum. In 70s Egypt, women wore miniskirts. Today, that’s unacceptable. The Muslim Brotherhood won control of Egypt in an election, though the Cathedral panicked after a few years and arranged for the Brotherhood’s removal. ISIS successfully conquered a not-inconsiderable swathe of territory and various fanatics blew up things around the world.

            It would be a mistake to assume this means Islam is beating the Cathedral, or globohomo, as we should call its latest iteration. I’ve heard a lot of anecdote about Muslims frowning on their own religion, not abandoning it but thinking it ought to be kept private. I’ve heard a lot about them converting to Christianity in unprecedented numbers. I’ve heard Islamic lamentations over the West turning their sons gay like a pozzed Bergen-Belsen.

            Globohomo isn’t self-aware. It’s a self-propagating system driven by instinct, like a virus. People assume that Islam can beat it because a few fanatics detonate themselves every now and then. If actual patriarchal, negro enslaving, fag stomping Islam grew large enough to threaten the Cathedral, it would get the same treatment Germany did. At present, no such threatening form of Islam exists and globohomo continues to converge existing Islamic strains.

            One day, perhaps, Globohomo will incorporate Islam as Strannik predicts, but, if so, it will be rainbow AIDS Islam.

            • The Cominator says:

              Kemalism isn’t the Cathedral’s religion since Kemalism was militant secular nationalism of the old type not egalitarian internationalism.

              The Cathedral helped the Islamist Turdogan purge the Kemalist army command.

              Ataturk was a great man, he told the satanic forces of Woodrow Wilson Clemancau and Lloyd George (the cannon fodder army of satan) which had destroyed Christendom to go fuck themselves they aren’t occupying Turkey and they won.

              Germany’s stab in the back Legend probably owed a lot to Ataturk’s successful defiance of the satanic forces of the 1st world war allies.

              • Yul Bornhold says:

                Militant secular nationalism was an earlier mutation of the Cathedral. Globohomo has moved on but you can trace the lineage, same as we trace modern progressives from old school Puritans.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Even if it was and I don’t agree…

                  Kemalism was fixed at that moment in time, the same way modern day Japan is fixed at the Cathedral’s 1950s version.

                • Mike says:

                  >Even if it was and I don’t agree….

                  How can you possibly not agree? The French Revolution kickstarted modern leftism yes? The French Revolution was militantly secular and hyper-nationalistic yes? Where are you getting this idea from? Ataturk’s Turkey was literally just Revolutionary France 1789 imported wholesale into Turkey 1920. Its the same nationalist, centralizing bureaucracy, the same militant secularism, the same “emancipation” of minorities (France abolishing Jewish ghettos versus Ottomans abolishing Millets), the same emancipation of women. The only thing missing was that there wasn’t exactly a Reign of Terror, although to be honest, the Greek Genocide probably could be said to be Turkey’s equivalent.

                  Every single modern state went through this middle stage between whatever their old ancien regime was, and their globohomo regime today.

                • jim says:

                  Kemal Ataturk was one of the good guys, just as Cromwell, despite being a regicide was in the end one of the good guys.

                  Stalin saved Russia, and Kemal Ataturk saved Turkey. The Ottoman empire had already gone decadent and was subject to the rule of a monstrous regiment of women.

                  Yes, he did so in the name of an earlier version of Cathedral ideology. And now Turkey has gone under to a Islamized version of Cathedral ideology, which will inevitably find itself at war with its original.

                  But Ataturk was more the cure than the cause. If we insist on purity, we will find ourselves alone when the leftist death squad knocks on our door.

                  The common dynamic where a left singularity ends is that a warrior of the holiness spiraled state religion finds he is being outflanked on his left. He quells the left – and then finds himself with a dead state religion. He, or one of his successors, casts about for a replacement.

                  Best case is that Trump makes an autocoup, finds himself with a hostile or dead state religion, casts around for a replacement, and we attend the casting call. Likely he will be dead if he fails to make an autocoup this election.

                  Failing that, we attend the casting call of a Stalin. If he neglects to make a casting call, we attend the casting call of a Putin or a Deng Xiaoping.

                  Trump himself holds to an earlier version of our current state religion – the one held by Nixon, which is still widely held among the faction of the Republican party that Moldbug called “Optimates”. Likely he will attempt to go ahead with that one, rather than ours. If he does so, and it fails to work out, and I rather think it will fail to work out, his people know we are available.

                • Mike says:

                  Ataturk was casting about for a replacement for a dying dynasty and chose Progressivism 1.0 instead of Progressivism 2.0. I’ll give you this, if he had had more time, and had his successors been more successful, maybe we would have seen more of the fruits of his labors. It is obvious now that Stalin ultimately did good for Russia. It is obvious now that Communism replacing the Qing Dynasty in China ultimately turned out ok. I don’t think its obvious that Ataturk’s reforms worked nearly as well. In the past, a ruler in a decadent age would hearken back to his country’s former glory to re-found itself upon. Sulla, Julius Caesar, and Augustus hearkened back to the former glory of their Republic to rally their people around. Whenever a dynasty in China collapsed, the new ruler would found his dynasty upon the glories of the old. Now, even when someone saves their country from the leftist horde, they found its basis on a slightly less scary version of the horde, rather than the beautiful history before the horde existed. Ideally, I want men that totally renounce the leftist’s pretensions, such as Franco, not leaders who give in to only half their demands rather than all of them.

                  Alas, such hopes are usually the work of generations, not one man.

                • Yul Bornhold says:

                  My point isn’t to argue whether Attaturk was a force for better or worse–a subject on which I’m not well enough informed to hold an opinion. My point is that Kemalism is essentially a strain of progressivism and it subverted Islam.

                • jim says:

                  Subverting Islam with just about anything is an improvement.

          • Strannik says:

            Do you think the past 1400 years or so of Islamic conquest have been ”fantasy”?

            Hardly. The Muhammadans have been out thinking and out fighting the equivalents of the ”Progs” all that time, and all that time the ”Prog” equivalents have helped them all along the way.

            • Yul Bornhold says:

              I wrote a lengthy post on the clash between the Cathedral and Islam pointing out that Islam seems to be on the defensive. You’ve somehow overlooked it, believing conquests which occurred a thousand years ago more relevant than the events of the past few centuries.

              Muslims never encountered (much less beat) anything like globohomo. Any talk of “equivalents” casts more shadow than light. ISIS itself invented an all female police force to conduct its thot patrols. Did Muhammad ever see need to deputize women? Behold feminism dwelling in the heart of reactionary Islam.

              Antifa isn’t going to fight the Muslims. Islam is tearing itself apart under progressive pressure with traditional and pozzed factions but every time it comes to open warfare, the non-Islamic side of globohomo will intervene on the side of its proxies.

              I’ll take back my “fantasy” remark when you post a convincing argument show Islam more resistant than susceptible to globohomo.

              • The Cominator says:

                ISIS were to a certain degree a bunch of pissed off unemployed ex Baathists who decided they could get some foreign support if they larped as insane fundamentalists.

                Al Qaeda (actual non larping Muslim fanatics) didn’t like them for that reason.

              • Strannik says:

                You said;

                ”I wrote a lengthy post on the clash between the Cathedral and Islam pointing out that Islam seems to be on the defensive. You’ve somehow overlooked it, believing conquests which occurred a thousand years ago more relevant than the events of the past few centuries.”

                Islam was on the defensive when there was still a living Western Civilization, not so with the rebellious and degenerate interregnum we are in now. I mentioned that history to point out that treason against civilization and for Islamic benefit is nothing new at all.

                ”Muslims never encountered (much less beat) anything like globohomo. Any talk of “equivalents” casts more shadow than light. ISIS itself invented an all female police force to conduct its thot patrols. Did Muhammad ever see need to deputize women? Behold feminism dwelling in the heart of reactionary Islam.”

                Islam had eunuchs and slave fighters. In the absence so far of these Islamic types, women take a role in policing women as the men fight to expand the Dar-ul-Islam via Jihad. And actually, they always did. ”Globohomo” will dwindle in newly Islamic won lands to something like a supply source for muslim pederasts who want catamites and for eunuchs, not a political force in itself but the nullity it really always has been.

                ”Antifa isn’t going to fight the Muslims.”

                No, they’re going to join them.

                ” Islam is tearing itself apart under progressive pressure with traditional and pozzed factions”

                Not seeing that at all, anywhere.

                ”but every time it comes to open warfare, the non-Islamic side of globohomo will intervene on the side of its proxies.”

                Without good results. In fact, results that even strengthen the Islamic militants.

                ”I’ll take back my “fantasy” remark when you post a convincing argument show Islam more resistant than susceptible to globohomo.”

                Take it back or leave it with you, one thing you should understand is that Islam need not be ”resistant” to globohomo, because Islam already has a methodology of dealing with perversity, tied up partly with it being a false religion, but also in it’s priestly legalism it makes it congenial to both dealing with sodomites and with co-opting them, as again witnessed by the long history of Muslim pederasty.

                • jim says:

                  Islam started losing decisively in 1830, when colonialism quelled terrorism.

                  Started winning decisively in 1963, when globo homo became hostile to males, masculinity, and manliness.

  12. Shelby says:

    [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

    • Not Tom says:

      Dude’s nothing if not persistent.

      You really should consider a career in scriptwriting, Shelby. You’re no priest, but you’d be entertaining if you embraced the Alex Jones style persona instead of demanding to be taken seriously.

  13. FrankieGTH says:

    This time is very different from all other times.
    This time it’s global.
    For the first time in history the enemy has captured every nation, but directs its economic attacks via fake-covid at the nations that were the last bastion of light in a very dark world.
    Britain, America, Italy, Spain, to name a few.
    A full winter global house arrest lies ahead, it will put the final nail into the coffin of millions of businesses and jobs. Slowly they are shutting down food production.

    Government finances are being pushed beyond safe limits now, and central banks will print tens of trillions, leading to currency crises the world over.
    This will exacerbate the economic collapse and the starvation.

    When the opportune moment comes, c.2024, after dozens of huge banks have gone bust in the EZ, they will take action to stabilize their chosen digital currency, the euro. They will bid tens of trillions via QE into physical gold. The whole world will switch to the euro for oil and other trade.

    The US dollar will be a dead duck walking, with 2+ trillion of budget deficits annually, and no buyers so the Fed will print it all, and more, and within 5 years the dollar will be toast.

    Meanwhile, Bill Gates’ and Klaus Schwab and their cronies will keep pushing the leftist agenda of digital IDs and eventually digital money too, and slavery via their control, China style, social credit scores but on steroids.

    The US and Britain and many European nations will see their citizens attempt to fight back, but to no avail, utter collapse lies ahead for those nations, the governments want that of course.

    Not a single world leader is for the people of its nation, they have all sold out. Every one.

    I have not shared some of the more important details of what lies ahead, and time will prove all of the above as accurate predictions. The rest, you will see it with it with your own eyes, of I told you now, you wouldn’t believe it anyway.

    • INDY says:

      “I have not shared some of the more important details of what lies ahead”

      What a fuggin loser

    • dee says:

      [*deleted for insanity*]

      • dee says:

        Ir’s not like I’m asking anyone to believe me. I’m showing my card to Frankie as a fellow conspiracist, so that he has no reason to withhold his predictions.

        Soros is paying for Antifa to exist, women get horny at 12, and they can’t handle their libido responsibly (women, Soros I don’t know).

    • mifrost says:

      This is true, the most shocking thing about the march beginning of the lockdowns was that they were able to force nations in the carribean,africa,and south America who depend on tourism for a huge portion of their economy to go along. utter economic suicide . I think the timeline Frankie laid out may be too long . it will get uglier a lot sooner than that . also look at the GOP in the US. was there any pushback from any of them? no. the GOP gov’s were just as glad to lock everything up as the Dems.
      Strange don’t you think ? what worries me most is that it is starting to look like the international crowd is starting to take their overpopulation issues real seriously.

      • Not Tom says:

        the GOP gov’s were just as glad to lock everything up as the Dems.

        Dafuq are you talking about? We can literally see that this is false, right now. If you want to lie about history, it helps to wait until the history has actually finished happening.

        • The Cominator says:

          Its not true anymore but for a while it was… I was pretty mad at DeSantis for a while…

          • Pooch says:

            Yeah practically everyone bought covid hoax hook, line, and sinker including commenters on this blog. GOP governors continue to buy mask hoax as well. DeStantis maybe the only governor in the country based on masks.

            • ten says:

              Wariness concerning new diseases is warranted. Eventually the next big one will come.

              The left were with one voice saying this one was a nothingburger and that it was only racism and paranoia that could lead anyone to think otherwise.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Wariness concerning new diseases is warranted. Eventually the next big one will come.”

                It was obviously fake and gay from the beginning (at least from the time we got the South Korean numbers) and it was obvious the lockdowns were stupid from the beginning, you cannot wipe out an airborne virus via lockdown once it gets out of one geographical point. The left only downplayed it so they could panic everyone by doing a sudden about face because this was entirely about ruining the economy and making everyone miserable because of the election.

                Anyone who didn’t realize it was fake and gay got conned by Democrats and unfortunately Trump did to some degree, I love him otherwise but this was by far his greatest failure and if the Democrats had anyone who didn’t suck (and were willing to run, they could have run Gabbard) it would have been a fatal mistake.

                The people who fell for it forgot the cardinal rule of Cathedral narratives (at least since 10 years ago) that they are ALWAYS lies. Do not ever believe any narrative they say… have blind faith that they are lying because they always are and find the evidence. Do not EVER believe them, do not ever say this one time they are telling the truth they NEVER are.

                • ten says:

                  South korean data was the first solid indication it was all bullshit, before that, full wariness warranted. Dropping the guard by the first indication is too reckless for my taste, but you were proven right indeed.

                  Agree on lockdowns

                  Disagree on the left being diabolically clever, i think they were diabolically retarded, and still are.

                  The left narrative was that it was a nothingburger, just a racist hoax. No biggie, go skiing in northern italy, no peer reviewed studies showing corona can spread from infection hotbeds. I followed this exact cardinal rule, and so assumed it must be a bigger deal than they let on, and also in america, their line was that it was just a big racist nothing.

                • Pooch says:

                  That narrative was only for a brief period of time before they did a complete 180 and proclaimed this was the worst pandemic of all time and we were all going to die if we don’t destroy our economy forever, which they continue to proclaim to this day.

  14. @R7 Rocket

    You raised anti-natalism in the other thread and while I was not thinking about that there, it is important to discuss because it is the most essential, most existential matter, if me or you or anyone is making a mistake thinking about this, the mistake is necessarily a big one. So:

    1) Both the total amount of smart and responsible people born and the ratio of the smart and responsible to the stupid matters, because the later cause trouble, waste resources and generally Gnon’s will is that evolution proceeds by elimination, so some kind of herd-culling is necessary.

    2) Increasing the births of the smart and responsible is hard and coup-complete. Has to be done anyway. But decreasing the births of the stupid and irresponsible is easy, not coup-complete and even can be made to look “progressive”. Free vasectomies to “disadvantaged” minorities! etc. In fact if sterilization would be a the price of lifelong welfare, the Dire Problem would solve itself quickly without doing anything brutal and cruel, or silly like Yarvin’s VR pods. It would be entirely humane – just offer it and they will gladly take it. Given that the government has been paying them to breed, why not try the opposite?

    I can see two ways I could go wrong here:

    A) Jim is maybe right in saying that everybody who is willing to work should reproduce. I am not seeing much useful work in the long run for 90IQ people. In the short run, yes, but not in the long run. I might be wrong.

    B) There might be a sort of a spiritual or cultural problem with my idea. Maybe we cannot abandon a “culture of life” or something similar for the stupid and irresponsible without it affecting the smart and responsible. This, in the worst case, might be courting a demon. But I am not seeing that – rejecting egalitarianism means different rules and even different values for different people.

    • Shelby says:

      [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

    • Sam says:

      The issue is stupid people want kids, just like everyone else. How many would accept such a bargain?

    • neofugue says:

      In order to maintain power, one must have a state religion to unify the military and the nobility. Darwin may have had some interesting ideas, but Darwinism is not a religion. Men do not build cathedrals for Holy Darwin. His theories are only as useful to the degree they work for genuine faiths, such as Christianity or Progressivism.

      The possessed may take their words as farce, but their children do not. Feminism started off as make believe among the elite, but the succeeding generations failed to get the joke. The Carthaginian elites relied on Celtic, Spanish and Numidian mercenaries to fight Rome’s natural-born legions.

      Forced sterilization will take place only among the elite, not as it is inhumane, as it is laborious. There is no reason why elites would put in the extra effort and money, not to mention the corrupt bureaucracy, to decide who lives and dies. The Spartans killed their own children, not those of the Helots. Why not let people who cannot work starve peacefully? It would take care of the inner-city jungle; it has historical precedent. If they cannot afford their own children, why not let them starve?

      We will make it possible for men to control women; however, arranged marriage and patriarchy take tremendous effort. One has to network with suitors, prepare a dowry, arrange a courtship, all starting when the girl is roughly ten years of age, a process that can take years to complete. Are the proles capable of long-term planning and strategy? Even if we make it “illegal,” birth control and abortion will be available, as is the case in Brazil. Like the medieval French nobility, we will scoff at the filth of the peasants, knowing they will fail to reproduce.

      • jim says:

        Darwinism is not sufficient for a state religion, for reasons I have explained several times.

        In order to convince the other guy that he should engage in cooperate/cooperate equilibrium, you have to frame it as shared adherence to a common tribe whose supreme alpha has decreed cooperate/cooperate equilibrium. Thus, Christianity, where the Church is the bride of Christ and all Christians are kin by divine adoption.

        For a successful state religion, however, Darwinism in the form of Evolutionary Game Theory has to be compatible with, and integrated, with the state religion.

        If Christ is the Logos, God is Gnon (which position is the opposite of Gnosticism, a thorough and total rejection of Gnosticism. It is the position that God made the world, and it is good, hence I give thanks for a good sunset, a good sunrise, and say grace at mealtimes)

        And, thus, if Christ is the Logos, and if I am right to thank the lord for the sunrise, women’s nature is good, and in accordance with the will of Gnon. It is good in its propers sphere, but wicked and disastrous in the male sphere.

        In terms of evolutionary game theory, women are maladapted to independence and equality. In terms of Christianity, women were created as a help meet for man.

        • inquire says:

          Ya know, what should a man do? Should he go out and say to girlfriend, hey babe, wanna homeschool and get our girl a husband at um… whatever age I plan on baby? Wouldn’t she just dump the guy? Also, let’s say a guy gets married and then tells his wife, hey, pSyCh! No public schooling for girls, early marriage now! Wouldn’t she just, well, divorce him in two seconds and take the kids?

          Sounds like y’all talking shit unless you plan on sending her to a one-way trip to Belize after she’s done popping kiddos.

          No, seriously, do you guys just not tell your woman what you plan on doing, what if a man’s only marriage options are 32 year olds?

          • dee says:

            Not exactly an answer, but do women tell anything to the man of their choice about their real plans for the future?

          • Pooch says:

            Don’t ask questions to your woman. That’s weak. You tell her what you plan on doing. She won’t divorce you if you act as an alpha. She will divorce if you ask questions like a faggot beta.

          • Not Tom says:

            What a bunch of moronic questions.

            There are over 2 million homeschool students at any given time, and the share is growing, not shrinking. What did those men tell their wives? Why aren’t they divorced?

            No man’s “only” marriage options are 32-year-olds, unless you are using a definition of “options” that implies no real effort, like the fatties who say that fast food is their “only option”.

            I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you’re just an older, low-status guy who is feeling a little desperate, and not the dumbest shill ever. Lurk moar, improve yourself, improve your game, because so far you haven’t learned anything about women.

            • Dave says:

              If you are an older, low-status guy who can’t get a woman under 30, go for gestational surrogacy (see Anthony Stralow). Expect to pay about $40,000 per child, which is far less expensive than a divorce, and you get to keep the kids.

              Being a single dad will absolutely mommy-track your career, but you don’t need a lot of money to keep a non-existent wife happy.

              If women over 30 ever get lonely, they can always take a homeless guy out to Wendy’s: https://twitter.com/WomenPostingLs/status/1318962653600092162/photo/1

          • anon says:

            what a bunch of faggotry mixed with nigger speak.

          • neofugue says:

            lurk moar, stop watching porn, learn game

            Women will follow what you say if you’re not a faggot. I remember a story where a man told his wife she was going to home school his kids and when she said no he gave her a black eye, afterwards she complied with his demands. If you get a woman to love you she will follow you into hell, because that’s why God mad woman, to be a companion for Adam.

    • Rhovanost says:

      Two problems off the top of my head:

      1) Men without social responsibilities or a genetic future are most likely to turn feral. (You’re creating a predator class).

      2) Some committee has to choose who to induce towards sterilization. This committee would, by its nature attract the evil and insane.

      • I think if lifelong welfare was offered in return for sterilization for anyone volunteering, it would self-select. I don’t think the smart and responsible would take the deal.

        Story. Unemployment benefits are seen as generally less shameful in my corner of Europe than in the US, considered more of an insurance that you take a rightful payout from when you are unemployed because you have paid it when you were employed, rather than a poverty-relief dole. And YET, strangely enough, it never occured to me or anyone in my circles to sign up for it between jobs. It just did not occur to us go stand in queue with the unwashed masses of the Middle East, to talk with a bureaucrat who does not understand that it is pointless to send a guy who spent the last five years developing with say Angular.js to any generic IT support job. It is just far too annoying, so everybody just spent their savings between jobs.

        This is why I don’t think the smart and responsible would sign up for it.

        • Rhovanost says:

          For the recipients of the program:

          True, the ones most likely to accept the “sterilization for benefits deal” are the ones most at risk of being feral. However, sterilization would *increase* rather than *decrease* the chances they go feral.

          Male – ‘social ties’ – ‘genetic future’ = violence.

          For the administrators of the program:

          [*please use html quotes <blockquote> … </blockquote>*]
          B) There might be a sort of a spiritual or cultural problem with my idea. Maybe we cannot abandon a “culture of life” or something similar for the stupid and irresponsible without it affecting the smart and responsible. This, in the worst case, might be courting a demon.

          A job at a “sterilization-for-benefits” organization, (or any organization with a “culling-the-herd” mindset), will look more attractive to evil and/or insane people than it would to good and sane people. Self-selection bias means that such an organization’s staff would become majority evil/insane in short order. If the staff is evil/insane, the organization itself will be evil/insane.

          the ratio of the smart and responsible to the stupid matters, because the later cause trouble, waste resources and generally Gnon’s will is that evolution proceeds by elimination, so some kind of herd-culling is necessary.

          Margaret Sanger had this mindset and founded Planned Parenthood to “cull the herd”. Today Planned Parenthood thrives. Does it have a eugenic impact on society? (I would argue no). If it does, would that outweigh the harm it does a fundraising channel and sacramental focus for the Democrats?

  15. Anonymous Fake says:

    Everyone claims he was “just following orders” after a regime is overthrown and this is taken for granted. Jim’s main problem is that he refuses to believe the most credible and honest people who say this, young students who truly knew nothing else in life, while he makes excuses for the old “capitalist” (fascist actually) greengrocer who knows better and lies anyway to save himself at the expense of society. More specifically, the bourgeoisie will lie to save themselves from honest workers. The applecarts don’t have to be knocked over, but simply given to the right kind of person who isn’t afraid to criticize the government. If orders must be obeyed, this needs to be signaled first, not only used as an excuse after a change in government.

    Successful reform demands treating everyone fairly after revolution/restoration/revocation/whatever and being able to signal this beforehand. Punishing good students for obeying their professors while rewarding crony capitalists who lie so the state doesn’t have to as much is a horrible strategy. It’s also wrong.

    This is all irrelevant to homeschool culture but for everyone who locked their children into official meritocracy, or who were locked into it themselves, they need straight answers about what their status would be after a revolution. School work is, in fact, a form of work, and it demands some kind of compensation.

    • jim says:

      Generally I will silence anything from you that I don’t like, because you made no attempt to take the shill test (Shelby issued a long comment, which I silently suppressed, in which he responded to the shill test and the demon worship test by tap dancing around the mines)

      But I respond to this because you are speaking with the authentic voice of our enemies, rather than the script.

      Our typical enemy is someone who spent a great deal of money and time aquiring a degree in stupidity, hating whitey, hating males, and hating himself, in the confident expectation that an employer would be forced to give him a well paid job, where he would work by disrupting business, preparing justifications for the murder of his employer, and preaching the destruction western civilization as white, male, and racist.

      The priesthood is manufacturing huge numbers of new priests, we have overproduction of priests, and they want to use the power of the state to create priestly jobs for them all.

      And you and they are horrified by the prospect of Trump being re-elected, because they see these well paid jobs going away. They started to go away in July 2017, eighteen months into the Trump presidency. Hence the ever rising hysteria.

      Cutting back the priesthood is not “punishment”. We have just far too many priests, and 99% of them need to lose their jobs, not just because they are an evil and insane priesthood preaching an evil and insane state religion, but because even if they abruptly switch and start preaching a sane state religion, which I expect that most of them will when the wind changes, there are just far too many of them. No society needs that many priests, even if they were preaching a sane and prosocial faith, which I expect most of them will be preaching when the wind changes.

      • Dave says:

        “They started to go away in July 2017, eighteen months into the Trump presidency.”

        Six months, not eighteen.

      • Shelby says:

        [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        The commie has a point though.

        The CEO/owner that still sponsors Tucker even after all the pressure he must be receiving deserves a reward or favor for his principled loyalty, while Jeff Bezos should be punished harshly. I don’t care about excuses, he is still responsible for his actions and he is actively fighting against “orange man bad” to this day. He actually should be executed after we find an appropriate replacement.

        The Greengrocer argument only works for middle management: Bill Gates should be executed, Jeff Bezos should be executed, the CEO of twitter should be executed, etc.

        • Not Tom says:

          Is Bezos really that bad? His name comes up a lot, but out of all the tech CEOs he seems to have been one of the most reluctant to screw his employees and customers in the name of Orange Man Bad. Obviously he’s pathetic with women, but if that’s a crime, we’re going to end up executing a lot of incels.

          If you’ve ever read about Vox’s experiences with Amazon, all indications point to a small number of SJWs that are hard to control and maybe hard to fire, but not in any way supported by company policy or top executives, and whenever someone complains, the SJWs get reversed.

          I don’t see Amazon doing anything at either the scale or the level of cringe that Facebook, Google and Twitter are doing. You can still buy Confederate flags on Amazon. If they’re putting a thumb on the scale, they don’t seem to be pressing down very hard. But maybe I just haven’t seen the more outrageous stories? What have I missed?

          My impression is just that Amazon is a shitty company for a lot of people to work for, and is putting a lot of small businesses out of business, but that’s not a crime either – Walmart was doing the same thing long before the Trump Era.

          • Atavistic Morality says:

            Everytime I see some entertainment advertised with the Amazon brand it’s a progressive pamphlet pretending otherwise, so that’s why he came to mind. But perhaps you’re right, maybe Jeff Bezos isn’t exactly in the same category considering you can buy stuff like this from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1910524743/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1910524743&linkCode=as2&tag=atavisionar0d-20&linkId=da92f335e675f2295dc606e5f9c8f5c2

            I’m not to worried about the specifics, the Inquisitor and his team can make their investigations, I’m just trying to make a point.

            Leftists of all flavors are mostly stupid and insane but listening to your enemies can help from time to time. While they’ve built a narrative about the “oppressed”, the right with time has increasingly become a staunch and blind defender of billionaires. We of course should advocate for capitalism, but there’s a difference between defending capitalism and billionaires. And while reactionaries are less prone to do this, there seems to be a general sentiment between right wing people.

            There are far too many of these billionaires and millionaires who are actually actively helping the enemy and they should pay for it. They want to help the cause of the grabbers, perfect, let’s do exactly to them what they’re trying to do unto us, kill every single one of them and loot their corpses.

            • Not Tom says:

              Agreed, I won’t shed a single year for the majority of tech billionaires and many other billionaires, The wealthy industrialist has long since given way to the crony capitalist, and although the former still exist, they’re not easy to distinguish on sight from the latter.

              I believe Marxists professors and Diversity VPs should get the helicopter, but CEOs should receive fair trials. Even Elon Musk, if only to have his innocence and bona fides proven as an example to other CEOs and proof that the trials are not witch hunts.

              I think Bezos would acquit himself, narrowly perhaps but sufficiently. But that would be a matter for the tribunals to decide.

              • BC says:

                Bezos needs to die for deleting books right off people’s kindles. People who destroy knowledge don’t deserve to live.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The question is how much coercion was involved with this he might not have had a lot of choice. I can’t imagine he thought it was a good business decision.

                • Pooch says:

                  Owning the Washington Post is a major red flag. We are talking about someone owning a major organ of the Cathedral and profiting from it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  He might have bought it with the idea he could change editorial policy only to find out afterwords after being visited by some men who looked much like Agent Smith from the Matrix that he was absolutely not allowed to interefere with editorial policy in any way but that they would make sure to only give positive news about Amazon in the paper.

                • Not Tom says:

                  We are talking about someone owning a major organ of the Cathedral and profiting from it.

                  Owning it, yes. Profiting, doubtful. Legacy media isn’t profitable.

                • INDY says:

                  Well, if he doesn’t make money and they don’t publish honest articles, he must be a swell guy.

                • jim says:

                  We should not execute people for not being a swell guy. He needs to be tried, but I would not prejudge the outcome.

              • The Cominator says:

                Musk is a serial financial fraudster, yes its been for a good cause and now that hes a national hero he’ll never have it looked into but hes not entirely innocent of all crimes.

                • jim says:

                  No prophet ever is.

                  Like Trump, he zigzags, but he is on our side.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes but for these reasons you don’t want to try Musk at all.

                • Not Tom says:

                  If you want ordinary citizens to obey the law, you must give at least the appearance of fair and equitable treatment under the law. The King himself and perhaps the King’s family are a special case, but the King’s cronies are not.

                  To the commoner, putting Musk or any other CEO in a special category looks like corruption, and while a sovereign may not and should not care what the commoners think about how to administer his regime, you want commoners to obey the law like the English obey the law, and not how Mexicans obey the law.

                  “Unreliably good” CEOs being tried and found innocent shows the king’s subjects that they, too, can expect a fair trial if they walk astray, as most people eventually do. But refusing to allow any investigation shows instead that the new elite are not subject to justice, and consequently every commoner will seek to become part of the new elite, many of them employing leftism in order to do it.

                  Capricious prosecution leads to disobedience and disorder. Aristocracy has its privileges – must have its privileges – but immunity from the law (whatever the law is) should not be one of them.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “If you want ordinary citizens to obey the law, you must give at least the appearance of fair and equitable treatment under the law. The King himself and perhaps the King’s family are a special case, but the King’s cronies are not.”

                  Which is why you don’t try Musk at all once again…

                  Musk is special because essential to the future of the Empire’s Expansion into space… not many people outside the investment community know that Musk is a serial financial fraudster and a trial of Musk that skipped over his finances would stink more than saying oh we find the national hero of our space program to have no cause to look into.

                  There is no perfect way to handle the Musk situation (a hero CEO on our side that is also a huge financial fraud) but drawing a lot of attention to it when its not well known is not a good way of handling it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  With all the people who used to be a part of the elite including some Republicans who were getting hanged quietly overlooking Musk’s past fraudstering is not going to attract any attention.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @Not Tom

                  Elon Musk is a prophet, not a businessman. His motivations are similar to that of Muhammad and Joseph Smith. He doesn’t respond to attack the way Jeff Bezos does, he responds the way Muhammad did, when Muhammad was still in Mecca at the mercy of the Quraish.

          • mifrost says:

            Dude , bezos owns the Washington post , that’s orange man bad center of the universe.

        • The Cominator says:

          Dorsey and Gates have definitely earned execution (its sad with Gates as I believe he is a genuine genius), they have launched collaborations with the enemy on their own initiatives.

          Bezos is more ambigious, the main argument for having him executed has to do with the Washington Post. But its doubtful whether he is allowed to exercise much control over the Washington Post. He should have a trial IMHO.

          • Atavistic Morality says:

            Yes, of course, there ought to be a team that investigates the different cases and they make a full report and so on. We should do justice, proper justice as justice has been known to our societies for a long time.

            It’s the point that matters, many of these people deserve to be eaten. They like to support the subhumans that cry out “eat the rich”, do unto them as they’d do unto us.

            • The Cominator says:

              Any trial for Dorsey and Gates would be a mere formality their guilt is not much in doubt.

              With Bezos it would be a real thing… the main question of the trial was could you have stopped all the commie deep state bullshit in the Washington Post or were you prevented from doing so. I suspect he would end up being acquitted.

              • jim says:

                Zuckerberg was reluctantly coerced into following orders – should be put on trial, but I expect him to be found innocent. Dorsey enthusiastically volunteered. Gates, it is complicated. He enthusiastically volunteered, but I regard his crimes as of lesser magnitude, that he is reluctant to go all in. I would expect him to get off on a sentence considerably less than death.

                • The Cominator says:

                  He aligned with Fauci who is a major enemy to promote Covid alarmism… death for Gates.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The only way I could see him escaping death…

                  Is if he knows the details of the Cathedral’s true command and control structure… if he can give out that kind of information he can live out his days with his bitch wife under the house arrest the covid bullshit made us all endure.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I know you’ve got a stick up your ass about Covid (and not without good cause), but remember, Trump hired Fauci and hasn’t fired him, so Fauci has the official backing of both the nominal and actual rulers. Defying him would not be entirely unlike defying the Supreme Court.

                  Now, sure, we can argue that Trump himself was backed into a corner, or didn’t realize what he was getting with Fauci, etc. I’m not saying you should respect him or treat him as any kind of authority. But when it comes to someone like Gates, I think you expect too much. What would you have expected him to do instead?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Fauci is part of the permanent government Trump is stuck with him until after the election. Trump listening to him and putting him in front of the camera was by far his greatest mistake. It almost cost him reelection but I think hes safe now…

                • Pooch says:

                  I think it caught Trump off guard (and some of us) that even the so called top doctor could be actively acting in a way to sabotage him at the expense of the country in a disaster situation. Trump won’t ever make that mistake again.

                • suwrsa says:

                  Zuckerberg has been a surprise to me. I nominally hate Faceberg etc, but the way Zuck has stood up to the Deep State minions was … strange. Of all the major tech firms, it was Zuck, and only he, who made more than a nominal commitment to Free Speech and resisting censorship, even under Congressional (and doubtless, other, severe) pressure. He even refused to bend the knee to ADL, of all else. His platform was the one to stream St Brenton Tarrant’s Holy Crusade.

                  Either Zuck is secretly a Zionist hardliner (I’m amused how Zionist hardliners actually agree with many of our points, and are amenable to all others), or there is something very, very, strange about him. Truly a remarkable individual.

                  inb4: Boo hoo, Zuck called Faceborgs “dumb fucks.”

                  Yes. That is correct. They are, in fact, dumb fucks. The world has billions of them. Elite are, by definition, numerically fewer than peasants, who are dumb fucks.

                • Anon says:

                  “Zuckerberg has been a surprise to me. I nominally hate Faceberg etc, but the way Zuck has stood up to the Deep State minions was … strange”

                  Oh come off it. He publicly helped massage the conditions for muddying the coming election results in order to make the color revolution seem more plausible, on top of continuing to parrot the Russian collusion meme:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sipurWY-C54&app=desktop

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  I remember back before the Microsoft anti-trust trial, Gates and Microsoft were extremely anti-political. They had no lobbyists in Washington. Since they weren’t paying protection to the FedGov they were ripe for getting their apple cart knocked over. That all changed after the anti-trust trial.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  That should be “apolitical”.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Zuck tried to stand up to them because they wanted him to change his business model in such a way that would make him lose a lot of money in favor of a bunch of left wing shit he didn’t really care about.

                  It wasn’t nobility so much as Zuck liked his money (remember how he made his entire fortune a foundation so he didn’t have to pay ANY taxes on it, all rich people do this but he was blatant) and didn’t want to be a powerless frontman in a company run by Cathedral spooks.

                  But things started happening to him so he rolled over to some degree but facebook is still better than twatter though I’ve done about 5 30 day bans on my main account… the most bullshit one was for sharing a meme of what General Sherman thought about reporters…

                  I do not think Zuckerberg cares about Zionism either, but people on the right should not have any problem with Zionists as long as they don’t expect us to fight their proxy wars.

                • Anon says:

                  “I remember back before the Microsoft anti-trust trial, Gates and Microsoft were extremely anti-political. They had no lobbyists in Washington. Since they weren’t paying protection to the FedGov they were ripe for getting their apple cart knocked over. That all changed after the anti-trust trial”

                  Microsoft was FedGov before the anti-trust case, having been installed on every government computer. They haven’t gotten their apple cart knocked over just yet because that’s still the case, although their software sucks considerably more than it did in, say, 1995.

                  Going through the ringer of an ani-trust trial doesn’t make someone invest millions of dollars in African aid and American public school programs: he would have to have been an idiot beforehand. I don’t care about Gates, and if he got anti-trusted into oblivion tomorrow I wouldn’t cry too hard.

                  I didn’t read The Cominator’s comments because his username is a play off of James Comey somehow being a secret double agent instead of just stupid, and The Cominator’s comments are similarly stupid whenever I happen to read them

          • Dave says:

            Gates and Bezos are hopelessly inept with women. If the only woman who ever deigned to accept his sperm (and did so only after he became a billionaire) tells him to give all his money away to starving African children and other leftist causes, how can such a man say no?

          • Pooch says:

            Certain right wing books are censored on Amazon I believe.

            • The Cominator says:

              The question is how much coercion was involved with all this.

              We KNOW to the extent facebook agreed to leftist censorship that Zuck was coerced but anecdotal reports is he hates this whole situation and wants Trump to win (not out of the goodness of his heart but he thought censorship was bad for business). We know that Dorsey and Gates eagerly helped the left on their own initiative.

              Bezos is the mystery man… he keeps sort of a low profile so its hard to tell. I can’t imagine he much likes the left in its purity spiral since they routinely talk about how they want to guillotine him as the leading billionaire.

              • Not Tom says:

                Yeah, and after AOC fucked over his expansion plans, there’s gotta be at least a little bitterness toward the left.

                I’m less inclined to give Zuck the benefit of the doubt. He probably doesn’t support the “far left” but he does support the establishment left. He was very quick to help prop up legacy media and implement their “fact checks”, and is an active participant in the current Hunter Biden coverup. And he straight-up lied his ass off in multiple congressional hearings. He’s got a lot to answer for.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Zuck didn’t want to do any of it (he did want to run for President at one point though lol).

                  Zuck held the line on censoring facebook for a long time and then things started happening to him.

                • Not Tom says:

                  It’s possible. I assume that would all come out during the trial. Hope he’s good at record-keeping.

              • bsafua says:

                > he thought censorship was bad for business

                Censorship is indeed bad for business, and society as a whole. This is where I disagree with Jim’s nominal position (although we arrive at the same conclusions).

                Censorship, as in shielding the public and family space from emotional stress, is a good thing. It should be possible to have a nice family movie night without having to worry about creeping degeneracy.

                Censorship, as in hiding degeneracy from exposure and pretending it doesn’t exist, is completely wrong. In masculine, intellectual spaces, degeneracy must not only be catalogued, but also studied and discussed freely. Eg: Medical text books contained information about sexual perversions for a very long time, and provided a proper framework of understanding the disease. Similarly with degenerate “art.” It is self-evidently inferior to classic art, and any observer can readily tell you so. Instead of censoring it, we must instead give it pride of place in a Museum of Degenerate Art, where the public can see and ridicule it.

                A shitty idea must be suppressed by evidence of its shittiness, rather than driving it underground and attracting rebellious elite youth to it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  How to handle leftists ideas is a complicated question.

                  Any male who believes in leftist ideology should be helicoptered period… but it does no good to eradicate Marx Gramsci Rosseau Locke and indeed Edmund Burke (though he probably wasn’t deliberately evil like the others) from memory… as similar ideas can be produced. We need their bad evil insane ideas known and we need our elite immunized against them.

                  But at the same time its not something we want the general public to know very much about.

                  Partially this will be solved by not overeducating the bulk of people but will it be sufficient to keep the demon down in hell where he belongs…

                  I’m not sure, leftism in America now is mostly an urban blight but 120 years ago it was largely a peasant problem. The progressives and Woodrow Wilson were more popular in farm country then in towns and cities (urban leftists back then were overwhelmingly Irishmen and Jews)… though perhaps this is explained at least partially by the government having given the country people a genuine grievance back when they demonetized silver.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Medical text books contained information about sexual perversions for a very long time, and provided a proper framework of understanding the disease.

                  Yes, but that doesn’t mean we need to allow them to hold public parades and give them police protection. We don’t need Drag Queen Story Hour to be exposed as a “bad idea”, everyone already knows it’s a bad idea, they just can’t get it shut down.

                  “Free speech” laws are nothing more than an attack on blasphemy laws and a prybar for entryists. Most of us already concede what I’d call the essence of your point: before censoring something outright, it must be made low status, and often it will be sufficient to simply make something low status, no all-out ban required.

                  But when leftists manage to tear away a few scraps of power and start trying to make those things high status, which they always will eventually, then it is time for harsher measures.

                • Mike says:

                  Bsafua, it was completely taboo to discuss female sexual pleasure up until the 1920s or so. It was scandalous when film first depicted a couple kissing. It was taboo to discuss your background if you were a bastard up until the 1970s. Our ancestors very much so tried to bury these things, and if you intend for society to work again, we’re going to have to bury them again. There’s not going to be a “museum” to bastardy.

                • jim says:

                  This was part of the 1820-1910 puritan offensive – that women could do no wrong, that all sexual misconduct was the result of evil men.

                  In 1910, the ridiculousness of the position that women were disinclined to engage in sex collapsed, and was replaced by consent doctrine based on the older Romance heresy. That when women want it, is not wrong.

                  Before 1820, that women were interested in sex, and apt to go crazy if restrained from engaging in sex for very long after puberty, was something everyone knew, because of the constant and drastic coercive struggle to keep them virgin until delayed marriage, which struggle frequently led to spectacular resistance.

                • jim says:

                  Female desire, and the disasters coming from it, has to be a major theme in entertainment. Burying that is what led to our current mess. The Victorians denied female desire, got a flood of bastards born in the rain in muddy allies, had to introduce the welfare state, replacing marriage with the state.

                • bsafua says:

                  @The Cominator

                  > Partially this will be solved by not overeducating the bulk of people but will it be sufficient to keep the demon down in hell where he belongs…

                  Yes it will. Access to forbidden knowledge is to be granted only to the intellectually capable, and they, in turn, must be immunised beforehand. The bulk of “people” are not people at all, but rather goyim, lacking a soul. “Educating” them is foolish at best, lethat at worst. Leave monk-ing to actual monks.

                  > I’m not sure, leftism in America now is mostly an urban blight but 120 years ago it was largely a peasant problem.

                  Leftism as a problem in America dates back from 1776, before which it was Leftism as a problem in the British Colonies. It has been one applecart after another continously since. Leftism gathers steam wherever there are applecarts to topple.

                  @Not Tom

                  > Yes, but that doesn’t mean we need to allow them to hold public parades and give them police protection. We don’t need Drag Queen Story Hour to be exposed as a “bad idea”, everyone already knows it’s a bad idea, they just can’t get it shut down.

                  Right. Transgenderism and other mental illnesses have their place, in medical literature, and that’s where they must remain.

                  > “Free speech” laws are nothing more than an attack on blasphemy laws and a prybar for entryists.

                  Alas, yes. I learned this the hard way.

                  > before censoring something outright, it must be made low status, and often it will be sufficient to simply make something low status, no all-out ban required.

                  Correct. I would like to add that is literally impossible to eradicate leftism (actually covetousness) and sexual perversion, they being destructive variants of human nature. It suffices to make them low status, like theft or murder. Everyone knows they happen, everyone takes precautions, but no-one takes out “Thief-pride” parades.

                  @Mike

                  > it was completely taboo to discuss female sexual pleasure up until the 1920s or so.

                  May be in the middle classes, but the 1910s were when feminism was in full swing. WWI was the first Prog war, even though that arch-villain Wilson didn’t directly participate. Also, I wasn’t referring to mass media. The public sphere must be shielded from degeneracy.

                  Everyone: Re: Museum of Degenerate Art

                  I was surprised no-one caught the reference! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degenerate_Art_Exhibition

                • The Cominator says:

                  Making things “forbidden knowledge” is delicate too. Making things formally forbidden to even know or possess inevitably increases their appeal and this is something we must avoid. Look at marijuana, before it was illegal everyone who wanted to smoke something almost universally preferred tobacco because weed is a dumb drug that just makes you hungry, lethargic and stupid. It only became cool after the government started arresting the few types who liked using it.

                  My approach would not be to make them totally forbidden so much as flagged. The evil books would be REQUIRED reading for certain types of people in the government (priestly government jobs and high level military jobs) but only following reading well thought out debunkings of all they say in advance.

                  Now if an ordinary person wanted to read the evil philosophers he would not per se be restricted from doing so… but it would virtually guarantee a visit from the Imperial Secret Police/Inquisition whatever you want to call it who would subject them to a very scary and unpleasant interogattion as to why he wanted to know about such evil destructive ideas and whether he know shared them… and if found to have shared him he would disappear into the night and fog.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  For an earlier view on women, consider Cosi Fan Tutte, which one might by he way loosely translate as AWALT.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  It is of course familiar to students of history, presumably including many here, but note that the Entartete Kunst exhibition was not permanent.

                • jim says:

                  Yes, the Nazi degenerate art exhibition was wise and right, and healthy reinforcement of sanity, contrasting sanity with evil and madness. We will need the same.

                • Mike says:

                  You may be right on the first two, but it definitely was not ok to openly discuss bastardy in public pre-1970. Not sure about homosex, I’m certain people joked about faggotry, but discussing it casually or admitting you were into into it would be an instant scandal I would think.

            • Karl says:

              Please name some titles of those censored right wing books.

              I need to do some Christmas shopping

              • bsafua says:

                Many of them are related to exploring the Jewish religion, although anything opposed by the neocons usually gets shitcanned.

                Here you go:

                https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-amazon-book-censorship/

                https://alethonews.com/2019/03/27/banned-by-amazon-and-purged-by-the-neocons/

                http://www.ninebandedbooks.com/books-banned-on-amazon/

                • Not Tom says:

                  Ehh, highly debatable that these are “right wing”, most are from kooks and shills and it’s mainly just Ron Unz and a handful of low-info wignats who care. All 3 of those links are sourced from Ron.

                  Don’t get me wrong, if you put me in charge of policy then I’d unban them, because no group or ethnicity should be immune from criticism. Same deal with the anti-BDS laws, if people want to call for boycotting Israel then let them call for it, no one other than Mohammedans and their useful idiots care anyway. But to say it demonstrates a pervasive and intentional left-wing sympathy from Amazon’s top brass… nah, it just tells me they’re afraid of the ADL like every other publisher.

                • jim says:

                  > Same deal with the anti-BDS laws, if people want to call for boycotting Israel then let them call for it, no one other than Mohammedans and their useful idiots care anyway.

                  Soros cares. A significant minority of progressive Jews want to exterminate orthodox Jews, nationalist Jews, and destroy Israel. Classic left wing hostility to near, resulting in alliance with far against near. No one hates Jews more than old type Trotskyists, who are almost entirely Jewish.

                • bsafua says:

                  @Not Tom

                  He asked, I provided answers. There is no “left” or “right” here. Information about Jewish religious practices and the history of (violent) Jewish advocacy is very interesting because Baphometans try to emulate what Yahwehgians successfully employed.

                  Prog vs Zionist Jew has been a thing for longer than you can shake a stick at. And Zionists were very much playing both sides in WWII. The cardinal mistake of Hitler or his henchmen in their plan to deport Jews out of Germany was confiscation of their assets. This marks the Nazi anti-Jew program as defined by covetousness rather than nationalism, thus inherently leftist. Even after WWII, Zionists were the pioneering terrorists against British interests, whether in Mandate Palestine or Britain itself. It was years, if not decades, after WWII that Holocaustianity gained significant traction. Educate yourself.

                  Also Re: Leo Frank, and the origin of the ADL. Leo Frank was guilty af.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Educate yourself.

                  Ah, the classic SJW refrain. I haven’t missed hearing that.

                  You are, of course, correct about the enmity between prog and nationalist Jews, and about the cardinal sin of the Nazis being covetousness rather than nationalism. However, this business about Zionist duplicity and terrorist support, which is casually weaved in with the rest, does not appear to have any basis in evidence.

                  If you’re going to argue that, then argue that; don’t assume we agree (or that we would agree if we were “educated”, which means the same thing). Ron Unz isn’t a reliable or trustworthy source.

                  There is a cold war between progressive Jews and nationalist Jews, and there is a considerably hotter war between progressives of all ethnicity and Trumpland, but I am not seeing this war between nationalist Jews and Trumpland.

                • bsafua says:

                  @Not Tom

                  >> Educate yourself
                  > Ah, the classic SJW refrain. I haven’t missed hearing that.

                  I aim to please :^)

                  > However, this business about Zionist duplicity

                  I was referring to Zionists petitioning Nazi Germany in the hopes of gaining a national homeland once Germany won the war with the British Empire. The Zionist terror group, Lehi, actually sought an alliance with the Nazis, and was responsible for the political assassination of at least one British Minister. They later converted to NazBol before it was cool. Oh, and Israel Govt made some token convictions but essentially pardoned the whole lot and absorbed them into IDF, halting that holiness spiral. Yitzhak Shamir, a Lehi leader, later became a widely respected Israeli politician and even became Prime Minister.

                  > and terrorist support, which is casually weaved in with the rest, does not appear to have any basis in evidence.

                  Whoa! Irgun, even if not the Haganah itself, was the terror arm of Zionism for quite some time. The famous London bombing of King David Hotel was conducted by it. Even the Official Israeli Army had difficulty in preventing it holiness-spiralling away, and had to sink a ship, Altalena, laden with Irgun arms, to force their incorporation into the IDF. They were not “supporting” terrorists, they were the terrorists. The last Irgun leader, Menachem Begin, is a widely respected figure in Israel, sort of like an Israeli Osama bin Laden (if bin Laden had succeeded in his political objectives).

                  Do people really not know this stuff!? I mean, this is standard history!

                  > I am not seeing this war between nationalist Jews and Trumpland.

                  I’m not seeing it either. What are you referring to? Zionist Jews have been good for my people, and their home country has good relations with mine.

    • The Cominator says:

      The straight answer if it were up to me is if you believe in leftism than you die. Regardless of whether you were supposed to believe in it or not.

    • Not Tom says:

      The bourgeoisie are the honest workers. The kulaks are the honest farmers. The capitalists are the honest retailers and investors.

      Trump has been signaling for 4 years that orders need to be obeyed, and Republicans (really Federalists, or Unionists) have been signaling since approximately 1865 that orders need to be obeyed. Those orders may have appeared to you, and to many students, to be toothless and unenforceable, but you have all had a solid 4 years to assess the situation, see which way the wind is blowing, and consider the possibility that those who continue to disobey orders are likely to be punished very soon. 4 years, by the way, is also exactly how long it takes to get an undergraduate degree, so no one can claim that it isn’t plenty of time for a student to wise up.

      Under classical rules of engagement, you don’t get to surrender after the battle is lost, and you usually don’t get to surrender after the battle has started. The time to surrender is before the battle. Progressives do not get to surrender after the restoration, and the new power does not owe them any warning after taking power, when they made their goals and their principles abundantly clear beforehand. If you choose the wrong side, and lose the war, then you face the consequences. No one said it was going to be easy.

      And to address “just following orders”, according to NCES, the most popular major in 2017 (post-Trump) was business, followed by health, followed by social studies (I will not call them “sciences”) and psychology. Business and health are roughly 3 times as popular as social studies, and natural sciences and engineering are equally popular as social studies. Journalism is way down the list.

      But we don’t talk about accountants and nurses because accountants and nurses are not useless. We are concerned with the useless students who earned useless degrees, who knew that the only jobs for those degrees would be jobs that are created by force and threats of force. No one forced them to go into those particular programs, least of all their parents, who were probably horrified when their kids told them they wanted to study communications (the shame!). Why should we feel any sympathy toward them? I certainly don’t, and they’re a minority of students anyway, they’re hardly your average Joe who was just doing what he was told.

      I won’t go into specifics, but I have family members and friends who didn’t have the mind for sciences and engineering, yet still found useful niches for themselves. One is a certified accountant, another is a personal trainer, another does graphic design; there’s a vet tech, corporate salesman, two small business owners, a handful of construction workers, and that’s not nearly the whole list. All of them average to middling intellect, all of them finding their way. So what is this “following orders” shit? There are a million opportunities for non-parasites, but all the parasites cluster around 3 or 4 fields with an especially high concentration in Grievance Studies. Fuck them.

      • Mike says:

        Fake’s point is completely wrong in that there’s no evil capitalist’s causing or creating society’s problem, but there really is a “just following orders” problem in that the Boomer generation, along with the Cathedral itself, push a narrative of “just go to school and follow your passion.” There of course, is nothing inherently wrong with pursuing further education, but it’s a massive problem when “pursuing education” is seen as a status end in of itself, outside of actual employability or your good for society. I’ve seen this with my own parents. Father never went to college, just tech school. Mother went to college. Dad will tell stories of younger guys he knows who are making it just fine without going into postsecondary. Mom immediately gets horrified and says that, “X (Me) has to continue schooling, it’s what you do!”

        The above argument, at least from my mother’s side, has nothing to do with employability, pay, or even finding your passion tbh. It’s just following the current status hierarchy of jobs (Cathedral approved job=high status). How can you not expect 17 and 18 year olds to be swayed by that?

        • Shelby says:

          [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

        • Dave says:

          My mom said my daughter should go to college for “financial security”. I replied that with 33,000 PhDs on food stamps, she ought to reconsider her assumption that college degree = financial security.

          My daughter recently tried high school but quit after a few days. The classwork is paced for 80 IQs “to keep everyone on the same page”, the homework (that no one ever does) is hours of mindless form-filling, and social distancing means that she would only ever see a dozen other students, and have no opportunity to converse with them.

          If the trendlines of 2020 aren’t broken soon and broken hard, America in 2030 will be like Pakistan, where you have to marry one of your cousins because they’re the only girls you’ll ever meet. Tribalism solves the woman problem, the fag problem, the Jew problem, and the nigger problem in one fell swoop, but…

    • cdeeda says:

      Re: “just following orders”

      Our enemies settled that question long ago, at Nuremberg. The “classical” rules of engagement were abolished and a new era began. Considering that we know, now, what future awaits us if our enemies win, we shall be sure to do unto them before they do unto us.

      Example: https://nitter.net/chadloder/status/1211422731847131137

      Studying World War II, you learn surprising things about Nazi leaders.

      Some of them were gifted artists.

      Some really loved animals.

      Many were devoted fathers.

      Others had a great sense of humor.

      One thing they all had in common, though, is that they all deserved to be hanged.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      >School work is, in fact, a form of work, and it demands some kind of compensation.

      Observe the contusions of the rent-seeking swamp creature, once it begins to sense the possibility of losing entitlement to easy sinecures.

      >…one needs to grasp how the contributors used the words “intelligentsia” and “intelligent” (member of the intelligentsia). “Intelligentsia” is a word that originated in Russia, where it was coined about 1860. Used in its strict, proper, or classical sense, it means something entirely different from its English equivalent. To be an intelligent it was by no means sufficient (or even necessary) to be well-educated. And if by “­intellectual” one means a curious person thinking for himself or herself, then intelligent was close to its opposite.

      >Three characteristics identified a classical intelligent. To begin with, an intelligent identified primarily as an intelligent, rather than by his social class, profession, ethnic group, or other social category. No one would have considered Tolstoy an intelligent, for example, in part because he used his title “Count.”

      >Unless an intelligent was wealthy or, like Lenin, could become a professional revolutionary living at his party’s expense, he had to work, but as a matter of honor he did not take his profession seriously. As Izgoev remarks, ” The average, rank-and-file intelligent usually does not know his job and does not like it. He is a poor teacher, a poor engineer. . . . He regards his profession . . . as a sideline that does not deserve respect. If he is enthusiastic about his profession . . . he can expect the cruelest sarcasm from his friends. ”

      https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/10/suicide-of-the-liberals

      • jim says:

        > > School work is, in fact, a form of work, and it demands some kind of compensation.

        > Observe the contusions of the rent-seeking swamp creature, once it begins to sense the possibility of losing entitlement to easy sinecures.

        That, ultimately is what this is all about. The ever expanding priesthood demands ever expanding sinecures, and since their priestly training is in knocking over apple carts, they feel entitled to unlimited apples.

        And Trump, almost immediately after his elections, halted the knocking over of applecarts, and the supply of apples rolling around. Suddenly there has been a dearth of new jobs for diversity commissars and sex commissars, while vast numbers of new graduates trained only in being sex and diversity commissars, and no good for anything else, have been coming on to the job market.

        Jobs for people who produce stuff, manufacturing jobs, have been coming back, but jobs for diversity commissars have been shrinking. Heard anything about the terrible awful college rape crisis lately? What ever happened to the mass protests against fracking, which used to devastate the natural countryside that they announced they were protecting? Suddenly, overnight, the mighty mass of the people united forgot about fracking, suspecting that jobs as professional environment busybodies might no longer be forthcoming.

        They protested against fracking because expecting jobs “protecting” the environment. No jobs forthcoming, no protests. Similarly, with the evaporation of cash and prizes for being raped, rape on campus seems to have ceased.

  16. Shelby says:

    [*deleted*]

    • jim says:

      If you want to talk about sex, I insist that you first pass the shill test, just as if you want to talk from the frame that you are a Christian, have to first pass the demon worshipper test.

      If you disagree with our position on sex, you are going to have to acknowledge what position you are disagreeing with.

      What is our position?

      • Shelby says:

        The boys on Jim’s blog cited Russia as an example of country or empire that has a centralized control of every detail in the country instead of a delegated local authority to manage the inherent tribalism of humankind as they put it. I stumbled across this video of the uninhabited rural border between Russia, Finland and Norway and the soldiers there inform the tourist that if he so much as even leans over the border he could be shot by a sniper:

        https://youtu.be/DPRiL8qEOkc?t=213

        What those fools in Jim’s “NR’er” (neo reactionary) uncool, weirdo cult don’t seem to realize is that for them turn America from melting pot center-right coalition into a far-right white supremacist shithole, they would need to adopt the analogous totalitarianism that is Russia, because there is no damn way that Americans are going to tolerate that bullshit for a long time. After the MAGA faithful realize what they have done by allowing the far right to seize power after Trump is assassinated, they are going to ravage these far right mofos and hunt them down.

        I predict a whole lot of shooting going to be going round this country soon:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bcIjILqORM

        Jim certainly would not tolerate this black man despite this black man’s admiration of Trump:

        https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/a-video-going-viral/

        Trump is not far-right. Trump is old school center-right trying to push the center-right back to the 1980s.

        Jim’s fantasy about Victorian England never existed. I did some research on that and the people were subverting the chastity and that is why it collapsed. Nobody wants to live in that shit.

        Jim has blogged about the Pilgrims being holier than thou. What the fuck does Jim think his cult is if not also holier than thou? They deem themselves superior to everyone else. They believe only if their way can be forced on everyone will there be any virtuous society. But how can someone who can not tolerate debate be virtuous. From the get go that are already totalitarian and they are not even in power yet. Imagine when they are and drunk on their own Koolaid. And then imagine when their power is challenged and they must devise some means to prevent the people-at-large from subverting their iron fisted crap.

        • jim says:

          Our program has always been the millet program. Throne, Altar, and Freehold.

          The greatness of segregation was that it artificially created functioning black communities ruled by high functioning blacks, artificially created a black middle class, and gave them real jobs doing real work protected from white competition, black judges, black cops, black businessmen, and black lawyers, managing problem blacks, instead of whites managing problem blacks.

          We intend something with similar effect.

          America is not a melting pot, because the left program is to prevent assimilation, as for example when they force schooling in Spanish on kids whose parents want them to learn english, in many cases children who don’t in fact speak spanish very well or at all, because their home environment is largely english.

          The melting pot is now the magic dirt theory – that a horde of people brought in to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democrat will magically become mortgage payers and tax payers to replace the missing grandchildren. It is not happening. Under our plan, there will be a lot more assimilation, because a lot of people who now do not have jobs, or do not have real jobs, are going to have to get jobs.

          And there will be a lot less assimilation, because we intend to allow people to have their own communities, instead of forced proximity. Diversity plus proximity equals war. Good fences make good neighbors. We intend to restore the fences.

        • Not Tom says:

          for them turn America from melting pot center-right coalition into a far-right white supremacist shithole

          kek. You really have no idea who we are or what we believe. Some of us try to be more gentle critics and give you the opportunity to repair your reputation, but you have to go and prove to all of us that you’re truly only here to shout and not to listen under any circumstances.

          After the MAGA faithful realize what they have done by allowing the far right to seize power after Trump is assassinated, they are going to ravage these far right mofos and hunt them down.

          Yep, totally unhinged.

          But how can someone who can not tolerate debate be virtuous.

          But we do tolerate debate. The comments in every post are full of endless debate ranging from polite disagreement to vicious and highly inventive insults, and Jim censors none of it.

          What we don’t tolerate, and what does get censored, is 100-page monologues spread across a zillion comments. You didn’t come here to debate, you came to yell and fume and condescend and threaten and soapbox. What value does that add, exactly?

          Refer to Shaman’s hierarchy of rhetorical value: original insight > entertainment > asabiyyah. If you can’t offer any of those three, you don’t belong here except as a lurker. Your insanity is mildly entertaining, I’ll admit, but I think that’s mostly unintentional and it gets old really fast.

          • The Real Spartacus says:

            [*censored for all the usual reasons*]

            • jim says:

              I am not going to debate you unless you accurately represent the position you are arguing against, and actually state your position as your position, rather than presupposing it as universally accepted and self evident.

              I have stated my position on the woman question clearly at great length time and time again, and am not going to repeat it in the comments unless you explicitly disagree with it, rather than assuming that everyone, including me, accepts the contrary position as self evidently true.

              I say woman are unowned, and it is a huge problem. If you say something different, tell us, as a position that you are in fact claiming and staking out. Make an argument, make a claim, provide evidence, don’t assume universal, unchallenged, and unchallengeable consensus, and don’t then reason from this supposed unchallenged, unchallengeable and indisputable consensus. Act like a party in a dispute, not like someone reminding us of what already supposedly agree with. Make your claim in a way that acknowledges that it is not widely accepted and needs to be supported. Make your claim yourself, rather than assuming it as something that everyone here agrees with, including me. If you disagree with what I say, I am not going to allow it unless you actually say so.

              I have stated my position in the clearest possible way time and time again. If you don’t like it, tell me what you think. Don’t tell me what I think.

              Women, starting at a horrifyingly young age, which age is rapidly becoming ever younger, are unowned, and need to be propertized, which is to say shotgun married. And I will not debate this issue with you unless you will admit that we are debating it.

              • The Real Spartacus says:

                “I say [women] are unowned”

                You may say that, but the claim itself is logically incoherent.

                Most men are not “unowned”, and yet you claim that women possess this quality.

                I know who really owns the women. It is absolutely the most obvious thing that there has ever been. (Hint: where do these “unowned” women spend their days?)

                But I want you to say it.

                You will have to short-circuit your libertarian programming, of course.

                Go for it, champ.

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  Allowing this through, because you acknowledged my position, but it is too stupid and ridiculous to be worth a reply. Not an illegitimate method of argument, but nonetheless a waste of space.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Unowned women spend their days in college as literal cheap whores, and spend their postgraduate days getting attention on social media, waiting for Jeremy Meeks’s booty call, cutting themselves, attending “protests”, policing microaggressions, complaining about their exhaustion, going on adventures with a high risk of rape, and a wide variety of superficially different yet essentially similar activities, each more self-destructive and socially destructive than the last.

                  Maybe someone can explain what this has to do with libertarians or libertarian programming. I certainly don’t recall it coming up during my dog days as a libertarian. The quintessential libertarian is barely able to acknowledge that women exist at all, and scarcely has any idea what they do or what motivates them to do it.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  A woman may possess the quality of being ‘unowned’ (ie, someone elses responsibility), because they don’t possess the quality of ‘self ownership’ (ie, capacity for responsibility).

                • jim says:

                  Exactly so. Adult men are for the most part self owned. Most women, starting at an alarmingly young age which is getting younger, are unowned.

                  This makes sense from the point of view of evolutionary game theory. An unfree male is unlikely to reproduce, while a free male is considerably more likely. For women, it is the reverse, so they naturally behave in ways incompatible with freedom.

                • Shelby says:

                  [*This Shelby comment paused till he takes the Mueller test*]

                • jim says:

                  This comment was intelligent and responsive, so I have some hope that Shelby might be able to pass the Mueller test. If he does, the comment will be restored.

                • The Real Spartacus says:

                  “Unowned women spend their days in college as literal cheap whores, and spend their postgraduate days getting attention on social media, waiting for Jeremy Meeks’s booty call, cutting themselves, attending “protests”, policing microaggressions, complaining about their exhaustion, going on adventures with a high risk of rape, and a wide variety of superficially different yet essentially similar activities, each more self-destructive and socially destructive than the last.”

                  Who foots the bill?

                • jim says:

                  Males. Males pay nearly all the taxes, and women receive nearly all the welfare and other subsidies, most of which winds up on the pockets of the thug of the day who is fucking them.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I expect some facile followup like “oh yeah well who forces men to pay the bills”, asked in such a way as to imply that we all believe the answer is something completely different from what we actually believe and are going to sit there in stunned shock going “holy shit, NOW I get it!”

                  As if this topic hasn’t been discussed already like, fifty times, but no knowledge can penetrate The Real Shill’s protective bubble of ignorance and supervisors.

              • As a non-Westerner, I am quite bemused that most Westerners consider partriarchy inherently evil. I guess progressivism has completed its work.

                I must say, that Patriarchy is best for men, women and society as a whole, because it actually worked. I still am aware that in our grandmothers’ time, patriarchy was the accepted norm of society and that it was taken for granted that women had to be under male authority most of the time.

                Further, it is not something horrific or supression as most people make it out to be. Women were extremely happy within patriarchy and were dutiful daughters wives and mothers.

                The only thing I am bemused by Jim is about “game” and how women are constantly shit-testing men and how men have to constantly pass shit tests.

                In a true patriarchial environment, there would be no shit tests, because such things would not be tolerated. Women will be kept in their place and be happy about it. Case in point – in my grandmother’s era, women had internalized patriarchy and were married off early (mid teens) and served their husbands happily and bore children and lived happy, fulfilled lives. I have a hard time imagining my grandmother shit-testing my grandfather. In fact, the elder ladies of the household actually enforced patriarchy.

                And the ideal patriarchy is a Joint extended family (like our Hindu Joint family) with the oldest male being the head of the family and managing the family with the other male family members and the female family members managing the household and taking care of the children.

                The Western concept of nuclear families actually bemuses me and actually I feel that the nuclear family is a degeneration from the joint extended family.

                Of course, India today is a lot different from what it was then, but the fact that I still remember those times, show that in fact, Progressivism has not yet “wiped out” our memories in this aspect.

                • jim says:

                  > In a true patriarchial environment, there would be no shit tests,

                  Mohammed seems to have had problems, and no end of Chinese emperors had big problems.

                  If you have the support of other alpha males, and the support of society, shit tests are less of a problem – observe the impressive success of 1790s early 1800s Australia, but female nature being what it is, I doubt that anything can end them.

                  Shakespeare’s England was mighty patriarchal, and “The Taming of the Shrew” is a comedy about massive over the top brutal shit testing.

                  It is more than in patriarchal environment, passing is easier.

                • You may be right. But my point is that, women can internalize patriarchy when the culture supports patriarchy top-down. For example, in Hindu joint families, young married girls were kept in line by the mother-in-law rather than the father-in-law. Also young girls before marriage were trained by their mothers to be good wives and good daughter-in-laws. Extended families lived under a large roof, lived together and ate together and privacy between husband and wife was probably limited to the time spent in the bedroom.

                  Shit tests may have happened back then, but my guess is that in patriarchal Hindu society, not too obvious and not spoken about and easily passed.

                • udwrac says:

                  It is the nature of women to shit-test. It is evolution in action, reassuring them that they do in fact have the best mate possible.

                  In a traditional society, and especially in a joint-family, clan/kinship culture, the shit tests of the era tend to be mighty easy to pass, to our modern eyes. This is a direct result of the fact that extreme shit tests, that require extreme measures to pass, are not illegal to pass. Scripture and society actually encourage a man to pass all his wife’s shit tests, so that his wife may be satisfied and thus happy, and admonishes and humiliates a man who can’t.

                  For example, there was no legal punishment for cuckoldry, but until very recently, if an aggrieved cuckold were to dispose off the slut and paramour, society would strangely look the other way. Feminism has changed all that now, of course.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The Western concept of nuclear families actually bemuses me and actually I feel that the nuclear family is a degeneration from the joint extended family.

                  This is rather a “you do you” thing. While I’d take the Hindu version over the Progressive version any day, social organizations based on close kin tend to be more productive and less corrupt than those based on extended kin.

                  The trait for this is “negative ethnocentrism”, directly traceable to a couple of alleles, and while northern European whites seem to have too little and are effectively committing mass suicide as a result, it’s not great to have too much consanguinity (mostly cousin marriage) either. It’s not just indians vs Whites that I mean, either; it’s also Catholics vs. Protestants, Italians and Spanish vs. the rest of western Europe, Irish vs. English – every time you can get a reasonably accurate comparison of nuclear families and low consanguinity with extended families and high consanguinity, you find that the society with smaller families is more advanced and more lawful, as long as it doesn’t blow past the local maximum into outgroup preference, which is simply a flagrant violation of Gnon’s laws.

                  It’s not a hard and fast rule, i.e. for many families it’s great to have grandparents living under the same roof, but speaking in generalities, at a civilizational level, close kin > extended kin.

                  A lot of this probably sounds foreign to you, coming from a place that’s been formally committed to discrete endogamous tribes for centuries (millennia even?). But I’m not saying India should change. You have your way, we have ours, both are pretty good for long-term survival as long as you get rid of prog/leftist influence.

                • @Not Tom,

                  You’re absolutely right and it’s a cultural thing. Lot of the conversation on this blog goes above my head. And that is all the more reason why I find it surprising that I have been able to find common ground with Jim on the WQ than many of the others here (of course, with notable exception among the regular commenters). But I’ve read a lot other reactionary blogs and none of them come close to Jim in clarity on this and other issues.

                  What progressives want, of course, is to erase cultural identities across the globe and replace it with the “Woke” culture (whatever that means) – i.e. worshipping of unnatural relationships (Gays), destruction of traditional family, freedom of women to destroy their lives and so on. And in many ways, what drew me to NRx apart from the intellectual dissection of Leftism is that you guys are a lot more accepting and accommodating of cultural differences than the average Liberal (Progressive), provided of course, that my culture does not impose on your culture.

                • This is rather a “you do you” thing. While I’d take the Hindu version over the Progressive version any day, social organizations based on close kin tend to be more productive and less corrupt than those based on extended kin.

                  The point is moot, because the Hindu Joint family is almost extinct in today’s India, except a few rural regions still clinging on to the practice. The 1950s “reformation” of Hindu family laws and inheritance laws effectively killed the Hindu joint family system, though other reasons also contributed to the splinter of joint families, including urbanization.

                  The modern Indian nuclear family resembles the modern Western nuclear family in a lot of ways.

                • Rhovanost says:

                  The model for most of humaity for most of history seems to have been extended clans/families living in a single village. I suspect that children need this envirnment for optimal development. (So there is some truth to Hillary’s “it takes a village to raise a child”).

                  In the west as families spreadout and shuffled themselves around, neighbors took on many of the roles formerly belonging to extended kin. (So you still might have more loyalty to your cousin, but now the kids down the street socialize you). Where neighbors are close and trust each other, this set up seems to work just as well as the joint extended-family/clan model.

                  The setup we have today in the west, of atomized families hiding behind locked doors and peering suspiciously at thier neighbors, is a “degeneration of the joint extended family”. Worse, we are losing even this level of organization. We are devolving into houses of single parents hiding behind locked doors and peering suspiciously at their neighbors.

                  Perhaps in the west, all we need to do is go back to strong nuclear families living next to good neighbors, but if we’re going to do a restoration, why not take things back to the begining of the chain?

                  In other words, perhaps the Orthodox Anglican Church of North America should hire a couple of Hindu consultants when they write thier family policies.

                • Shelby says:

                  [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

                • Dave says:

                  The Industrial Revolution broke up extended families by forcing people to move long distances to find work. Nuclear families were a compromise that sort of worked except that a bored housewife’s neighbors had less incentive to hold her in the patriarchy than her relatives would.

        • yewotm8 says:

          Shelby a word on forum etiquette: when you reply to a comment in a thread, that should be because you are going to address or refer to part or all of the post. This comment of yours that I am replying to, would be better as it’s own thread, as it had nothing nothing to do with Jim’s comment that it was in reply to.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          >Jim’s fantasy about Victorian England never existed. I did some research on that and the people were subverting the chastity and that is why it collapsed.
          >Victorian

          Yep, you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Jim has repeated again and again where and when he thinks Anglo civilization lost control of women, and it was before the Victorian era. At best, you skimmed his writing and mentally subbed in “Victorian” because a lifetime of propaganda has taught you that “Victorian” = “sexually repressed,” so you assume that Jim must be a staunch defender of the Victorians. If you’re going to “do some research,” you might start by actually reading and comprehending what you’re arguing against.

      • Shelby says:

        [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          Unresponsive, scripted, and detached from reality.

          You address a right that does not exist except in the fevered fantasies of the left, and presuppose a political reality that is daily contradicted by what everyone can see in front of them.

          You are also starting to sound a lot more like a script bot, while your earlier comments were less familiar sounding.

          Nash equilibrium in an environment where it is more dangerous to be too far right than too far left, is for everyone to move move left of everyone else, and then move left faster than everyone else is moving left, then move left faster than he thinks everyone else will be moving left. I will allow you to respond, to argue against this claim, provided that you acknowledge what you are responding to – provided that you acknowledge that I take the position that you are disagreeing with, provided you address the position that I am taking, provided you address the right actually present, rather than the right as imagined by your boss.

          • Avichai Mandelblit says:

            It’s Shelby H. Moore, aka “X,” the troofer who claimed to have exposed you as a psyop and yadda yadda.

            • jim says:

              All Troofers are FBI. Therefore Shelby is FBI.

              Time for the Mueller test.

              Hey, Shelby, what bad things has Mueller been up to lately, and what very bad thing did he do shortly before the two towers fell?

              Somehow, those who claim that 9/11 was an inside job are strangely reluctant to point to the most persuasive evidence that it was in a sense an inside job.

              Hey Shelby, what extremely bad things has the FBI been up to lately?

              Someone who was not a shill, or even someone who is a shill, but is not an FBI shill, should be able to acknowledge that the FBI’s pants are on fire.

              • Shelby says:

                [*All Shelby posts deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

              • Shelby says:

                [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

              • The Cominator says:

                To be fair Mueller is a senile old man who was used mostly as a figurehead in the muh Russia investigation. Since he finished his testimony as a senile old man I can’t imagine hes been up to very much.

                Now before all that he was indeed a very bad hombre.

                • jim says:

                  Mueller presided over very bad things – both in the Mueller investigation, and in the lead up to 9/11

                  Now he no longer matters, he is a senile old man who no longer presides over anything, but the FBI’s pants are on fire right now.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Even so, it shouldn’t be so hard for him. If I were trying to pass as a prog in one of their gay little enclaves and got told to name a few bad (by their standards) things that some former and now irrelevant Trump ally did, such as Michael Cohen or Paul Manafort or Kellyanne Conway, I’d be able to come up with a few things on my own, and more if I were permitted to simply copy and paste other people’s comments.

                  The fact that he can’t do that for Mueller really does cry out “fed shill”. Just look up one of Jim’s own posts or replies on Mueller and paraphrase. It’s not intellectually or mechanically difficult, and wherever I’m told that something which is not very difficult cannot be done, I immediately suspect a bureaucracy at work.

                • jim says:

                  But you don’t have to get your supervisor’s approval – these tests are aimed at people working from an office full of shills, with supervisors, an Information Technology department, and a Human Resources department.

                  Someone who was just spontaneously shilling this blog on his own initiative, as our people do on enemy mailing lists, would have no problem passing the Mueller test with flying colors. The Demon Worshiper test would stop a surprising number of them, but only those attempting to pass as Christian.

                  Our enemy pretends to be decentralized and spontaneous, when it is in fact highly centralized and bureaucratic, presenting one throat that can be cut with a small amount of precisely targeted violence.

                  The shill tests are targeted to detect the rigidity and inflexibility of bureaucratic supervision.

                • Shelby says:

                  [*All Shelby comments from within the frame that he is a Christian will be deleted till he takes the Demon Worshiper test*]

                • jim says:

                  The Demon Worshiper test is a simple affirmation of faith that Jesus Christ is Lord, and that he is simultaneously fully human and mortal, and fully divine and eternal.

                  If you cannot affirm these core principles of Christianity, not a Christian, but an entryist against Christianity.

                  The disciples had a shill test “Jesus is Lord”, but they had to deal with Apollonian entryists, while we have to deal with progressive entryists, so I need to have the shill test refer to Jesus Christ, to exclude progressive entryists to Christianity. Progressive entryists against Christianity have no problem saying “Jesus, Jesus” all day long, because they refer not to Jesus Christ, but to a Jewish community organizer who pointed the way to Obama the Lightbringer who stilled the rise of the oceans and brought world peace.

                  The Socinians cooked up an elaborate theological formula whereby “Christ” does not refer to Christ, so that they could say the word “Christ” without getting the feeling that they were going to burst into flames, so, to exclude the Socinian heresy, I require an affirmation of the simultaneous full humanity and full divinity of Jesus Christ from anyone purporting to be Christian. Fully man and fully God. Mortal and Eternal.

                  Any attempt to pass the latter part of this test by elaborate theological discussion is apt to deleted on sight under the usually correct assumption that it is Gnosticism or Socinianism trying to pass as Christian. I ask for a simple affirmation of faith in the fundamental premises of Christianity from suspect shills commenting from within the frame that they are Christian.

              • Shelby says:

                Jim presumably wants me to proof I am not FBI by speaking truths about the FBI that I would not be allowed to speak if I were.

                Actually I haven’t been following what he has been doing lately but in the recent past he prepared the Mueller report which purported to be about some alleged collusion between Trump and Russia, but was actually erroneous propaganda apparently providing the pretext to advance the leftist holiness spiral. Apparently although I have not been tracking all the details, evidence has some to light rebuking everything and pinning the Steele dossier on Hillary Clinton and finding that the FBI was illegally spying on the Trump campaign at the behest of former FBI director James Comey.

                Do I need to make a laundry list of the corrupt activities of Mueller and Comey?

                I actually forgot the details about what Mueller did around 9/11. I have significant amnesia from my chronic illness. I would have to go recheck my prior blogs and notes. Afair he was acting as a gatekeeper for propaganda about it.

                • jim says:

                  So far so good, disowning the Mueller investigation, but what about the illegal and immoral activities the FBI has been doing lately, which have been in the news in the past few days?

                  And the illegal and immoral FBI activities under the leadership of Mueller that resulted in the 9/11 catastrophe, I have frequently mentioned in my posts on troofers, and responses to troofers, likely yourself among them.

                  And yes, I do want at least one illegal and immoral action by the Mueller inquiry listed.

    • jim says:

      There is no margin of fraud.

      • The Cominator says:

        I’m not sure you are correct about this Jim…

        Ballot harvesting and filling out forms for dead people has its limits, especially with the new SCOTUS majority.

        • jim says:

          They are just going to announce that they won, and attempt to silence anyone who says different. Standard color revolution tactic. Done it before, though not in America. If the supreme court says different, will ignore them and attempt to silence them. They have done this before many times, but only on the periphery, where they had the backup of US military power. What happens when they run their standard and much repeated operation in the US itself is likely to yield different outcomes.

          They expect the support of the generals. I think the generals will promise them support, then talk to their men, and their men will tell them “That would undermine the discipline and unity of the armed forces”, whereupon the generals may quietly hide under the bed, and wait for the outcome.

          • Pooch says:

            whereupon the generals may quietly hide under the bed, and wait for the outcome

            How could the left possibly wage hot civil war if the generals back down?

            • jim says:

              A very short civil war.

            • Publius says:

              I doubt the generals will *all* back down. Many of the generals are diversity creatures. They know that backing down means the end of their careers and influence — even possible prosecution and punishment. These generals will not surrender, and they can find or conscript enough men to make themselves a threat, because the military is hierarchical and the default is to follow orders.

              Unlike Jim, I foresee a long, bloody, and atomically hot civil war. I see both sides gaining access to all the material of modern destruction. But I am confident in ultimate victory, because both God and Gnon are on our side.

              • jim says:

                They may well attempt to use atomic weapons. I think they will find that they no longer work.

                • Jon Dough says:

                  Two-shay…
                  Possible three-shay…

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The word is a french term, past participle of ‘to touch’, used to indicate a hit was made in sword fighting. Which, by way of analogous extension, came to be used as a metaphor when speaking of verbal repartee, to indicate a virtuous rejoinder by one’s counterpart.

              • Javier says:

                There are plenty of progressive generals, very few progressive soldiers. A general who orders troops to fire on the white house may find he has very few soldiers left to command.

                The left can’t win a war unless they disband existing law enforcement and military and replace it with their own guys. They have been trying to disband and erode the military and police, but not there yet, too soon for 2020. So I don’t believe there will be a full war, because men rarely fight battles they don’t think they have at least a chance of winning. When the left call to arms goes unheard, they’ll backpedal and try to compromise to save themselves. (Antifa will be given up as a sacrifice.)

                It will be like Napoleon return to Paris. “The demon is closing in. The demon is nearly here. The demon is within our grasp.” Followed by cowardly, spineless leftists congratulating Trump on his second term.

      • Rhovanost says:

        I’m sure there’s no limit on the *size* of the lies that the media/democrats are willing to tell, but the closer a lie is to reality, the easier it is to sell, the farther it is from reality, the harder it is to sell.

        No matter what, on election day, the media will declare that they are not ready to call a winner yet. They will explain that they are waiting for election officials to finish counting the mail in ballots. Truckloads of ballots, with dubious chains of custody, will appear in key districts. On election day, Trump might declare that he already has enough votes to win the presidency, or he might wait until the Supreme Court declares that the truckloads of ballots are fraudulent.

        Pro-Biden operatives do not have a monopoly on the vote collection and counting process. There will be districts where election officials count the votes and declare a result, *without* asking the Biden campaign what the final vote count should be. (Election fraud would be a foolish tactic for the Trump side on several levels, so I imagine the counting conflict will be between blue and neutral actors). The operatives can control how the media frames these declarations, but won’t be able hide the fact that the declarations happened.

        The more districts declaring a Trump victory, the more declarations that the operatives have to paper over. If they have to paper over a lot of declarations, then they will need a lot of cleverness, coordination, and discipline to stay convincing to normies. There will be a lot of opportunities for someone to screwup in a blatant manner. The more they screwup, the more legitimate Trump will appear when he declares electoral victory.

        The actual vote tallies won’t determine who wins the power struggle, but they will give one side a major advantage. Rank and file soldiers are political normies. They will only support Trump if he can make a plausible case that he won the election.

        If Biden is overwhelmingly ahead on election day, (before the mail-ins come in), Trump’s legitimacy will be very weak. He would have to make the case that there was enough in person voter fraud to swing the election outcome. It’s not likely that Trump would have a good enough “smoking-gun” to sway normies. This means that the military grunts would not rally around him. End result: Trump would have to peacefully concede and step down. [And if Jim is correct *fun* adventures ensue].

        If Trump and Biden have a close vote count on election day then only God will know the actual vote winner. The candidate who is officially behind will point to a handfew swing districts, and claim that voter fraud alterated the outcome. To maintain legitmacy, Trump will need the courts to side in his favor, and he will need to present really good video evidence to the public. End result: Trump and Biden will have equal legitimacy, resulting in a long and bloody civil war.

        If Trump is overwhelmingly ahead on election day, then the truckloads of ballets will look suspicious, even to normies. He will still need the courts to back him and video evidence, but these will be easier to aquire. The rank-and-file will show overwhelming support. End result: A peaceful consession from Joe Biden, or a short curbstomp civil war.

        Conclusion: If you’re an American, its your duty to vote in the last election.

        • Not Tom says:

          If Biden is overwhelmingly ahead on election day

          The question is, according to whom?

          The legacy media?

          The blue checks on social media?

          The exit polls, run by the same pollsters who are currently giving Biden a 15-point lead?

          Never mind who will tell us if Trump won, who will report that Trump is winning and be able to give an accurate picture of the margin for victory?

          • Rhovanost says:

            We need a way for municipal/county/election officials to directly broadcast thier count, or publicly testify regarding thier county’s results in the following days.

            If officials in Hoboken WI stream themselves and say:

            “So far, we’ve counted 1,000 votes for Trump and 500 for Biden…2,000 for Trump and 750 for Biden…”,

            then, the media will say “we can’t announce a winner yet”. They will not claim “The Hoboken officials counted 2,000 votes for Biden and 750 for Trump”. The press are liars, but they lie in specific ways.

            If the democrats have 100% control of the vote counters, and 100% control of the media channels, then we’ve already lost.

            Remember, most Americans still believe in the Republic. Most of Trump’s support, most of his *military* support, will come from the most hardcore-wing of Pro-Republic idealists. Biden’s trigger pullers will rally around him even if they’re not entirely sure he actually won the election. Trump’s trigger-pullers will only show up if they *really* believe that Trump won the election.

          • Rhovanost says:

            Edit: Trump can also rally his trigger-pullers if can he can make a convincing (to nomies) case that the Pro-Biden operatives/activists borked the vote counting process. (“Don’t know who the winner is, but we know who’s fault it is that we don’t know”). This will still result in a long civil war.

            No one in the military (at least on team Red) *wants* a Ceasar. Biden could promise to literally feed them to lions and it wouldn’t matter. They will only stop him from waltzing into Whitehouse if they *sincerely* and *without doubt* believe that he subverted the elections. Ideology and priestly influence matter. Either Trump and his soldiers march forth to “save democracy” or they don’t march at all.

            So the essential question is, how does Trump convince the normies that the other side gummed up the elections?

            • Rhovanost says:

              Never mind who will tell us if Trump won, who will report that Trump is winning and be able to give an accurate picture of the margin for victory?

              I don’t have an answer to this question. Trump is more clever than I am, so I assume he does. If he doesn’t, then we’ve already lost, and are wasting our time on this forum.

            • Pooch says:

              He won’t need to. Democrats have been committing fraud since before Trump. They’re just going to kick it into overdrive what they’ve already been doing for years.

              • Pooch says:

                And it is glaringly obvious that Biden cannot win without fraud. It doesn’t take much convincing when you see thousands line up to hear Trump speak and barely a handful, if that, to hear Biden speak.

    • Publius says:

      Cominator, you’re pretty grounded most of the time, but occasionally, you surprise me with your naivety.

      First of all, this story is being heavily censored on the big social media platforms, so its distribution is limited. Given that censorship, most normies won’t hear about this story.

      Second, the left is going to claim victory *no matter how* the people actually vote. They will cheat maximally to help their making this claim. There is no level of legitimate Trump support that will convince them to abandon this path. They are fully committed. They will not stop until you are dead.

      The next transition of power is going to be decided by bullets not ballots. Wishful electoral thinking services no purpose.

  17. Shelby says:

    [*deleted*]

  18. Strannik says:

    The biggest shill/change and perception agent of the enemy test (and I’ve been thinking about shill tests looking at some posts here) aside from the woman question is this in my opinion, taken from ”Brothers Karamazov”;

    Aloysha Karamazov, the spiritual brother, is asked by his brother Ivan the Western style liberal intellectual type if he would accept the forced suffering or death of just one single person, say an innocent young girl, in order to see a better world like Ivan sees as necessary, a socialist type society. Just one person suffering…

    Aloysha Karamazov said no, he would not accept causing a single person pain for some ”heaven on Earth” movement.

    Utopian schemes aren’t worth a single person’s forced suffering in order to achieve it. Anyone with a conscience would have to deviate from script in order to answer it.

    • Not Tom says:

      Nah, this sounds like moralfagging to be. A whole lot of leftists are going to have to suffer greatly in order to preserve anything resembling western civilization. And Muslims, as you yourself enjoy pointing out.

      Would you be willing to put one Mohameddan to death in order to preserve Christianity in the west? I assume yes.

      • jim says:

        The Christian slogan is “Peace on earth to all men of good will”. Which implies that sometimes it is OK to go Old Testament on individuals and groups who are not of good will.

        But no, you cannot harm those who are of good will, and you have to give them a chance to switch sides. But not an unlimited number of switching sides.

        • Anonymous Fake says:

          And students in school are first in line for side switching after they are thanked for their scholarship and offered employment based on their merit that could support a family, and a government guarantee of affordable housing for that family. I’ve been saying this the whole time.

          • jim says:

            Government guarantees of affordable housing always turn into hell holes. Been tried many times, just as government guaranteed food always turns into mass starvation.

            We want to dismantle the special privileges granted to official priestly accreditation, not guarantee them. A government enforced reward for those completing priestly education gives power and wealth to priests, resulting in a holiness spiral as too many people seek to join the holy priesthood. Pofessors spawn far too many professors.

            People who have good accreditation, but strangely are unable to produce value, should starve. If they decline to starve, and instead hunt and gather in the urban jungle, they should be permanently taken out of circulation.

            The incentives you propose guarantee an evil enemy hostile priesthood, which must be destroyed, and new priesthood created. And vocational education should primarily be handled by people performing those vocations, should be handled by enforceable apprenticeship, not handled by people with accreditation in “education”.

            And you still refuse to take the shill test.

            • Anonymous Fake says:

              How do you fix the problem of million dollar houses in sub-1 fertility neoliberal bugman hives like Seoul or Singapore? Capitalism at its worst, in these places, is objectively more of a vampire than Soviet housing policy.

              Also, explain why denazification was successful and the Morgenthau plan failed. Pope Benedict was even a part of the Hitler Youth.

              And what about speculators deliberately rigging the price of food like just before the French Revolution? That was all “free market lolbertarianism” right?

              • jim says:

                The solution to Singapore is the same as that implemented in Afghanistan and Timore Leste.

                End female emancipation. Compel women to get married, stay married, and honor and obey their husbands.

                And you are still unable to pass the shill test.

                Denazifaction succeeded in the same way, and for the same reasons, as progressivism has abolished old type Christianity, a topic on which I have blogged at great length, and Dalrock at considerably greater length.

              • Not Tom says:

                As if inflated housing prices have anything to do with capitalism. High housing costs are a result of too many prospective homeowners and too little land. Now, why do you suppose there’d be too many prospective homeowners in an area with sub-1 fertility, hmmm?

                • Dave says:

                  Housing prices are high because vast swaths of centrally-located urban real estate are set aside for welfare ghettos. People who can’t or won’t work for a living should be housed next to Indian reservations.

                • Pooch says:

                  Also massive influx of immigrants hired for diversity makework jobs.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Yes, both answers are correct. Unaffordable housing is caused by Affordable Housing ™ and unrestricted immigration. Artificially restricted supply and artificially inflated demand.

                  Interstate immigration can also cause local shortages, does not have to be foreigners. This is bound to happen every so often in a country of over 300 million when personal mobility is extremely high and neither states nor cities can control who comes and goes.

                • Eli says:

                  Unaffordable housing is caused by 2 things:
                  1) “Affordable housing” (as per Not Tom)
                  2) Women escaping their fathers (well, their fathers are cucked into paying for their daughters’ whoring at colleges, to begin with) — to live in metro areas, creating artificially inflated demand for real estate in the cities and immediately adjacent suburbia. Men are forced to live close to where the pussy is or wants to be.

                • Pooch says:

                  Yes that’s true too. Women, like immigrants, also hired for diversity make-work jobs.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Sure, and minority lending quotas (“fair housing”), gentrification projects to fight crime and disorder, and so on. And we can’t forget that even at their current prices, these houses would be a lot more affordable if wages weren’t declining or stagnating for many similar reasons.

                  There are a wide variety of factors contributing to unaffordable housing, like unaffordable medicine, precisely none of them having to do with “capitalism” and many of them being overly anti-capitalist.

      • Strannik says:

        But I was referring to Leftists, to what they would tolerate; the torture of one single innocent child to see their personal utopia become absolute reality?

        It’s a litmus test. The ones who cannot answer it correctly have removed themselves from civilization by their own words. Those who reply in the negative perhaps can be reasoned into proper thinking.

        And Muhammadans and the like? My default presumption is that they are on the attack or planning to be on the attack. They are like leftists in that respect, always on the attack lest they be accused of insufficient piety towards waging Jihad. Now there are a lot of normal human beings who are Muslim in a formal sense, and they’re not waging war. But also, they aren’t doing anything substantial about the ones who are, and think of them as the Jihadis do about themselves; that the Jihadis are indeed pious Muslims .

      • Shelby says:

        [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

    • Pooch says:

      Well isn’t the correct answer there is no heaven on Earth. Anyone who preaches otherwise is a heretic.

      • Mike says:

        I mean, I don’t know if it would be a more effective question than the other shill tests, but you are interpreting the book completely wrong Not Tom. Alyosha is not decrying the need for proper societies to reassert order from evil, he is decrying the chaos brought by societies which believe that things are continually in need of “fixing.” Trumpism, Old-type Christianity, pre-1946 Japan, Sparta, none of these societies claimed to be a utopian “fix-all” for all of humanity’s problems. They did not actively setout to make life on Earth hell of course (that, I believe, would be Gnosticism, with its belief in the inherent evil of material reality) but they certainly acknowledged that man is not, and never will be perfect, and that to search for his perfection (aside from that of the religious orders) is a foolish endeavor.

        • Strannik says:

          Exactly so, Mike, because right after in the book, Ivan tells Aloysha about his planned short story, Dostyoevsky’s famous ”short story within the book”, the ”Legend of the Grand Inquisitor”, who is a Cardinal who imprisons a secretly-returned Christ and tells Him that He isn’t wanted, that the Priests have taken over and Christ need not ever return, that they are going to listen to the Temptations of the Devil that Christ refused, and build the perfect human society right here on Earth….

          Dostyoevsky knew about the Left before almost anyone did in all of Europe or Russia. He knew. And, he knew when they were still at a stage where they often could still delude themselves and hadn’t had too many bloody hands among them (except the Anarchists who murdered officials around the world in the 1900’s)

        • Not Tom says:

          This is all fine, but your garden-variety leftist doesn’t read Dostoyevsky; an effective test has to use memes and symbols that the average person is familiar with. The multiple-choice redpill tests are effective because all of the information you need to understand the questions and answers is in the questions and answers themselves. If you have to go read a book to properly interpret the question (and that’s assuming other interpretations aren’t equally valid) then it’s not a very effective test.

          What Strannik is doing here is the familiar Conservative thought process of examining the behavior of leftists and trying to deduce from it their principles and their state of mind, forgetting about the fact that they lie. The Utopia they describe isn’t the Utopia they want or believe that they can bring about, it’s simply what they claim to want in order to make themselves extra holy.

          So the question has a low signal-to-noise ratio because it is open to multiple interpretations, and it has a low signal-to-noise ratio because the “correct” interpretation of the question requires the incorrect interpretation of systematic ingroup defection as sincere conviction. We’re not off to a good start here.

          And to prove how easily it’s subverted, let me ask a fun meta-question. The redpill shill tests work. They work eerily well. Why must we try to fix what isn’t broken?

          • Strannik says:

            It’s real simple though in practice. It’s meant to separate the mad from the re-programmable. You ask them the question, turning the moral onus back on them; how many people would you accept their suffering and even dying in order to bring about whatever you want to happen? One? Ten, Ten Million?

            Then watch the results…

            Of course they will no doubt lie and squirm their way out of the question. But some will in denying any human cost to their ideology, provide an opening for further re-programming.

            For me it literally was reading Dostyoevsky, but I recognize that I’m a bit of an outlier anyway. I discovered the human cost for a ”better world”, and I discovered Christ. Still learning, of course. I learn from you as well.

            Now back to the tried and true redpill, since most Leftists are effeminate to begin with. I believe in it myself, but I being of a more theological bent, go directly to the questions about God, when i’m actually talking to these sorts of people in real life. I want to know if they are a materialist, and atheist, then I turn to their projected father issues they put on God, then turn to the talk about women. By then, i’ve usually figured out they often have sexual paraphilias and aren’t honest about anything, even to themselves.

            Sure, it’s not the best way of going about things with them perhaps, but it’s illuminating from my perspective.

            • Not Tom says:

              I’d say this is a reasonable test to identify a zealot of any sort, though not specifically a leftist. Conceptualizing the rabble principally as impediments to power or social stability is a prominent attribute of the Maos and Maduros and sans-culottes, it is true, but is also an attribute of the Caesars, Cromwells and Napoleons. The Nietzschean will to power is necessarily the willingness to crush any and all in one’s way.

              Leftism is characterized by the desire and willingness to overturn rules and social norms in order to make them more favorable to oneself, and typically begins with an excessively broad interpretation of the rules and norms in order to brand the successful and powerful as rule-breakers and the leftist as a hero speaking truth to power. The whole Utopia thing is way, way downstream from that – it’s a specific artifact of the left’s subversion of Christianity, heretical holiness-spiraled Christianity.

              But Leftism changes its spots to suit its environment, and with Christianity being little more than a skinsuit at this point, most leftists don’t bother to push the heaven on earth meme anymore, not literally anyway. They’ve openly shifted from a social-betterment frame to a social-justice (i.e. revenge) frame. It’s no longer about uplifting the proles, just punishing the bourgeoisie. Observe BLM tearing through the suburbs; do they say “we demand equality?” No, they say “we’re coming for you”, literally – they’ve dropped the pretense. All of the new rhetoric is based on finding guilt and imposing punishment.

              • Strannik says:

                I must be intellectually honest and admit that you have a highly valid point, primarily because in the western world Christianity has become so divided up and compromised by Leftism at this point.

                And yes, you’re right, the BLM types have dropped the mask (although I note that they dropped the overt anti-family nonsense they had on their website) and now they just reveal their nihilism.

                With the Caesars and the Napoleons and the Cromwells, I have a somewhat different tack to talk to them than the exchange inspired by Dostyoevsky.

                I imagine it would be similar to the conversation Joseph de Maistre wanted to have with Napoleon, had his King the King of Sardinia allowed him to travel from St.Petersburg in Russia to France in order to have it….

                • BC says:

                  The Marxist stuff will be back up on the web sight shortly after the election.

          • Shelby says:

            [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

      • Shelby says:

        [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

  19. Dave says:

    Feminists think rape victims should be allowed to sue pornographers. I think anyone whose person or property was harmed by Antifa/BLM should be allowed to sue universities for spreading their toxic ideology, and if the bill isn’t fully paid within two weeks, seize university buildings and auction them off for pennies on the dollar. I’d be like their beloved socialist hero Hugo Chavez riding around college campuses pointing at buildings and saying “Expropriate!”

    In most cases pennies are all you’re going to get because remote college towns have no other industry that could make use of those buildings. When Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries, most fell into ruin because they were not in convenient locations.

  20. ten says:

    If most americans have liquid assets or cash for less than three weeks, and many have zero or very low stashes of necessities, and much of the supply infrastructure would cease functioning in a hot conflict.. Many will need to go to whoever has food to survive. Who will have food?

    • Pooch says:

      Farmers

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      When Rome was in the process of free-falling, millions of people fled the cities to the countryside, because they were starving to death. No security of property, no things getting delivered.

      These urbanite refusegess ran into the land owning equites out in the countryside, begging for food and shelter. These rural equites all offered similar deals; work the farms, and we’ll protect and feed you.

      Thus, anarcho-feudalism was the genesis of Europe’s great kingdoms.

      • nils says:

        I do wonder what the consequences of chemical agriculture will be, high complexity seed supply not easily divorced from modernity without substanital yield loss, biologically bankrupt soils and mass mineral depletion(can be mined by fungi but what timespan?) and heavy industry dependent planting and irrigation techniques, course after a few years a few seeds become a billion and labor will be cheeper then dirt, still interesting to contemplate, i guess starvation is ultimately its own solution and urbanites are dubious anyway. will be wild to see what becomes of this world in a century. I know during Romes hay day soil abuse led to latifundia specializing in grapes/olives and cattle ranching instead of tillage vegetables and grains, will the USA have a similar turn A.R? I wonder if the bible mentions an ever presence of luxury agricultural products not just from subsidy but also as they are less reliant on good land? I figure this new notill, crimp cover grasses, then plant with large seeds, will possibly reduce oil consumption to a feasible level for self sufficient production.

        • jim says:

          Greeny bullshit.

          All plants need is sunlight, water, carbon dioxide, nitrates, and rocks that are sufficiently finely divided that their roots can attack the rocks for minerals. Watch the vegetation spring up after a volcanic eruption. Observe how strawberry farmers farm strawberries. None of this organic bullshit.

          The major benefit of organic materials is that worms plow the soil, but plowing with a plow tends to be more efficient, and microorganisms fix nitrogen in the air, but nitrate fertilizers tend to be more efficient. Many of the microorganisms that you get with organic farming are harmful and hostile to plants, particularly to strawberries.

          As for seeds, plants produce seeds and seedlings.

          What farmers, however, need, and is likely to be difficult obtain in a political collapse, is diesel fuel, tractors, and trucks.

          • Mike in Boston says:

            What farmers… need… is diesel fuel, tractors, and trucks

            Very true, and underappreciated by many folks who claim that a civil war would be a cakewalk in which the Right easily starves out the cities.

            Add to this the fact that increasingly, farmers’ ability to fix those tractors is hamstrung by John Deere’s proprietary software; the company could shut down a great deal of food production if it wanted to. John Deere is publicly traded, so of course they mouth all the woke shibboleths but it’s anyone’s guess just how deep the rot goes.

          • nils says:

            greeny bullshit? biology in soil is massive and traps plant available mineral. When it dies off, mineral is water cycle soluble, new mineral has to be mined and that’s expensive for plants, relatively. Plants don’t mine with their roots, that’s horseshit, symbiotic fungi and bacteria do(dead in tillage), plowing with a plow is not more efficient, it moves more dirt, and obliterates fungus snot(glomalin), the stuff that keeps clay particle soil capping and soil compaction at bay, and destroys tunnels and old pathways which allow roots to easily go deep increasing survival of young plants. Plowing kills plants, great for wheat, not needed for many human seeds which are huge compared to wild seeds and have massive community advantage(domestic plants throw serious shade in density). Tillage kills soil, hence fallow time, nitrogen is not more efficient from a tractor, its cheapest from plants, if this was greenie bullshit it would be promoted by college hippies. Its promoted by fat rich farmers who practice it and have many record yields for their counties and most of the lowest input costs. Highest profit margins per acre across the board. Of course its hard to plant into grassland hence tillage. Some men have figured out how to grow grass tall, grass(rye) suppresses other things(sleepy time not worth competing) the grass gets rolled and crimped(kinked straw, grass blade dies) and five foot of grass is half a foot of mulch and shade which pumpkins, corn, beans and other things grow up through great. Wheat is a challenge because of seed size, but ausies have great success with it(natural dormancy in winter grasslands makes it easy for wheat to rock alone). not greenie bullshit Jim, just not popular yet, bankers especially don’t like farmers converting to a method which universities funded by john deere and monsanto don’t approve of, and which federal relief programs often dont allow, big risk to crop insurance if not doing government defined “best practice”. If tillage worked for plants we could do it every year forever, cant without nitrogen and cant even with it for as little as a century. So far, not turning over the dirt, farmers are having higher yield by year two, higher food nutrition, higher soil carbon(mineral and water philic sponge) and increasing plant available nutrients year over year(chemically usable without processing). Another anecdote, deer food plots are done this way more and more every year, not well known believers in greenie bullshit, and they can do it with a four wheeler

            • jim says:

              > greeny bullshit? biology in soil is massive and traps plant available mineral.

              When you get finely crushed rocks, as in the aftermath of a volcanic explosion, or when farm machinery in Hawaii pulverises the lava, or in a hydroponics farm, the plants do fine with no organic material.

              On a strawberry farm, you poison the soil with a poison that rapidly becomes harmless, such as methyl bromide, in order to kill every living thing in the soil before you plant the strawberries. Strawberries have big problems with other living things hanging around their roots.

              Biology in soil is massive, but it is mostly harmful and hostile to plants. Plants produce everything they need from simple inorganic substances, primarily air and water, and everything else that lives is at best competition to the plant, at worst an enemy to the plant. Apart from fixed nitrogen, the trace elements they need, they primarily get from attacking the rocks.

              The primary benefit of burying dead leaves and stuff under the soil where you plant is that it ensures that the roots can get oxygen – which is also the primary benefit of plowing. Or maybe the primary benefit of plowing is that it disrupts the root networks of the weeds, and its secondary benefit is ensuring that the roots can get oxygen.

              Soil is what you get when the plants have eaten the rocks, and you need to replenish it with artificial fertilizer. Plants like soil that has lots crumbling finely divided remnants of rocks in it, but they are not so keen on soil that is free from rocks, for example soil in the San Francisco Bay area flatlands. In the bay area flatlands, former marshland, you have to plow it and add chemical fertilizer, or else nothing grows.

              On the hills around the bay area, the plants have been turning rocks into soil for millenia, and the soil has been washing down the slopes into the bay for millenia, which now has residue of millions of year of soil creation, which residue is now the Bay Area flatlands. And the plants do not like what is left when they have finished making rock into soil.

              Organic gardening works, but the greenie rationale as to why it works is religious bullshit. Hydroponic gardening works better, and works best of all when everything that lives, and everything that was once alive, is rigorously excluded from your hydroponic garden.

              • nils says:

                plants do not destroy rock, microbiology does, plants rely massively on symbionts in soil for protection from predation, which symbionts are lacking in tillage, you are saying humans have made tasty plants that are weak. Old cultivars were not weak before modernity and monsanto, they kick ass, potatos did not need fungicide to fight blight they needed good management, if plants used their roots to forage mineral, 80% of root mass wouldn’t be fungi tapping into plants actual roots, you are saying human plants suck and need sterile soil, yet they do better in native prairie then human tillage, even with evil bad fungi. Agriculture does not need a petri dish, it needs to advantage human useful plants at profitable concentrations, tillage makes growing healthy plants hard, makes sowing and germination easy, plants that grow in a favored environment and can dominate the canopy are damn good at fighting down under against bugs with single cell stomachs. I have no idea what is difficult with salinated, high silt, binding clay platelet, soils that went from submergence to massive chemical soil blender agriculture, but i doubt very much they need every living thing plowed so that plants with a massive seed dispersion advantage can grow. If tillage worked civilization wouldn’t require diluvian floodplains. it is great at making sowing easy, its terrible at long term yield health, and antibiotics and ammonia are expensive compared to not paying for that and half your diesel bill, and growing 20% more corn with higher per bushel mineral content. Why is growing a crop beside the evil dirt crawlers hard? If its competition from other leaves then tillage makes sense, if you can use other ways to stop foliage getting in the way soil destruction is bad for yield, 2012 34% of tillable cropland was no till cropped, 2017 was 37%, and 80% of tenessee planted without tilling

                • jim says:

                  If this bullshit was true, the aftermath of a volcanic eruption would not swiftly turn green, and people growing stuff indoors in hydroponic gardens would not go to great lengths to exclude anything living or once alive from the plants in their hydroponic garden.

                  The Nile floodplains worked, because the dirt the river carried came straight of the mountains of ethiopia, so it was fresh enough for plants. The stuff on the San Francisco flats is not what plants like. The stuff off explosive volcanic eruptions is what plants like.

                  As what is left over after rock is fully digested piles up, there comes a point, illustrated by the Bay area flats, where plants just don’t like what remains.

                  It is not soil that is good for plants, as growing stuff on volcanoes illustrates. It is the process of making finely divided rocks into soil that is good for plants. The soil is a waste product, which needs to be eventually washed into the sea.

                • jim says:

                  > plants rely massively on symbionts in soil for protection from predation

                  Symbiosis is rare and exceptional. Why do strawberry farmers destroy everything that lives in the soil? Why do plants do well on volcanic ash? Nature is the war of all against all.

                  In nature, everything that lives except close kin is an enemy or a source of raw materials. From the beginning humans have intervened in this war with slash and burn. The progress of farming has largely been the progress of the more effective destruction of our crops’ competition and enemies, a process strawberry farmers and hydroponic farmers take to its ultimate conclusion.

                • R7 Rocket says:

                  @nils

                  “I do wonder what the consequences of chemical agriculture will be,[blah blah blah “massive organics” blah blah blah “wild eco system webs” blah blah]”

                  Your eco bullshit will finally be put to rest when StarProphet Elon Musk’s Starship rocketships build colonies on Moon and Mars.

                • info says:

                  Thoughts on Permaculture?

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  The idea always appealed to me on an aesthetic level; rather than needing to go up and down in a constant process of having to regrow what you just killed off, you have something that can stay around year after year, and you just collect important parts designed to be collected. My gut sense would be, for a given plot of land, less maximal possible output through more intensive means, but a more efficient ratio of input to the level of output, through variants of such means.

                • The Archivist says:

                  In nature, everything that lives except close kin is an enemy or a source of raw materials. From the beginning humans have intervened in this war with slash and burn. The progress of farming has largely been the progress of the more effective destruction of our crops’ competition and enemies, a process strawberry farmers and hydroponic farmers take to its ultimate conclusion.

                  Maybe this will earn me a shill test, but I couldn’t resist creating a little visual aid: https://imgur.com/R9QTZGv

                • jim says:

                  Very good.

                  Why is the empire of God dated to forty thousand years ago?

                • The Archivist says:

                  I tried to translate “Year of [our] God Emperor” to Latin, but I think I messed up the conjugations.

                  The year 40,000 is just a reference to Warhammer 40K – a universe with sentient fascist strawberries would probably exist pretty far into the future.
                  May 22 is the date Italy and Germany signed the pact of steel.

                  I’ll leave the readers to decide whether the implied setting is optimistic or grimdark.

                • Shelby says:

                  [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

                • Bilge_Pump says:

                  “Old cultivars were not weak before modernity and monsanto, they kick ass, potatos did not need fungicide to fight blight they needed good management,”

                  Humans don’t breed plants for hardiness, they breed them for their yield. Compare old versions of bananas to modern ones, google it. Ancient bananas are full of hard seed that aren’t useful for eating, and are much smaller than modern bananas. Yes, modern bananas are “weaker” because they aren’t made for their hardiness but rather their yield for humans. That’s why you kill all the shit in the dirt that would attack the plants, so you can have the greater amount of food per fruit. This is true of basically every plant that humans eat.

  21. And, in addition, then a straight line has to be drawn where, rather than claiming a bias, the actual numerical analysis has to be performed vis-a-vis genuine racial demographics. IF in fact the judge is throwing blacks in the pokey at a far higher number, rather than having a generalized “X” trigger (numerically speaking) for EVERYONE, a specific race needs to have a clear ‘baseline’ of behavior and be utterly REAL in it’s application. I mean they have BURIED true-crime stats and numbers because of the reality of the situation of black-on-white and black-on-black crime is something that the race-hustlers and leftoids can’t and won’t actively acknowledge due to a blinkered set of ‘filters’. Current case in point(s) are the claim that “Far Right Violence” is currently outstripping “Left Wing Peaceful Demonstrations”. Until the media gets cleaned out, this as well, from a large socio-political standard, as well as a hardcore restructuring of the judiciary, we’re just going to be spinning our wheels.

  22. info says:

    Jim what is your thoughts on the relationship between the Priesthood and the Warriors in Imperial China?

    The shī (士) for example used to designate a knightly class of warrior aristocrats riding chariots. But as Warfare progressed that class of warriors became obsolete.

    This class gradually came to mean Scholar-Bureaucrats selected by Imperial examinations. As the Emperor neutered the Aristocracy and selected Civil officials to administer his provinces.

    The Military started as high status. But since historical development has become more and more subordinated to the Civil.

  23. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    In latter days, a commonly used rationalization for leftist judges to legislate from the bench by turning every case into another opportunity to signal themselves as turning things ever more leftwards, is that ‘laws have real world impact’, and therefore you should interpret the law however you like to get the impacts you want.

    This is both true – and also irrelevant. Any given proclamation will indeed entail some form of effects; and the *lawmaker* has exactly those effects in mind when formulating his proclamation. It is there that the spirit of the matter is decided; but he is also just one person, and thus therefore, he needs surrogates that may act to commute his will, as expressed through statements of law, farther afield. And simply that much.

    Where one acting as a judge may take upon capacity of discretion in judgement, it would be they, instead, who would be exercising kingly power of sovereignty, over the nominal sovereign.

    The point of bureaucracy, to the least extent it is necessary, isn’t to have a thousand different little kings running around competing with each other, it’s to have one king, and the bureaucrats conduits for it’s extension.

  24. Anonymous Fake says:

    “Answer me: Should someone who took an expensive six year course in hating whites, males, and white males, get a highly paid job teaching revolution?”

    It depends. If they were taught that this was a prestige career in school, and the capitalist sector was silent on the issue, then yes. If they were told no and that they should drop out to become plumbers or farmers, and this was confirmed by hiring man representatives, then no.

    Just treat people fairly based on the information they were given by the authorities. Go from old authority to new authority. Going rebel means you’re going to get stomped and probably by someone even more conservative than you, who is just obeying liberal orders. It’s just how he was raised.

    Rewarding deviance is a long term bad bet. People who made the right choice for the wrong reasons are not reliable long term allies. Good people who obey evil authority are. Authority can change. Good people remain good people.

    • jim says:

      > It depends. If they were taught that this was a prestige career in school, and the capitalist sector was silent on the issue, then yes.

      The capitalist sector was silent on the issue in large part because of the likely terrifying consequences of speaking up. And without that executive order, they would have been giving out these jobs, while gritting their teeth. So, at the time, assuming Hillary was going to be elected, it was a good career choice. They correctly believed that businessmen would give them six figure job, in order to avoid an eight figure lawsuit. And now, a businessman can avoid an eight figure lawsuit far more cheaply by saying “President Trump, executive order”, so now businessmen are suddenly disinclined to hire them.

      But these people are unproductive. They destroy, they do not create. They are preparing and promulgating the justifications for the murder of the people who would have been forced to hire them.

      > Just treat people fairly based on the information they were given by the authorities.

      But if we treat people “fairly” rather than trading value for value, no one has an incentive to create value, and you get yesterday’s Soviet Union and today’s Venezuela, where everyone has a fair place in a bread queue, and there is no bread when you get to the front of the bread queue.

      People should obstain value by creating value and trading value for value. And those who are able bodied but create no value, should starve. And if they are disinclined to starve, and instead hunt and gather in the urban jungle, should be enslaved and forced to create value. And most of those who took a six year course in critical race theory should be sold on the auction block, with their owner having power of life and death over them.

      Since I asked you the question, and you answered it I am allowing your response through – but you conspicuously refuse to take the shill test, revealing that you are posting from a shill office with your output subject to a supervisor, and potentially scrutinized by human resources.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        “And if they are disinclined to starve, and instead hunt and gather in the urban jungle, should be enslaved and forced to create value. And most of those who took a six year course in critical race theory should be sold on the auction block, with their owner having power of life and death over them.”

        I’d buy them. I am willing to pay good prices…

    • Not Tom says:

      Just treat people fairly based on the information they were given by the authorities.

      Hahaha, what the fuck. So if some communist shitbag shoots a Trump supporter in the street because his cell leader said “don’t worry, you won’t be prosecuted”, and the local mayor and DA were conspicuously silent, we owe it to him to “be fair” and let him go?

      Fruit of the poison tree. Look it up. These Marxist fucks knew exactly what they were signing up for when they went to college, it doesn’t matter who told them what.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      You’ve gotten better responses than your comment deserves, but I can’t resist adding my two cents anyway. Leftists will never in a million years go easy on us out of their sense of “fairness.” It’s not going to be: “Well, these wingnuts, CHUDs, and Nazis are basically good people who were misled by the authorities they trusted, so let’s forgive them, shake hands, and let them move on with their lives.” What you propose is a one-way truce, and a one-way truce is really just a surrender.

  25. Javier says:

    Can’t argue with any of this. Question is, is Harvard on Trump’s radar, and if not, how do you put it there? Honest question. It looks like his recent salvo against CRT was largely the result of one guy (Chris Rufo) getting his ideas through to the right people.

    • Pooch says:

      CRT was on Tucker’s radar before it was on Trump’s radar, and Academia is absolutely on Tucker’s radar and has been for a while.

      • The Cominator says:

        Tucker advocated a plan that I had before him but he was as far as I know the 1st public figure to mention it.

        1) Make student loans dischargable in bankruptcy.

        2) Make the colleges the loans were accrued at responsible for any losses to the taxpayers as a result of this

        I know I’ve mentioned this before and an argument insued but Trump should advocate this… student debt is one of his true vunerablities and the brillance of this is it shifts the burden to our enemies the universities.

        • Anonymous Fake says:

          [*unresponsive*]

          • jim says:

            Who are you debating, and what did they say? Does not sound like a relevant response to The Cominator.

            Who are these unnamed conservatives and what did they say? Where and when did they say it?

            Pretty sure that is not what conservatives, even cuckservatives, say.

        • Strannik says:

          Make the education ”free”, with the added proviso of student national service (military or otherwise), and the student also receiving technical and trades training for post-higher education life, and the universities will have no incentive to teach scams and nonsense when there’s no money in it.

          • The Cominator says:

            In some cases but there is a limited number of government jobs that need specialized training in this way (certainly the military academies already do this).

            Jim is correct that most of education is unnecessary and would be better done in an apprenticeship system.

            • jim says:

              Yes, we need military academies, but warriors, not priests should be on top of the priests.

              Judges need to apprentice to judges as judicial clerks. And the sovereign needs to be on the top of the judges. Whosoever writes the law, should have final say in what means, and be able hire judges who interpret it as intended, and fire judges who do not. Which means that the executive has to be able to fire judges who give judgments he does not like.

              Will the executive abuse this?

              Probably (recollect the Clinton pardons) but right now it is clear that judges are massively abusing their fireproof status. One tyrant is better than a thousand tyrants.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Yes, we need military academies, but warriors, not priests should be on top of the priests.”

                Up until at least very recently (probably when the genuine warriors were purged from the flag corps during the Clinton Administration) the military academies or at least West Point used to be good about this.

                The commandant of West Point used to generally be a general who had a successful war record. As recently as 1994 they had a commandant who was a general who had won the Medal of Honor (and even today the military doesn’t give that away for political reasons you have to do some crazy brave to get it).

          • nils says:

            Why does education need to be free? My uncle paid for college selling icecream, he engineers jet engine blades. If the government built the legal foundations for a genuinely competitive economy and got rid of retarded treat the symptom don’t incentivize the solution regulation why couldn’t sons of this country pay for their own education? last time I checked real world prices for learning how to do anything which 95% of people can was not expensive. Of course osha certified school construction and bar approved school nurses and federally compliant hr departments are expensive(not to mention the inflated cost of animal shaped erasers for communists), that’s the point. But they aren’t needed. what should things really cost without a bs bureaucratic dictatorship? The idea that soldiers or anyone need free education is as dumb as the idea that solving coal pollution involves telling the coal industry how to do its job, pretty sure the coal industry can not pollute much better then fedgov if they are benifited to, why not just pay soldiers? the ones that mess up with their check get weeded out gen after gen and the country gets better. No need for a course in military history to learn to weld, like the military requires now with some of its teach the GI programs, which produces nothing but moderately more historically literate men who use that for nothing and spend the nations money learning about liberty ships with a six figure professor instead of infogalactic. Band aid for a coronary, god Emperor Trump should just fix the universities by making them private enterprises instead of an appendage of the military industrial complex. free is fake and gay, payment should be cash, preferably redeemable in gold.

            • The Cominator says:

              Yes education like healthcare is overly expensive because of a myriad number of screwed up things the government has done, in the 1950s neither education nor health care was all that expensive.

              Its not to say that major surgery or going to school for four years was cheap… but they did not have anywhere near the astronomical prices relative to the average man’s earnings that they do today.

              • James says:

                Education is genuinely not that expensive. If you go to an in-state school while living with your parents, your total tuition bill is going to be perhaps $25k for 4 years. You can earn that working in the summers, and if not, then with your new job as a Software Engineer (you DID major in Computer Science, right?) you can pay it off in low single digit years.

                School is expensive for stupid people, or people who imagine they need a Harvard education. School is not expensive for our kind.

            • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

              >why not just pay soldiers?

              A pervasive thought-form in the socialistically inclined – ie, the solipsistic – is the notion that ‘regulations’, broadly construed, take effect as like abstract universals operating on a frictionless plane.

              It can appear to be a difficult leap of intuition for some, many, that any time a new ordnance, codicil, mandate, or standard is declared… a new office downtown is also conjured into existence, in order to administrate it.

              And not just in the ruling body, but in *every single entity the provisio supposedly applies too*, as well. The growth is not linear, but exponential.

              Paperwork is a form of life, with demonstrable ability to reproduce, producing more of itself from itself, occupying slices of ontological real-estate. And as with all other forms of life, not necessarily aligned with more humanoid animals.

        • jim says:

          This tactic would be deadly effective.

          However, all interest bearing student loans are usurious, because a debt against the person, rather than against property. All interest bearing debts against the person should be enforceable against honor only, which is to say, only against the credit rating of the debtor.

          And, similarly, a loan on a house, or on any property that provides benefits, is usurious unless it can be fully discharged by returning the property in good order and condition.

          Usury creates bad incentives for lenders, it encourages them to lend to foolishness, weakness, and short time preference, rather than wisdom, strength, and long time preference.

          If no usury, we would see fewer student loans to people going for a master of arts in lesbian basket weaving, and more interest bearing loans going to farms, houses, and manufacturing machinery. We would also see more caution about lending into an inflated housing market.

          As for paying for an education if usury banned, the solution is not student loans, but enforceable apprenticeship. We need to destroy the priestly monopoly over accreditation.

        • Not Tom says:

          I advocated this years ago, and even went further and suggested a student debt jubilee, with the key condition being that it must be the schools whose assets are liquidated as necessary.

          The only problem is: it’s coup-complete. Unlike the CRT ban, which merely gave permission for many people to do what they already wanted to do, student loan cancellation is something that no one involved in the loans wants to do (the students obviously want it but that’s irrelevant). And compelling institutions to do what they don’t want to do, under the current system, especially where money is involved, requires Congress. (Or full control of the civil service, but forget that.)

          And the very instant this gets anywhere near Congress, it will be immediately subverted and corrupted to make the taxpayers, not the schools, responsible, thereby becoming another social program. The bill might look very much like it is intended to make the schools responsible, but there will be loopholes big enough to fly a 747 through. Perhaps they’ll be told to sort it out with the banks, and the banks are able to recover it from the federal reserve; or perhaps the schools are able to set up retroactive “scholarships” through various NGOs who ultimately appropriate all of it from the government and/or taxpayers through a maze of incentives and donations and deductions. Or perhaps a judge will simply declare it a tax, like the ACA.

          It would have to be written into law that the banks who issue student loans are not allowed to seek any means of settling them other than the student himself (if not bankrupt) or the school, and the schools are not allowed to use any federal funds or take any tax deductions to pay off bad student debt. Pre-coup, such a bill could never exist without being fundamentally broken, and post-coup, it would probably be unnecessary.

          We can dream, but I think Jim’s solution is better: just dissolve the monasteries, or bring their leadership under direct control of the executive and dissolve all subversive departments, faculties and personnel. I think it’s actually much simpler than making them financially responsible. It requires more balls, but is far more likely to succeed.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Those two things really would do it, wouldn’t they? It wouldn’t take helicopters or anything brash. Just remove this special sanctity of student debt, that makes no special intuitive sense anyway, and boom, those tires have a lot less air in them.

  26. Anonymous Fake says:

    [*unresponsive*]

    • jim says:

      This appears to be a response to arguments that far left thinks the far right is making.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        [*unresponsive*]

        • jim says:

          You appear to be responding to something George Soros or the leftist echo chamber thinks we are saying, and I have no idea what it is that they think we are saying.

          If you are responding to something we actually said, please quote it, link to it, and explain what you think it means.

          Or maybe you got your scripts mixed up and your boss intended your script for a different blog.

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            Maybe you should say what you think about schools and what the fate of the best students should be, then? “Cancel Harvard” isn’t going to cut it when too many honest and sedulous people correctly saw it as the establishment and aligned themselves accordingly. What usually happens is that Harvard cancels itself (Pol Pot) because the right failed to offer a nice set of career paths to the most intelligent students. It goes “full vaishya” and ignores the kshatria/optimate elite potential. The grifter right deserves the gulag it always gets.

            • jim says:

              No one should get a job because accredited by a university. They should get a job by plausible or demonstrated ability to do the job.

              It used to be that universities filtered people for ability and industriousness. This is no longer the case, nor is the training they give people very useful. We need to break the university monopoly over accreditation in favor of enforceable apprenticeship.

              The evil of the university system is demonstrated by Critical Race Theory. A lot of people, most of them stupid, unpleasant, and disruptive, got expensive six year degrees in critical race theory on the theory that the government was going to hire them and force the private sector to hire them.

              They deserve to starve for grifting, and the university deserves to lose its endowment for being party to the scheme.

              Critical Race Theory is Frankfurt School Marxism, with whites and males as the capitalists, and non whites and females as the proletariat. Bioleninism. “History” is supposedly going to eliminate Whiteness – which in practice is going to mean eliminating whites, as “Liquidating the Kulaks as a class” meant murdering the kulaks.

              We have been down this road before, and if we do not kill them, or at least display determined willingness to kill them unless they shut up and fade away, they will kill us. That is how it always ends.

              If those who covet any thing that is their neighbour’s have freedom of speech, no one who has something worth coveting will keep his freedom of speech.

              • Anonymous Fake says:

                [*unresponsive*]

                • jim says:

                  That was a script, which is why I deleted it, though you get credits for taking the trouble to select a somewhat relevant script.

                  Take the shill test. Why can’t you answer R7 Rocket?

                  Next time, please edit the script down to the points that actually relate to the conversation.

                  Answer me: Should someone who took an expensive six year course in hating whites, males, and white males, get a highly paid job teaching revolution?

                  And, if you were able to answer R7 Rocket, I would take more seriously your claim that you are writing this stuff, not cutting and pasting a script written by a crew of Soros’ scriptwriters, without bothering to edit out screenloads of stuff irrelevant to this post and any post ever posted by any reactionary site. If you edited the scripts for relevance, I would be more inclined to respond.

            • James says:

              If they thought Harvard was a good choice, they are hopelessly and irrecoverably corrupted already. Let them burn down with the old system.

  27. Sulla says:

    One critical mistake Franco made was to insist the Carlists fall in line and subject themselves to the military. Their plan had been to establish a military academy to lead the Carlist militias, implying a competing/replacement center of gravity for academics. Franco squashed the idea and, as he and his boys were good at fighting but not good at culture, the transformation of Spain was left incomplete. After his death, Spain reverted, though at a lower level of psychosis than before.

    But Spain is a perfect example of the Left spiral – when you get to the point you are digging up nuns’ corpses and posing them on altars in suggestive poses, you are well on the way to the seven kill stele. We are nowhere near that bad yet, which gives a tiny amount of optimism that the body count might yet be low.

    • Oscar C. says:

      There is a huge debate right now here in Spain regarding our civil war, the right-wing Madrid local council recently ordered the change of names of some streets devoted to socialist leaders of that era, while Franco’s remains were taken out of his resting place months ago.

      Carlists wanted a monarchy since it is a core element of their motto ‘Dios, Patria, Rey’ (‘God, Fatherland, King’), while Franco had no intention of relinquishing power. His regime was also highly centralistic while Carlism has always had a pluralistic conception of the nation: “Las Españas” (literally “The Spains”).

      There is a very good piece on the failure of reaction in Spain over at Counter-Currents, I highly recommend it since it touches upon that reversion you mention:

      https://counter-currents.com/2014/06/spain-and-the-failure-of-reaction/

      • Sulla says:

        Thanks, Oscar. The thing I recall most vividly about the church within the Valley of the Fallen is how the path to the sanctuary is decorated with scenes from the Apocalypse. At the time, it struck me as odd, because I did not really understand the context.

        It’s just like the fucking Reds, though. They were always looking for an excuse to dig up the bodies of their enemies. God, how I hate them.

    • Shelby says:

      [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

  28. Karl says:

    “For us to win, Harvard, Yale, and the Judiciary will have to be cancelled, deplatformed, and demonetized. The prosecutorial system will have to be depoliticized…”

    No problem cancelling Harvard and Yale. Govenment can work without Harvard and Yale. How would a government work without a judiciary? I don’t understand.

    Depoliticizing the prosecutorial system might be a first step, but I can’t imagine how any prosecurial system can be (stay!) unpolitcized. How would this work? Politics is unavoidable, even at the court of a king or dictator there is politics, has always been.

    In my opinion, it is much better accept reality that a judiciary and a prosecutorial system are necessary and that they will always be political. Just make sure that the are political in the way the emperor (or whatever title the man in charge has) approves.

    • Not Tom says:

      Politics is unavoidable

      Says who?

      I think you’re reasoning from a democratic frame. Following the king’s rules and the official state religion’s principles is not “politics”. Politics is the existence of elite factions competing for the same levers of power.

      Depoliticizing the judiciary is simply a matter of defanging the Supreme Court, from which all others will follow, and depoliticizing the prosecutorial system is a matter of rounding up and shooting any prosecutor who attempts to subvert the law under the guise of “prosecutorial discretion”.

      • Karl says:

        No, I’m not reasoning from a democratic frame. Politics is the game that courtiers and lackeys played at any king’s court in history to advance their personal interests. Factions are more powerful than individuals and so factions inevitably formed. Having a king or a dictator does not stop factions competing for advantage.

        If there is a powerful dictator like Stalin it might happen that nobody at his court dares to do much politicing, but there will plenty of politics going on in far away provinces, cities, towns etc.

        Defanging the supreme court will simply move the power that the supreme court now holds to somewhere else. Courts and prosecutors will always have power – they cannot function without. They were constantly scared under Stalin, but still powerful.

        Shooting prosecutors is not keeping them depoliticed. At best, it keeps their politics aligned with the politics of whoever calls the shots.

        Emperors have been killing courtiers, judges and prosecutors routinely. That never stopped them from scheming.

        As you do not agree that politics is unavoidable, can you give an example of any society that was not having comepting political factions?

        • Not Tom says:

          You’re playing fast and loose with definitions. Courtiers scheming against each other for personal advantage is not equivalent to regicide, and definitely is not equivalent to thousands-strong elite factions openly warring in the public sphere to capture the power vacuums formerly known as throne and altar. There is court intrigue and there is democratic politics, and the two are equivalent in the same sense that the Last Supper and the Piss Christ are equivalent (they’re both “art”, right?)

          Of course defanging the Supreme Court moves the power elsewhere. It moves it to the executive, where it was supposed to be in the first place before Marbury v. Madison – where Andrew Jackson famously decided it was going to stay, in his time. Any sufficiently large or important judiciary will always overreach from time to time – it’s the statecraft version of a nuclear shit test, and the sovereign absolutely cannot blink otherwise the damage to their authority will be extensive and possibly permanent.

          The vast majority of divine-right and aristocratic monarchies had stable power at the top, and whatever scheming happened in the king’s court was effectively invisible to the commoners.

    • Cis Scum says:

      @Karl

      The first and foremost quality of a judge is impartiality. If they lack that one key characteristic it doesn’t matter whether they’re intelligent, articulate or well read. You are literally better off with a down syndrome mongoloid who is impartial over a genius who isn’t. As the saying goes, you had one job!

      Given the above the question is how do you ruthlessly and systematically deselect partial judges in order to retain a functioning system. Here are some ideas:

      1. Make judges civilly liable for court decisions proven to be tainted by bias. Being found biased three times leads to automatic and permanent expulsion from the profession.

      2. Make it so that lower court judges must pay appelate costs for both parties should their decision be overturned. Being overturned three times leads to automatic and permanent expulsion from the profession.

      3. Empanel permanent impeachment commissions to review cases for bias. Reviews are triggered by statistical deviation from the norm. Example family court finds for wife at 2x the rate of other family courts: review triggered.

      4. Allow plaintiffs and defendants to conduct stare decisis on judges. Judges to be questioned under oath for their political opinions. The parties then unanimously choose their judge from the pool provided, based on their stare decisis.

      5. Rigidify the distinct roles of judges and juries. Judges to decide on law only, juries to decide on facts only. Any trespass by the judge is automatic grounds for appellate dismissal and retrial.

      These are just some ideas, there are many more.

      • The Cominator says:

        “5. Rigidify the distinct roles of judges and juries. Judges to decide on law only, juries to decide on facts only. Any trespass by the judge is automatic grounds for appellate dismissal and retrial.”

        The whole point of a jury system is jury nullification otherwise a jury system is stupid.

        The problem with a jury system is that some jury pools are just radioactive, we all know about the OJ jury and the jury in the Kate Steinle case but there are worse examples. I suspect one reason Trump and Barr won’t arrest anyone in DC is they know that DC swamp jury (DC hates Trump more than anywhere else) will let them go no matter what.

        • Fred says:

          The whole point of a jury system is jury nullification

          This is correct.

          Here’s another good piece on the topic.

        • Cis Scum says:

          Indeed. My point was that in order to force judges toward impartiality it is best to provide review panels with a more concrete, even binary, basis for assessing conduct. The law is far less amenable to flexible interpretation than the facts. Isolating the judge’s role to the interpretation of law essentially corners them.

          That juries are empowered to basically override the law is not necessarily a problem. The problem is judges imposing their own ideology in order to vitiate and substitute the law maker. If the law maker is to be overriden, let it be by the community; it’s a good safety valve that stops the downstream minions from over enforcing the will of the sovereign.

      • Rhovanost says:

        Don’t these suggestions lead us back to the BLM proposition that statistically unequal outcomes automatically = bias and racism?

        (I.E. if a judge in your system sends more blacks to jail than whites, he’s gonna get an inquisition visit.)

        • Cis Scum says:

          That would depend on the parameters. The ratio of black vs white convictions would indeed get us back to square one. However the ratio of black defendants vs black convictions would not. For example, suppose you have a circuit where the statistical norm is 2:1, ie for every two black defendants there is one conviction. Suppose further that there is this one judge with a 5:1 ratio. One conviction every five defendants exceeds the 2x deviation and therefore becomes the red flag that invokes review.

          Anyway my point is not that the shortlist of ideas represent a solution. It’s a scattershot of ideas I put forward to illustrate that forcing judges toward impartiality is perfectly feasible. I was objecting to the notion that judicial impartiality is structurally impossible.

        • And, in addition, then a straight line has to be drawn where, rather than claiming a bias, the actual numerical analysis has to be performed vis-a-vis genuine racial demographics. IF in fact the judge is throwing blacks in the pokey at a far higher number, rather than having a generalized “X” trigger (numerically speaking) for EVERYONE, a specific race needs to have a clear ‘baseline’ of behavior and be utterly REAL in it’s application. I mean they have BURIED true-crime stats and numbers because of the reality of the situation of black-on-white and black-on-black crime is something that the race-hustlers and leftoids can’t and won’t actively acknowledge due to a blinkered set of ‘filters’. Current case in point(s) are the claim that “Far Right Violence” is currently outstripping “Left Wing Peaceful Demonstrations”. Until the media gets cleaned out, this as well, from a large socio-political standard, as well as a hardcore restructuring of the judiciary, we’re just going to be spinning our wheels.

      • Not Tom says:

        Maybe some of these are good ideas, maybe they aren’t. Personally, I find myself taking an immediate dislike because it reasons from the point of view of how to tweak and reform the current broken system to be slightly less dysfunctional rather than simply reverting to a system that’s known to work or even attempting to design a new one.

        Unintended consequences are a huge problem when trying to patch a system of byzantine complexity. I think we should stay away from such policy-wonkery and stick to the basics, which is that the judiciary is an agent of the sovereign and should do what the sovereign damn well tells it to.

        The very idea of a judge ruling against the sovereign or even admitting such a case to go forward would have sounded ridiculous to our ancestors. At best, I could maybe see judges acting as arbitrator or mediator between Congress and President, if we insist on retaining that awful “separate but equal branches” concept, but the judiciary was always supposed to be subservient. A non-governmental entity can’t sue the President, it’s an inversion of power, and a judge engaging in criminal conspiracy against the government (like Sullivan) should be treated as sedition, because that’s what it is.

        • jim says:

          > the judiciary is an agent of the sovereign and should do what the sovereign damn well tells it to

          Well said.

          What I saw in Davao with Duterte’s death squads is that the vast majority of the public find punishments imposed by men who are disciplined enormously preferable to punishments imposed by men who are independent.

          It is better to have one king three thousand miles away than a thousand kings three miles away. An independent judiciary is a lawless judiciary, and a lawless judiciary needs a helicopter ride to the pacific.

          • Jehu says:

            There’s tremendous wisdom in this preference on the part of the majority of the public. If disciplined and effective, cycles of retaliation escalating is highly unlikely to occur. If not disciplined and ad hoc, temptation to escalate and retaliate is much stronger (because more likely to succeed).

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Or you can simply put it like this:

            There is no such thing as an “independent judiciary” anyway, and never was.

            Everyone needs approval from somebody. We’re vulnerable social animals, especially people who are getting old, lack the energy to change neighborhoods or make new friends, and would hate to lose their wildly-paid low-effort superpowers over lower-status people.

            Castle or Cathedral, one or the other.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              Likewise how there’s never been such a thing as “free speech.” There’s always a state belief system, and thus always anti-blasphemy law. I learned that here too.

              Imagine all the people /
              Believing what was true /
              Wooo-hooooo ooo-ooo-ooo…

          • Shelby says:

            [*All Shelby comments deleted on sight till he takes the Mueller test*]

            .

    • jim says:

      > How would a government work without a judiciary? I don’t understand.

      Obviously the escape from prisoner’s dilemma is that you cooperate to punish defectors.

      There is a conflict. Both sides claim the other guy is the defector. Need to figure out which one is the defector.

      It is not apparent that the best way to figure this out is to have a thousand little emperors. What if the King’s judges are defecting on the King’s subjects?

      So, you need procedure that is transparent, for example cops wearing body cams, public database of who owns what. You need men who follow laws enforcing laws. Are judges following laws? Obviously not.

      Is it even possible to follow laws when we have far too many laws? Obviously not.

      What I saw in Davao with Duterte’s death squads is that the first thing you need with the apparatus of enforcement is discipline. Are America’s judges disciplined? They sure don’t look it.

      You want due process. You want the process of figuring which of the parties to a conflict is the cooperator and which is the defector to be as transparent as possible.

      But you don’t want an independent judiciary. You want the decisions to be made by people who can be relied upon to follow rules, which is the same thing as people who will do as they are told. You want discipline, not independence. You want the people making the decisions to be rather like soldiers, not rather like lawyers. You want justice to be done and seen to be done, but you want it done by people who are disciplined, not people who are independent.

      You want the orders that the people enforcing cooperate/cooperate are following to be known, hence written and public, hence writs, written law, but you want the orders to be followed. Meaning you want people who look like cops and soldiers making the decisions, not people who look like lawyers making the decisions.

      Law is the sovereign’s commands about enforcement of cooperate/cooperate – widely known commands, hence old and seldom changing commands, given in writing. And you need people giving effect to those commands who can be relied upon to damn well do as they are told. Lawyers are notoriously disinclined to do as they are told.

      • Karl says:

        Well said. I agree. I certainly do not want an independent judiciary.

        Justice should be done by people who treat law like soldiers treat an order and should be disciplined like soldiers. But would these soldiers who dispense justice not be a judiciary?

        I’m not a native speaker, but these soldiers would be lawyers according to my understanding of the term because they apply the law and hand out judgment.

        This is not the first time here that I understand a term different than you and your commenters. Sorry about that. I’m just trying to understand

        • Not Tom says:

          A judge is a judge. There’s nothing wrong with the concept of a judge or a judiciary.

          I think where you are getting confused is the difference between a judiciary, i.e. any formal justice system, and the judiciary, the actual institution and its personnel. It is like the difference between an academy and the Academy – we obviously are not saying no one should be educated, the Royal Society was a fine institution, but Harvard and the Ivy League are not fine, they are evil.

          The judiciary in America – the actual system we have – is corrupt and sclerotic and was badly-designed in the first place. Come the restoration, we will have a criminal justice system and probably some kind of tort system, but any similarities to the current system would be purely superficial.

  29. The Cominator says:

    The only non leftist who ever stopped the left singularity at an advanced stage was Suharto and he eradicated them utterly.

    If we win the war the Suharto solution is the only solution. Charles II is not applicable because Cromwell already stopped it.

    The right needs to learn from history that in victory that it should be completely merciless and thorough. Mercy is not a good deed its a crime against posterity, against your nation and against God.

    • RedBible says:

      “Never give your opponent/enemy an honor or mercy that he would not give to you.”

    • The Ducking Man says:

      Now Indonesia is in another stage of advanced leftism.

      Indonesia has gone left since reformation and people get used to it, when 2020 hits and people finally realizes that Jokowi is actually right wing regime acting the same manner as Trump (market forward policy and down play the COVID pandemic), people (as Jim correctly predicted) punishes Jokowi for not sufficient leftism.

      Civil War is coming in Indonesia.

      To prevent that we can start by arresting the heads of recent protests.

  30. Mister Grumpus says:

    Well you’ve really spelled it out now. Now you’ve done it. Now we watch for the red dye colored water to show up in more normie-con blogs, call-in shows and tube-casts down-stream. This is an excellent case study for your reach and influence.

    The iron is definitely hot, so we listen for the hammers.

Leave a Reply