Warriors, Merchants, war, markets, and capitalism.

From the time of Xenophon to the Crimean war, every long distance campaign by westerners had a free market following the camp and the march. Every single man in the army fought, and the camp followers fed them, clothed them, and armed them.

Alexander, fighting a long distance campaign, had ten camp followers for every soldier, but every man in Alexander’s army fought in every major battle, including Alexander himself, and every man close to him.

Socialist war is an attack by priests on warriors. Insourcing logistics was part and parcel of valorizing camp followers such as the whore Florence Nightingale, and valorizing camp followers was part and parcel of demonizing the heroes of the Crimean war.

The army is funded by pillage and extortion, but the camp followers are protected from pillage and extortion. They have lower status than warriors, but some of them, what we would call contractors or small businesses, considerably more freedom. The army protects the free market that feeds, clothes, and arms it. When two such armies meet, as in the Crimean war, each attempts to impose socialism on the enemy market, while protecting the freedom of its own market, as in the Crimean was, which was largely a war of logistics, the key British military victories being to smash the market in the towns through which private merchants organized the flow of goods to supply the Russians.

The priestly classes insource logistics to lower warrior status. It is that simple. The Western way of war, from Xenophon to Lord Cardigan, is that the camp and the march has a market following it around. That is what made us strong. Abandoning it has made us weak.

Weapons in Xenophon’s army were private property. Finding themselves short of ranged warfare capability, Xenophon proposed:

we must get slingers as soon as possible and cavalry. I am told there are in the army some Rhodians, most of whom, they say, know how to sling. Suppose, then, we investigate and find out first of all who among them possess slings, and for these slings offer the owner the money value; and to another, who will plait some more, hand over the money price; and for a third, who will volunteer to be enrolled as a slinger, invent some other sort of privilege

In Carnage and Culture, Hanson tells us:

Capitalism in its most basic form was born in ancient Greece; that heritage helps to explain why the postclassical Europeans in their centuries of religious and political cannibalism nevertheless protected their autonomy from non-Westerners and were as wealthy as their more unified Islamic rivals. The word for profit, kerdos, is ubiquitous in the Greek language. … by the fifth century b.c. Greek economic activity—especially at imperial Athens—was decentralized, governed by supply and demand, and characterized by sophisticated notions of markets, profit, banking, and insurance, with government assurance of the sanctity of private property and rights of inheritance.

For those states, ancient and modern, that failed to adopt the tenets of capitalism and private enterprise, if they were to war long enough, they would eventually encounter Western armies that were supplied by an amoral and unfettered market. In such cases, the numbers, brilliant leadership, and battlefield courage of the Other could be nullified by smaller, even poorly led armies that were better fed, equipped, and armed by those who saw profit in war.

Xenophon’s “March upcountry” uses the word “market” thirty nine times. Market logistics is ever present in his military considerations and political negotiations. The word “market” appears about twice as often as words such as “sling”, “sword”, or “spear”, and somewhat more often than “wounded”.

Suppose there was a rational military reason for insourcing logistics. What then is the rational military reason for giving logistics workers the same job titles and uniforms as warriors?

The recent humiliating defeats of the British in Basra and Helman province happened because the entire British Army can only put a hundred boots on the ground to hurt people and break their toys. With non fighters getting stolen valor, your army quietly melts away, and you do not notice until war comes. If you have one man in the army who does not fight, by and by you have no men in the army who fight.

Socialist logistics is working horribly badly, and even if it was working great, it would still be the case that stealing the valor of real soldiers cripples your military capability.

It is very hard to get for troops anything through conventional channels, and in practice, just as Soviet Russia operated on the black market, fighting men often have to engage in “drug deals” by trading whatever surplus stuff they have with other units that have what they actually need. There tend to be months or years delays between applying for some urgently and vitally needed replacement part, and getting it, but a soldier can order pipe tobacco online, and have it in within two, three weeks at the latest.

Cut out the military supply chain bullshit and let Amazon handle it. The regimental commander should contract with whom he damn well pleases. Back in the days when logistics was largely taken care of by the regimental commander and the camp followers a large proportion of the camp followers, including nearly all the highly skilled camp followers, for example Cardigan’s French Chef and the dual function whores, came from Europe, following the army around.

Those behind the lines, loading and unloading planes at the base near Basra, managing the equipment, and all that, kissing the ass of numerous four star generals who never leave the base, and never actually shooting and getting shot at, should not get medals and honors and be counted as soldiers. They should be camp followers, whores, and comfort women.

Let me tell you the real story of the charge of light brigade:

Due to the usual screw ups and fog of war, Lord Cardigan received a very stupid order to attack some enemy guns He protested the order vehemently, but then obeyed it, leading his men from the front in his very conspicuous privately owned officer uniform. Since he had a superior horse, which he personally owned, he got far in front of his men. He arrived at the enemy, personally took one whack at the leading enemy officer, then signaled the retreat before most of his men had arrived, obeying his orders to the letter pro forma with the least possible danger to his men, and the greatest possible danger to himself.

Let high ranking officers take their French chef and their numerous mistresses along with them. But don’t issue medals to the French Chef. The priesthood (the mainstream media) complained that Lord Cardigan brought his French chef along while his men ate salt beef, but Lord Cardigan, unlike present day commanders, tended be in the front when the bullets were flying. So, would you prefer a regimental commander who eats the same food as you, or a regimental commander who gets exposed to the same bullets as you?

826 Responses to “Warriors, Merchants, war, markets, and capitalism.”

  1. R7 Rocket says:

    Hands down, I would prefer a commander who is exposed to the same danger as me.

    America has too many “perfumed princes.”

    • Strannik says:

      Colonel David Hackworth, who used that phrase often in his articles as a writer, was a good man, btw. And coming from a military family that has served in almost all of America’s wars, I agree.

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      “Was exposed” makes the most sense.

  2. Contaminated NEET says:

    Wasn’t in-sourced socialist logistics a world-smashing success in WWII?

    • E. William Brown says:

      Every major nation in WWII used the same style of insourced logistics, so we can’t say how well anything else would have worked in comparison. But there was certainly a lot of complaining from the more experienced officers about the cancerous growth of non-combat ‘soldiers’ during that era.

      Obviously a modern army needs more large-scale organization than an ad-hoc collection of local camp followers could manage, especially if you’re going to deploy to the other side of the planet on short notice. But giving individual commanders a budget to order supplies through corporate supply chain providers would likely work far better than the current system, and Amazon wouldn’t pretend that their office clerks and delivery drivers are soldiers.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        They all used this basic system, but in different degrees, from most to least socialist:

        USSR
        Germany
        UK
        US

        And in order of best to worst equipment:

        US
        UK
        Germany
        USSR

        This was offset by the generally higher commitment of the more socialist states to the war, and especially Germany’s highly decentralised command system, the best of any of the powers.

        • Inquiring Mind says:

          The source is Bill Mauldin, who trained as an infantry soldier and ended up as an in-sourced war correspondent in WW-II drawing editorial cartoons.

          In his WW-II memoir, he described German POWs who complained the food served to them was a war crime.

          As Mauldin explained, the Geneva Conventions are that what your POWs get to eat what your guys eat. The arrangement in the German Army, Mauldin claimed, was that the best food went to the front to motivate the guys at the pointy end of the spear. He further claimed, based on his contact with German POWs, that German guys would volunteer to go to the front because the food in the rear was so bad.

          The US Army, according to Mauldin, had the REMFs (RE stands for rear echelon and use your imagination regarding Army vulgarity what MFs were) skimming the choice items from the supply chain, be it the best quality food to usable combat boots. As stuff filtered to the front, the front-line soldiers were eating swill and wearing rags on their feet. The just-captured German POWs couldn’t believe they were eating the same food as the GIs, but they were.

          So Jim, I get what you are saying about Socialism running the logistics train, but Nazi was National Socialist German Workers’ Party, but the claim is that they saved their best food for their front-line soldiers whereas in the WW-II American Army, this was reversed.

        • Tema says:

          In what sense was German equipment superior to Soviet?
          Germans did have some boutique-quality equipment that could never be produced in sufficient numbers or serviceable in the battlefield.
          A Tiger tank (when it makes it to the battlefield) is super to a T34 or a KV but it is inferior to 10 T34s.
          Off the top of my head MGs is the only mass-produced German weapon that remained unmatched by the Soviets throughout the war. But then the Soviets also had unmatched weapons.
          As for the lend lease equipment, trucks did matter a lot in 1944-45 Soviet offensives. What else do you have in mind?
          Also, keep in mind that the Soviets lost most of their industrial base in 1941, while the Germans controlled most of Europe. US and UK never had to face such circumstances, and when the Germans did – they didn’t perform well.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            USSR equipment tends to look good in a top trumps comparison, looking at gun bore etc. as if guns are all the same, and ignoring boring things like engine lifetime entirely. Soviet equipment tended to be so poorly built that it destroyed itself in a few dozen hours of operational use even without encountering the enemy, so the Soviets were only able to launch stop-go offensives. Germany always had fewer guns in its tank park, but its tank park was still better, until quite close to the end.

            The Germans had a similar problem relative to the UK and US, whose tanks similarly look nothing special in a top trumps comparison.

            • Tema says:

              Perhaps you are thinking of the vast fleet of obsolete and unserviced equipment that the Soviets had at the start of the war.
              As for the war-time production, heavy tank and early T34 engines were designed to last. What changed mid-war is that the Soviets realized that hardly any T34 will go over 500 km before it is destroyed by enemy fire. The specs were changed to target 500 km service life, making engines cheaper to produce and freeing up resources that would otherwise be wasted. Under the circumstances that proved to be a superior design.

              It is not that the Soviets could not make reliable and serviceable equipment. After all Soyuz rockets are still flying, AKs are still firing, and Kamaz is still dominating Dakar. However the key to that reliability is not craftsmanship but clever minimalist design.
              It is true that a socialist economy cannot deliver high quality and craftsmanship. Fortunately for the Red Army that did not matter much on the battlefield.

              More importantly, total war is inherently socialist and dictatorial. That’s why this is one of the few areas where a socialist dictatorship can do OK.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                “Perhaps you are thinking of the vast fleet of obsolete and unserviced equipment that the Soviets had at the start of the war.”

                It was true of everything they made – but why should I just ignore that? The USSR had about 20,000 medium tanks in 1941, more than every other country combined. If they had been any good, the USSR would have been in Berlin before winter. Yet you are telling me the USSR was good at making stuff.

    • Not Tom says:

      If by “success” you mean “highest death toll” then sure, and socialists do love their body counts. To most warriors, a successful war generally means the fewest casualties for the greatest amount of property secured.

      WWII wasn’t exactly the model of war efficiency.

      • info says:

        With a Capitalist economy and Logistics. Russia would have dramatically reduced its KIA and WIA.

        Since they had so many men to burn. Russia won by default.

  3. Karl says:

    How did the navy at and before the Crimean war handle logistics? Did admirals buy ships?

    • jim says:

      Merchant ships were armed and dangerous, and there was no big distinction between military ships and merchant ships in the early activities of the East India company. In seventeenth and much of the eighteenth century, the government navy was the merchant navy turning out for war.

      However, advancing military technology created an increasing differences between ships built for military and civilian purposes. It is difficult to say exactly when warships and merchant ships became sharply distinct, but the growing difference between military and civilian ships led to military ships increasingly being state property. The Bombay Marine were privately owned warships to 1830. After 1830, all ships specifically built for war were, as far as I know, government property.

      So the socialization of the navy did have rational military purpose, and was not done for the sake of a priestly attack on warrior status. Government ownership of warships has rational military purpose. But it does not serve rational military purpose that the captain has to get food, paint, and suchlike through government logistics. That is just done to make sure that people who work ever further from the pointy end get naval ranks and navy uniforms.

      • Karl says:

        Ships of Roman and Greek navies in antique timse were paid for by the government. Equiment like horses and weapons was private property until the reforms in the late Roman republic (123 b.C). Roman armies were working rather well for quite some times after that. So I’m sceptical that it matters much whether a government hires soldiers and gives them equipment for the job or simply asks citizens to show up with whatever equipment they have. both approaches worked in antique times.

        However, the reforms of Marius did not turn camp followers into legionnaires. instead Marius greatly reduced the number of camp followers and made the legionnaires carry their baggage themslves. Although this led to the slur of legionnaires being called Marius’ mules, it didn’t reduce the status of fighting men much (maybe somewhat as there were now legionaires from very poor families, but in the Roman empire legionnaires from very modest backgrounds rose to become emperors-so the status of legionnaires must have been high).

        Thus Roman history suggests that it matters a lot whether fighting men have status, not so much who bought and owns their weapons.

        • jim says:

          Jesus’ parable “walk the extra mile” is a reference to the fact that they could conscript civilians to carry their packs, but only for a mile.

          So, I doubt that they were entirely mules or entirely bereft of camp followers.

          It is recorded that the battle of Teutoburg Forest led to the slaughter of a huge number of camp followers. So the Roman army still had camp followers long after Marius.

          The Roman defeat at Teutoburg was the end of Roman expansion, so the whole time that they were expanding, they relied on camp followers for a substantial part of their logistics.

          The Roman Empire started falling apart with Diocletian’s command economy.

          The Roman Empire in the East recovered after the fall of the Roman Empire in the west when it abandoned the command economy.

          • Karl says:

            Of course they still had camp followers after the reforms of Marius. My point was merely that they had fewer than before.

            Sure things got really bad under Diocletian’s command economy, but the crisis of the thrid century started a bit before that. I agree that the recovery happend after and because the rest of the Roman empire abondoned the command economy.

            Anyway, Roman legions worked very well for a few hundred years with equipment bought and paid by the government.

            I entirely agree to your view of priests reducing the status of warriors by putting camp followers in the same uniform as fighting men, but I don’t think it makes much of a difference whether the fighting men or their officers or the government buy and pay for equipment.

            • jim says:

              The army of the Roman Republic was largely privately owned equipment. Looks to me that it did make a difference.

              When the Saracens were conquering Europe, Charles the Hammer instituted what became feudalism, requiring the possessor of property (including Bishoprics) to provide a well equipped and trained warrior, and assigning other people’s property to well equipped and trained warriors.

              We don’t have any information as to how he organized logistics, but this method of raising an army suggests private ownership of equipment and predominantly private logistics.

              Because war is a collective endeavour funded by taxation, confiscation, and plunder, it is always necessarily at least somewhat socialist, so it is difficult compare the degree of socialism of different armies at different times, but the army that saved Europe and founded the holy Roman Empire seems to have been have had predominantly private and property oriented logistics.

              Xenophon knew more about war than any of us, and demonstrated he was rather good at it, and he viewed socialist logistics as a dire circumstance forced upon him by enemy action.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Marius wanted soldiers to be fit and strong, which incidentally enhanced their mobility as well as all their other fighting characteristics. An army not living purely off the land will still be supported by camp followers because there is a limit to how much food a man can carry, a relatively low limit.

          Living purely off the land is a valid strategy that can sometimes achieve great victories, such as when the Japanese trounced the British in Singapore. It can also result in big disasters, such as when the Japanese army starved to death after Imphal. Big risk/big reward, not a strategy for every situation.

  4. Jatt Arya says:

    Even the Infantry must have a standardized weapon and ammunition load.
    Having different specs of support weapons is a disaster waiting to happen.
    The higher up you go the more standardization you need, the more shit costs and the more critical efficient logistics (standard operation & ammunition) is.

    Infantry getting their own armour or boots is fine, even then there’s the issue of who pays for the health costs later on?

    Military Men should control procurement over civilians, this is universally agreed upon.

    This would cut bureaucracy by 30-40% alone.
    An anti-war culture/religion due to the western christian base is the issue.

    Which billionaire is going to finance $50,000 machine guns or $5 mil apiece heavy artillery for his ‘men’ to use?
    Even a standard m4 full auto is a few grand without optics.

    Bulk orders also cost less.

    Stick to topics you know about.

    • jim says:

      > Even the Infantry must have a standardized weapon and ammunition load.

      You don’t need government central plan to have standardization. I am a civilian and my guns take standardized ammunition. Everyone uses a small number of USB forms and sim card forms. Everyone uses a small number of common ammunition forms.

      When someone makes a his own custom gun in his own machine shop, he usually makes it to a form factor that largely matches existing gun parts, closely following the design of an existing popular and widely used gun, usually a Glock.

      > Which billionaire is going to finance $50,000 machine guns.

      I fail to see the utility of $50 000 machine guns. A $70 000 technical typically carries weapons far more destructive. And there are plenty of private individuals of quite ordinary means who own technicals.

      There were privately owned warships to 1830, and there are still today a quite alarming number of privately owned self propelled ground weapons platforms.

      • Jatt Arya says:

        Those usb and sim card things are decided by committees.
        You need man portable LMGs & MMGs in order to cover the advance.

        The R&D costs of getting those weapons developed was from the state.
        The logistics chain of having spare parts & lubricant for rifles alone is hellish.

        They gave camp followers a warrior’s uniform because having them on the payroll means you they won’t jack up prices and leave when shit gets dangerous.

        Iraq war has had that problem with contractors.

        Everything has a structure, even the Taliban.
        You’ve finally reached your intellectual limits and are now spouting nonsense.

        You had a good run, better than most.
        I respect that.

        https://neoabsolutism.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/spontaneous-order-as-political-down-syndrome/

        • Ex says:

          You’re talking rubbish, Jatt.

          Jim is not proposing spontaneous order. Jim is proposing directed order from the army, and from the general of the army, but the general does not *micromanage* the individual soldier.

        • jim says:

          This is the argument that socialism works and capitalism does not, and if capitalism mysteriously works it must be because it is doing things in a socialist way.

          It is a stupid argument whose fallacy has been explained many times, and is falsified by every day experience.

          • Tema says:

            By its nature modern warfare tends to be a socialist enterprise. Not something individuals choose to do for glory and profit.

            • Not Tom says:

              Circular reasoning. What is this “nature”? What is “modern warfare”? You’re just taking the thing as it is currently implemented and saying it looks like socialism. Yes, we know that socialism looks like socialism.

        • jim says:

          > They gave camp followers a warrior’s uniform because having them on the payroll means you they won’t jack up prices and leave when shit gets dangerous.

          None of your arguments explain why everyone in the west did stuff the other way for two thousand years.

          • Jatt Arya says:

            Cuz cruise missiles, artillery & air power?

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @Jatt Arya

              The West had artillery and giant war machines for 2,400 years.

            • jack boot says:

              coming soon: space lasers and ultra high end drone shock troops

              if you look closely you notice pretty much all major technological advances since ww2 come directly out of the military industrial complex. sometimes it was “private” organizations but private in the sense of boeing or lockheed or raytheon. especially the really pernicious tech like cameras started with kodak in cold war satellites over ussr the internet was arpanet and the list goes on and on

              musk gets all his spacex money from government coffers. so presumably someone in the pentagon got fed up with the creeping sloth of the aerospace titans to farm out the globalist internet system to a little guy.

              muh billionaires

              • jim says:

                Nuts.

                Right now, the vast majority of SpaceX payloads are Musk building Starlink, the internet in space. Private satellites put up by private money by private purposes.

                The government has always been a disaster for technology – thus, during the war, they conscripted Hewlett Packard to Harvard and confiscated their stuff to build radars, and yes, they built some good radar and radar jamming technology. Very impressive.

                But modern radar and radar jamming technology is not based on that stuff. When Harvard had to compete with the private sector, did not go anywhere. Socialist America could outcompete national socialist Germany because they had a private sector to confiscate and conscript.

                And, like government radar, NASA’s government rockets did not go anywhere.

                If socialism could do science and technology, then the Soviet Union and Mao’s China would have had better stuff.

                Wherever you see a military with decent technology, it is because they have a healthy private sector to buy it from or confiscate it from.

                If socialism could produce high tech … https://blog.jim.com/images/socialism-vs-capitalism/cuba-singapore.png

                The difference is so obvious and enormous that you can see it from space: https://blog.jim.com/images/socialism-vs-capitalism/Koreas.jpg

                The difference is simple and glaringly obvious. Government cannot produce science and technology, except by buying it or confiscating it from private actors.

                • jack boot says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  We have already heard all the excuses for North Korea – and the excuses for each and every other socialist system.

                  Socialism has been tried innumerable times. Tell us about the one you do not have to make excuses for.

                • jack boot says:

                  nasa rockets went to the moon if you can believe that

                  america “outcompeted” germany because it was vastly vastly larger. americans were pro pro pro german because everyone knew who they were fighting. (jews) anti war sentiment was so overwhelming fdr (fdr!) resorted to sponsoring britain and russia by executive fiat and hardly anyone noticed

                  that’s how much bigger was (is) america. and germany still almost successfully secured their sovereignty.

                • jim says:

                  > nasa rockets went to the moon

                  Hitler conscripted Wernher von Braun from the rocket club,

                  Nasa’s rocket were not working, so NASA stole him from Hitler.

                  When NASA questioned him, he cooperated, but still their rockets did not work. So they put him in charge, and then their rockets worked.

                  And then he retired, and their rockets slowly stopped working.

                  Government cannot do technology except it buys, steals, or conscripts from the private sector.

                • jack boot says:

                  [*deleted*]

              • >coming soon: space lasers and ultra high end drone shock troops

                Artillery conquers, infantry occupies. You can destroy a place with everything from WWI artillery to space lasers, but you can *own* a place only by putting a 17 years old farm boy with a rifle on it.

        • Not Tom says:

          Those usb and sim card things are decided by committees.

          Yes. Committees of perhaps a dozen people, from half as many companies. What is your point here? You don’t think guys from Glock, SIG Sauer, and Smith & Wesson ever get together at industry events? What do you think all those industry events are for?

          • jim says:

            There are no end of custom and semi custom copies of the glock, including individually made knockoffs made in someone’s garage machine shop. That is individual and spontaneous standardization. You follow standards to avoid re-inventing the wheel, and so that you can interoperate with everyone else following the same standard, whether you are building a gun, a computer, or writing an encryption program.

            • Not Tom says:

              Sure – I wasn’t arguing against individuals doing individual crafts following the standards set more broadly by either business or governments. My point is only that even without any external incentive to standardize, businesses of all sizes will get together to standardize on certain things in order to lower their costs in areas where they don’t compete.

              Most browsers now use Chromium as the standard engine. Every single legacy database company standardized on the SQL language, and “nosql” databases are probably going to standardize on something like UnQL. Almost all of the backend software industry standardized on either Java or C++. The entertainment industry standardized on HDMI. Increasingly, electronic device manufacturers of all kinds are throwing away the silly power adapters and relying on USB-C – even Apple did away with their proprietary adapters. Plumbing, lumber, wiring, lighting, joints, hinges, locks, flooring, paint, because every aisle in Home Depot – all standardized.

              Sure, there may be considerable variation within the standard, everyone putting their own little flair on it – color connectors, gold-plated cables, different sizes of nails or screws – but nobody is out there inventing their own. Well, no one except the logistics officers at the U.S. military and the people they contract out to.

              It’s just easier when you can outsource these decisions.

      • Rogeru says:

        Modern ground warfare relies on air support and armored vehicles, not just relatively cheap rifles. I’m not sure how big ticket items like these could be procured without creating a situation where the suppliers of difficult to obtain but essential equipment could potentially veto the general’s strategy.

        Modern everything is tied to an immovable manufacturing base and whoever controls the supply chain is the real commander.
        Do we really want Amazon to have an army?

        • Jatt Arya says:

          Also, which general?

          Army Airforce or Navy?

          The entire idea is asinine and doesn’t understand combined arms warfare.

          Lol have fun getting enough trucks & rifles let alone machine guns and grenades with this setup Jim.

          Militia larping doesn’t make an army..
          Have fun with the new Fed attention though. :shrug:

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            Yes, because there is no civilian market for trucks in the United States that you could buy from /s.

            What Jim describes might have an issue with massive peak demand (like the sudden need for a million artillery shells for a barrage), but items the military constantly needs and have a short ramp up time can easily be dealt with by the market.

            • Not Tom says:

              Markets have been repeatedly shown to be more efficient than governments at dealing with sudden spikes in demand, anyway.

              Yes, the cost would go up. So what? That’s not really a big deal for the military, which has essentially infinite funds. So it would drive up consumer costs in wartime, diverting more of the supply to the military that can actually afford it, which is exactly the intended outcome.

              This isn’t just theory, it literally happened, over and over.

              • jim says:

                Because war is an inherently collective endeavor, and because it is always funded and operated by coercion, one is always going to wind up doing a substantial amount of socialist stuff.

                But putting Lord Cardigan’s cook in uniform is just an attack on warrior status.

                You cannot fight a war in a strictly pure libertarian pure fashion. But you can get a vast and slow Washington bureaucracy out of the way of the man on the battlefield. Markets work. They work so well that Xenophon, in between using violence to feed the army by pillage, used violence impose free markets at swordpoint in order to ensure that individual warriors could buy food at individually negotiated free market prices.

                Xenophon talks about logistics a lot. And when he talks about logistics, he talks about both seizing stuff, which is to say socialism, and free markets with individually negotiated prices. The trouble with socialist logistics is that if the army was doing logistics in hostile territory, Xenophon’s ten thousand were vulnerable to defeat in detail by what we would call guerrilla war. Life is a lot easier if individual peasants freely bring food to the army, rather than if the army has to compel food to come to it. The administrative problem of obtaining supplies in a socialist fashion created vulnerability, so Xenophon did his best to avoid it.

                Xenophon still wound up doing one hell of a lot of socialism. No libertarian purity for Xenophon. But socialism was a pain in the ass, imposed on him by hostile circumstances.

                • Not Tom says:

                  To the extent that socialist systems appear to work, it’s because they are islands of socialism surrounded by a sea of capitalism. If enough excess is being produced, some of it can be skimmed to pay for socialism, as long as the latter is totally contained and not allowed to expand.

                  An army isn’t much different. It doesn’t matter where the funds come from, but someone else has to pay. Armies can run localized command-and-control economies as long as they’re supplied by a decentralized economy.

                  Putting the cooks in uniform is centralizing the supply, which doesn’t work, for the same reason that expanding the military command-and-control structure over the domestic economy doesn’t work. Centralized production has to be supported by a much larger amount of decentralized production.

                  This is also why extremely large companies that appear to run in a highly-centralized fashion are still able to turn a profit. They outsource a ton of the work to decentralized producers, for example big tech relying heavily on open-source software, or Amazon acting as a reseller for many smaller stores and suppliers.

                  I’m not arguing for “spontaneous order” here, or for any libertarian principles whatsoever. Quite the opposite; the command-and-control economy of the military is absolutely necessary to secure the land and its borders, and even adventurism can be highly profitable if the conquered territory is valuable in some way (even if it’s just for the women). But it can’t operate in a vacuum; the warriors need the merchants as much as the merchants need the warriors.

              • Jatt Arya says:

                Free market = Have farmers sell grain stores so that they starve during famine.

                Will be fun to watch neo-Anglos get whacked due to this retardation tier ideology.

                • jim says:

                  The farmers know how much grain they will need, and if there is going to be grain shortage, they will hold back.

                  The government, however, is apt to declare an age of abundance, kill the peasant’s cows, and take the peasant’s seed corn.

                  Which does indeed result in abundance for a short time.

                  A few years later, however, …

                • Not Tom says:

                  What “ideology”? Stop criticizing arguments that no one is making, and stay on topic for once.

                  Or are you just like every other shill, here to repeat the same talking points over and over again without actually engaging in any dialogue?

                • ten says:

                  no, socialism means confiscating farmers grain stores so that they starve during famine. Free market means letting them sell what they want to sell to the price they can sell it at, and if that is not enough for the army, go socialism instead and let them starve.

                  Remarkably stupid commie, this one.

                • Bilge Pump says:

                  Is this guy an Indian? I’m sick of seeing Indians around. Wish they would go back to the shithole country they created instead of mucking things up here.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “Is this guy an Indian? I’m sick of seeing Indians around. Wish they would go back to the shithole country they created instead of mucking things up here.”

                  Jews have both good and bad qualities.

                  Dot Indians are what happens if you take jews and amplify the bad qualities by a factor of 10 and reduce the good qualities by a similar factor.

                  They have had a couple good mathematicians I like certain aspects of Hindu thought but overall we’d be better off if we had no contact with the street shitters.

            • Jatt Arya says:

              When I say trucks I mean ones built to military specs like HEMTs

              • jim says:

                Like the military specs for coffee makers, hammers, nuts, and bolts?

              • The Cominator says:

                I’ve yet to weigh in on this but thinking about this I mostly agree with Jim.

                Logistical and support equipment don’t need to be built to military specs that just massively drives up cost and drives down availability and units are forced to trade on the black market for equipment.

                Only actual expensive combat equipment tanks, planes, warships, helicopters and perhaps smart bombs and missles needs actual military specs and insourcing. You don’t armored division generals dependent on ordering cheap chinese knockoff tanks and planes but its fine if their hammers and small arms are ordered on the market.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You don’t armored division generals dependent on ordering cheap chinese knockoff tanks and planes

                  In that specific case I agree, because Chinese companies have a habit of screwing over the American consumers and producers they supply. We can’t even get steel from them that is close to 100% steel.

                  On the other hand, most militaries actually do something like this, and it seems to work okay for them. They don’t outsource to foreign private industry, but they do outsource to foreign governments. Almost every army and air force depends heavily on technology from either China, Russia, or the USA. Hardly anyone is completely insourced.

                  Even the USG outsources far more of its weapon and vehicle construction than people realize; it’s just outsourced in the form of no-bid contracts to the same two or three well-connected suppliers, which is a lousy system, but still better than the insourcing of most “standard issue” supplies and gear, because there is actual competition, sort of. Remember this tweet?

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well it happens with the middle eastern moon worshippers and Russian equipment too.

                  The Russians sell the Arabs shitty military equipment and laugh at them for being dumb enough to buy it… its been going on since at least the Six Day war…

                • Not Tom says:

                  The Russians sell the Arabs shitty military equipment and laugh at them for being dumb enough to buy it

                  Worked out well enough for the Arabs in Syria.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Well the Alawites and the religious minority Arabs in Syria didn’t win the war against Al Qaeda and ISIS.

                  The Russian military (posing as “mercs”) won that war for them. So it was Russians using their own military equipment though after Trump the US air force helped with ISIS.

                • Not Tom says:

                  That’s nonsense. It was Assad and his legitimate military that did most of the work. They may have had some Russian help, like air support, but the boots on the ground were Syrian.

          • alf says:

            The entire idea is asinine and doesn’t understand combined arms warfare.

            Lol have fun getting enough trucks & rifles let alone machine guns and grenades with this setup Jim.

            See, to me, the entire idea sounds brilliant. A typical example of Jim being in the future by looking at the past.

            Of course, the litmus test shall be when an army commander tries out this out-sourcing method vs an army with 20th century in-sourcing methods. Ain’t over till it’s over, but I know who I’d bet my money on.

            • Guerrilla regiment-equivalent level commanders often outsource* logistics out of pure necessity – no state entity to back them up, ordering everything through Central Command Cave jeopardizes opsec, etc. So, they cut deals with local business, local thugs and smugglers and private citizens for their logistical needs. Guerrilla orgs often punch way above their weight and run circles around logistics-insourcing armies.

              *Not really outsourcing. The guy providing grub or smuggling guns for the guerrillas is often the commander’s cousin, uncle or brother.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          Control of the supply chain from Amazon isn’t an issue, men with guns being convincing argument.

          You are correct on big ticket items (ones that have no civilian use)- they are going to have to be centralized. There is no civilian market for aircraft carriers (yet!)

          Replacement parts are the area with the most possible gain from Jim’s solution; I don’t know how far this extends.

        • jim says:

          That is an argument for government built warships, and indeed governments have been building warships for a very long time, so there is obviously a practical reason to do it that way.

          It is not an argument for putting camp followers in uniform. It is not an argument against Lord Cardigan’s French chef or his horse.

        • Yeah, try vetoing a general’s strategy when he is surrounded by actual warriors. Let’s see how that works out for you.

          If the contractors are even *allowed* to protest, the only reason to listen to them is if they have some practical concern about the operation.

          • Rogeru says:

            If the suppliers are in California and the general and his troops are in -stan, I don’t think his rifles are going to have much impact in the discussion.

        • jim says:

          Yes, we want Amazon to have an army – notice the constitution specifically authorizes “letters of marque and reprisal”, which are authorizations issued by the government to private organizations to make war.

          Light unarmored weapon platform vehicles are already made by private enterprise for private enterprise, and the only thing stopping people from making deadly drone robot assassins is the government.

          Warplanes, tanks, and warships, maybe the customers for these are so few and so powerful that they are in effect produced by socialism, but socialist production of rockets has clearly failed. If NASA puts another man on the moon, it is mainly because they health and safety regulated Musk against putting a man on the moon.

          And even if we suppose socialism is necessary for war (and it often is necessary, not because it is effective, but because despite its terrible ineffectiveness the army sometimes just urgently needs to confiscate stuff) that is still not an argument for giving Lord Cardigan an army issue uniform and putting his cook in military uniform.

          Giving logistics workers military uniforms and military ranks is stealing honor from warriors.

          • Not Tom says:

            The founders who came up with the second amendment didn’t just want their fellow countrymen to own guns; they wanted them to own cannons and ships as well. It’s in their writings. Maybe that’s partly because they’d already been bitten by the Whig bug, but I think those revolutionaries knew a thing or two about making war.

            I’m not so convinced that there’s no private market for warships. Even the extremely left-wing sci-fi writers and producers all somehow manage to imagine a future in which governments don’t have a monopoly on weapons or space travel. And it makes sense; the wider the frontier, the less of it that governments and armies and navies are going to be able to patrol and police. If they don’t have the resources to secure all trade, the next best thing is to have the trade secure itself. It’s easier to believe, today, that private armaments aren’t very important because the frontier is not expanding; but it could, and almost certainly will, expand again.

            And civilian society has proven surprisingly inventive at adapting military technology for non-military purposes. Lasers, heat shields, GPS, radar, microwaves, computers and the internet all started out as military tech, and are all essential in the private sector today. Gunpowder was the original military tech, and pretty much all modern transportation derives from it in some way. Even nuclear fission turned out to have civilian applications. People who say that there’s “no market” for military tech outside the military itself tend to be lacking in imagination.

          • R7 Rocket says:

            @Jim
            Regarding the Eye of Soros’s “Health and Safety” vector of attack on Starship/Superheavy passenger travel.

            Here’s Mike Snead’s demand to make spaceplanes mandatory for reusable rocketship design. The comment section on that article was full of replies Mike Snead that space planes are a discredited concept for reusable rockets while SpaceX’s VTVL reusable rockets are now a proven concept.

            As soon as Boeing canceled it’s latest fake space plane project last month (Boeing and Lockheed Martin have been making fake space plane projects back-and-forth for 50 years. Before Boeing XS-1, there was the Reusable Booster System that Lockheed Martin was pretending to develop), Mike Sneed deleted all the comments on that article.

            It looks like Starship/Superheavy development is moving way too fast for the Eye of Soros, so Soros is trying to make transport of humans on it illegal… because “health and safety” of course. Outright making all human space flight illegal will cause the generals and the prætorians to notice Soros’s jibber-jabbering evil…

            A multiplanetary civilization renders Soros’s negroid bioweapons useless.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              And for some entertainment, a demonstration that Wikipedia is useless as a source for political article.

              People are trying to update the cancellation of XS-1, but a Cathedral agent is deleting those updates.

              The actual Wikipedia article still doesn’t include the cancellation as of now.

              • jim says:

                Wikipedia has now reluctantly and belated acknowledged the cancellation.

                But it will not acknowledge that spaceplanes suck, will not report the long history of unsuccessful and frequently fake attempts to produce a spaceplane.

                Feynman tells us in his discussion of the Shuttle disaster that the reason NASA always wanted space planes is for bureaucratic empire building reasons. It is the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The military was always opposed to the Aeronautics Administration getting space. It wanted space, and it wanted real, Heinleinesque, rockets.

                Space Force is the military getting what it wants, though only on paper so far. And only Musk has the capability to get rods from God in space in numbers that make them a useful weapon, at a price that makes them a cost effective weapon for small high value well defended targets far behind enemy lines, such as Iran’s supreme leader.

      • TBeholder says:

        One of the big problems with logistics is mobilization. Which was massive, thus a lot of pain to do before Cold War scaled things down to mostly-proxy wars.
        The faster you do it, the more numbers are on your side and the less your guys get clobbered. The defender needs capability to respond, thus fast mobilization, while attacker needs surprise, thus faster mobilization as well. And having reserves to throw around at all means not being caught with pants down by anything unexpected.
        The obvious way to minimize delays and unreliability was to have the necessary amount of reservists listed with their addresses (and as many as possible already pulled for “retraining”, “maneuvers” or “guarding against an entirely unrelated threat”), and everything you want to give them already stored in your warehouses.
        Which requires having all this (warehouses full of uniforms, weapons and so on, in greater amounts than peacetime army needs, plus personnel to guard and deploy it all) in first place. Of course, building up and keeping these reserves must have some… unintended consequences. Starting in peace time.

        You don’t need government central plan to have standardization. I am a civilian and my guns take standardized ammunition. Everyone uses a small number of USB forms and sim card forms. Everyone uses a small number of common ammunition forms.

        Not that small.
        But there’s nothing terrible with narrowing it down, via accepting organization wide standards (that actually can be met) for basic stuff, and letting the prospective sources of supply know what the demand is going to look like. If they want to play, they’ll meet specifications. As long as there are legitimate paths to evolve.

        • jim says:

          War is inherently a collective endeavor, and it has been routine for thousands of years to collectively organize and compel camp followers in various ways. The army has always been fed by a mixture of markets with compulsion and central planning and a horde of camp followers, many of them abducted, some of them independent contractors.

          What has not, however, been done until recently is put the camp followers in warrior uniform, give them military ranks, and collectivize Lord Cardigan’s kit.

          An army is inherently socialist and logistics is inherently partly socialist. But socializing every little item is not an inherent necessity of war, but rather an inherent necessity of putting camp followers in uniform and giving them military ranks and forms of organization.

          There is a good case for government warships, and governments have been building warships for a very long time, indicating there are sound practical reasons for doing it that way. Albeit there are also sound practical reasons to outsource even big items like moon rockets, and governments have been outsourcing warships for about as long as they have been insourcing them.

          But making Lord Cardigan’s kit government issue is just an attack on his status, and giving the men who issue his uniform military uniforms and military ranks is just an attack on the status of the fighting men that Lord Cardigan commands.

          The government took away Lord Cardigan’s tailor to lower his status, and put the tailors in uniform to lower the status of his men.

          • A lot of confusion could be avoided if you’d stop referring to all government intervention as “socialism”. Yes, governments sometimes shake merchants down for loose change or toys, yes, both priestly and warrior governments do that and yes, war is a collective endeavor, but no, none of this constitutes socialism (i. e. government ownership and/or control of the means of production), which would refer to systematic, as opposed to ad-hoc, and ideological, as opposed to opportunistic and urgency-driven disruption of property rights. I prefer to think of it as exercising economic sovereignty.

            • The Cominator says:

              Arguing for a stpidly narrow definition of socialism is a common tactic of communists and socialists.

              • Hm. We do need a broader definition of socialism than governmental control of the “means of production”, but something narrower than “just any intervention”.

                How about this? Intervention is socialism if at least one of the below are true:

                1) centralized provision
                2) justified by idealistic language

                So the government buying a hundred thousand rifles and handing it to soldiers is socialism as in 1).

                If the government is regulating the price of bread because the poor are starving that is socialism as in 2).

                If captains buy rifles for their men but the government is regulating the price the sellers can charge for that, that isn’t really socialism but more like “suck it up, guys, that’s your contribution to the war effort”. Of course will have a tendency to rifles to disappear from the market when a captain is around, but that’s a different thing.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Socialism is the principle that government should not only be in charge of some good or service, but provide it to the public “for free”. If government provides it at a cost that is not well below the market rate, it’s generally called “nationalized” or “subsidized” but not “socialized”. Socialized implies nationalized, but not the other way around.

                  Public parking is government-run, but not socialism. You still have to pay for that parking spot. Governments make a lot of money from public parking, and generally run the lots pretty well, although I’m sure YMMV. Lotteries, state-run liquor stores and public utilities are other examples. Governments actually profit from these businesses, and although they aren’t great, certainly not as well-run as the private sector, they aren’t horrible either, like the DMV or public schools.

                  This is why I reject the frame that military is socialism. “Taxes for defense” is an explicit contract in most people’s minds. There is something just inherently obvious about paying some mercenaries to make the bad people go away. But “taxes for health care” is never explicit; socialized health care is only ever discussed in the context of government already somehow having the money to pay for it.

                  It is almost always more efficient for a government to tax a privately-run business than to run the business itself, and I don’t advocate for government-run businesses, but socialism in particular is characterized by a lack of price transparency; no direct revenue, just an opaque line item in the public budget. Crown corporations were in existence long before Marxism.

                  To Jim’s point below, that is also the difference between NASA and SpaceX. NASA has no source of funding other than the federal budget; SpaceX intends to profit from its activities.

                • jim says:

                  > Socialism is the principle that government should not only be in charge of some good or service, but provide it to the public “for free”.

                  Not so. The greenies propose socialism, they often rightly call it socialism, “capitalist greed is destroying the earth”, and they just propose to take stuff away and destroy it, not give anything to anyone.

                  The priestly class has no end of morally outstanding reasons for exercising supremacy over the warrior and merchant classes, and when they have a morally outstanding reason for exercising supremacy over the merchant class, it is socialism.

                  And when they have a morally outstanding reason for meddling in warrior logistics, it is also socialism, but when they have morally outstanding reasons for meddling in warrior sex lives and hampering their combat effectiveness, it is not socialism, it is lawyer infested warfare.

                • Not Tom says:

                  The greenies propose socialism, they often rightly call it socialism, “capitalist greed is destroying the earth”, and they just propose to take stuff away and destroy it, not give anything to anyone.

                  Nah, that’s communism – for that, they just have to seize the means of production, no one said what they’d do with it afterward. They may call it socialism, but that’s only to avoid the stigma of communism.

                • pdimov says:

                  >Lotteries […] are other examples.

                  Lotteries (even state-run) are actually the complete opposite of socialism, literally. I like citing them as an example to people who come at me with the theory that people are inherently attracted to equality.

                  While socialist redistribution takes from the rich and gives to the poor, the lottery takes from the poor and makes someone rich.

                  Back to topic, socialism is the idea that economic inequality needs to be eliminated, suppressed or countered. That’s why Jim’s example of taking stuff from the “rich” and destroying it is socialism – it reduces inequality.

                • @pdimov

                  The poor play the lottery because, yes, they want to be as obviously non-equal as possible, examples like the Chav King with his huge golden chain and all that.

                  I and most non-poor and non-idiotic people I know play the lottery not for becoming rich in that sense, luxuries, but 1) economic security, not even our great-grandchildren should see want 2) to be free from jobs one does not like to do, the dream that all your descendants will not need to work for money but only work on what they like to.

                  Interestingly, these two are also typically part of the socialist promises. Economic security certainly, but often they sort of promise to turn work into a kind of play. The reality is always the opposite, but anyway, just saying they are tapping into really existing human desires there.

            • jim says:

              Need a word to point to the difference between NASA and Musk.

              If not socialism, what?

              • Karl says:

                bureaucracy?

              • pdimov says:

                Diversity.

              • NASA is a socialist entity in it that it is government-owned and -operated, run at a loss to provide a nominally free service and good.
                Musk is using govt. money as seed capital for a profitable business, which hopefully returns many times on its investment not only to Musk’s bottom line, but everyone.
                But a military commander requisitioning resources from a private actor against the private actor’s will does not constitute socialism.
                Continental property law distinguishes between expropriation and requisition, which constitute ad-hoc government seizure or liens on private property (expropriation when done by civilian government, requisition when done by military) and nationalization, which is the systematic seizure of property and chiefly capital assets in order to secure the means of production for the government.
                Historically, European royal regimes engaged in requisition and expropriation, even against the nobles, in order to get various things done, chiefly for the defense of the realm or maybe the constructions of road or agricultural infrastructure. They also issued charters and patent rights to guilds and merchants, giving them exclusive rights to manufacture or trade certain goods within the realm, et al.
                The government swinging its dick around to seize property through eminent domain or crack down on patent violators might not be nice, but it doesn’t constitute socialism. The difference being that everyone involved understands that the property rights violations are temporary, driven by emergency and not ideological, systemic and will likely not repeat in the future. Expropriated and requisitioned good are also usually paid for by the expropriating or requisitioning entity.

    • Bob says:

      >Even a standard m4 full auto is a few grand without optics.

      >Bulk orders also cost less.

      >Stick to topics you know about.

      You can buy an m4 from the same supplier as the military for $1500 here and mill out the receiver with a hand drill and router, then put in $80 of parts and you have exactly what the military has.

      Or you could get a “just as good” ar for under a thousand, then mill and drill its receiver, add the $80 kit, and viola.

      Either you don’t know this topic, or you’re correct and have proved the point for Jim.

      • Jatt Arya says:

        service contract + spare part cache.

        Jim asked what the need for an lmg is..

        His thoughts are fine till maybe company level.

        I won’t even deny that this setup is superior for an elite paramilitary intent on seizing power post collapse.

        However, not for conventional war LOL.

        • Bob says:

          You pulling that out of your butt like you did the prices?

          • Jatt Arya says:

            No, I have a general idea of what shit costs.

            I don’t nerd over the details.

            Was correct either way, have fun with your lolbertarian larping.

            • Not Tom says:

              “I don’t nerd over the details” = “I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about and don’t care if I’m even in the same ballpark as reality as long as I get to repeat my talking points”

            • Bob says:

              If some of your facts come out of your butt, is the rest of your nonsense covered in poop? Why should we believe anything else your’e farting about?

    • Not Tom says:

      An anti-war culture/religion due to the western christian base is the issue.

      Which billionaire is going to finance $50,000 machine guns or $5 mil apiece heavy artillery for his ‘men’ to use?

      Do you think that the only difference between a $500 Glock 21 and a $50,000 machine gun is the cost of parts and labor?

      Do you think that a Glock would cost anywhere near as low as $500 if there wasn’t a semi-open market with hundreds of millions of purchases and trades?

      It’s not culture that makes military equipment expensive, it’s centralization and scarcity. You can argue that said centralization and scarcity is necessary in some cases, as Jim has already pointed out, but don’t try to bullshit us into believing that socialism works great as long as you have the right “culture”. That’s moronic.

      • Bob says:

        What machine gun costs $50k? The m2 is like $14k.

        • Not Tom says:

          None, as far as I know; I was quoting the nonsensical figure from Mr. Le 56% Arya over there.

          • Bob says:

            I totally gotcha. I can’t stand his bs.

            • Jatt Arya says:

              Eh, I was wrong on the price.
              Not by as much as you think when you factor everything in though.

              Point still the same regardless,
              even your Dad Jim has admitted you need a mixture of things.

              Military already outsources a lot of shit..
              Doesn’t actually mean it’s better

              • Not Tom says:

                Right, “not by much”. Only by a factor of 5-10x.

                Do you ever listen to yourself talk? Or read what you write?

              • Bob says:

                You’re even more wrong about the price than what I said. I quoted non-sale, one-off prices. Dealers get a big chunk off and bulk orders get bigger chunks off.

            • Jatt Arya says:

              You want to suck free market bs because you can’t say niggers shouldn’t be in America.

              I get it.

              I still think it’s gay

              Ideally, the Warrior gets to pick his own kit with someone else’s money. 😀

              • Not Tom says:

                Those two things have nothing to do with each other. Africans screw things up no matter what the system is, and socialism makes everyone poorer no matter what the demographics look like.

                Stop trying to connect whiteness or European ancestry to socialism. Socialism is only the ideology of shit-tier leftist whites who are every bit as destructive as the Africans you always try to distract us with when someone points out how retarded your arguments are.

                Blacks and mestizos are the ones who always vote for socialism. It’s precisely because we want capitalism that they need to be marginalized. If all you want to do is loot, then they are your greatest allies.

                And they have nothing to do with this conversation, so don’t try to change the subject.

    • TBeholder says:

      Which billionaire is going to finance $50,000 machine guns or $5 mil apiece heavy artillery for his ‘men’ to use?
      Even a standard m4 full auto is a few grand without optics.
      Bulk orders also cost less.

      And then there were hammers for $435 and toilet seats for $540 (and another time for $10000). If those did “cost less”, how much it could cost on open market…
      Oh wait. The Pentagon prices are not market prices. And not because of bulk order discounts. So, your argument bites your own behind.

      • Jatt Arya says:

        I just want big guns and Idc where they come from..

        Easier to fleece the tax sheep then convince a billionaire who actually knows the value of money. :shrug:

        • jim says:

          Of course the army is funded by coercion and violence. And in substantial part supplied by coercion and violence, which is to say by socialism. But feeding it by coercion turns out to be so complicated, ineffectual, and dangerous that the wise commander relies on the free market wherever possible, and applies as little coercion as possible. Socialist food is an emergency measure to be avoided as much as possible.

          The only reason to put Lord Cardigan’s cook in uniform is to lower his status, and lower the status of his warriors. Maybe there is an argument for socialist provision of heavy artillery, but any argument for socialist provision of man carried weapons and light vehicle weapon platforms is just a rationalization for putting non fighters in the costumes of stolen valor.

          • Jatt Arya says:

            Agreed.

            Infantry can mostly do its own thing.

            Everything else is just a supporting arm of the Infantry anyway.

            Socialist food = pillaging countryside

            How many men do you think a general should command?

            A general doesn’t really command a battalion and you want your men using similar weapons, ammo, kit etc.

            I’d agree that within general guidelines spending power should be de-centralized.
            Many militaries seem to be moving in this direction buoyed by the robust civilian market for such kit.

            Liability is still an issue, if a grenade blows up in the tube who’s responsible?

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      The 18th century system was to give the colonel the budget and let him keep what he doesnt spend, with the condition he must raise his own men without compulsion and is honour bound to lead them in battle – giving an incentive for both efficiency and quality.

      This is objected to not on the grounds that it doesnt provide efficiency or quality, but on grounds that the colonel making a profit is immoral.

      Today the military is a government job for people who dont value their time, but in the RN’s age of glory RN officers frequently became millionaires and sometimes billionaires from their service, people like Nelson being the Musks of their day.

    • ten says:

      You are such an incredible dumbass, paganfag.

      The argument goes “logistics should be a market issue, and apart from that, even insourced logistics crews are not soldiers”, to which you respond “Hah! Billionaires will not buy good gear for their soldiers and standardization can not happen without socialist logistics!” which is mind numbingly retarded and puts your reading comprehension at a solid flatline

  5. ten says:

    Can you talk about the soviet defeat of germany in this context? I am largely ignorant of details, but didn’t the soviet arms and armor factories perform quite well, and their logistics too? Implying socialist army logistics isn’t a straight failure mode.

    I suppose they were up against an equally socialistically administered foe, so it’s not a gotcha.

    • Strannik says:

      The defeat of Nazi Germany by the Soviet Union was no accident, and would have been impossible under any other system than what they had, much less any other ideological system or the one Jim proposes on this matter.

      Soviet military doctrine before the Axis invasion in 1941 was in fact quite correct, that of ”Deep Operation”;

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

      It simply isn’t possible to outsource modern warfare, but you do very much need commanders with real combat experience leading from the front, killers who understand the realities of battle.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        The only special outperformance of the USSR in WWII compared to the other powers was its ability to take 100x as many losses against a numerically inferior enemy without seeking a diplomatic settlement.

        • Strannik says:

          Often repeated, but that didn’t happen. Most losses of the Soviet Union’s were civilians exterminated by the Germans and Soviet POW’s in Axis camps, from starvation and disease. Military losses were roughly 1 German lost versus 1.3 Soviet. Soviets had the best tanks-the T-34 and the KV-1, and the better overall military doctrine (not to mention they already knew the German Officer Corps, that had studied and trained in Russia in the 1920’s and early 30’s under the terms of the secret treaty of Rapallo). No, the Germans got beat because they were fundamentally stupid ideologically.

          • The Cominator says:

            I thought military losses were something like 4 to 1. 1.3 to 1 from operation bagration onwards.

            • Strannik says:

              Military losses were almost always around 1.3 to 1, but at the frontier in the early days the Germans actually had superiority in numbers in some areas, and the best Russian troops were at the frontier awaiting them, and got clobbered, with those higher ratios Oliver Cromwell mentions. The losses were high on both sides, but harder for the Russians to replace, because on the job training in those circumstances is a bitch. However, they stuck to their Deep Operations playbook, maintaining flexibility for both defense in depth and returning to the attack on short notice.

              Where the huge cost was, was in civilian lives lost. There is not a family I do not know that didn’t lose several dead.

              • The Cominator says:

                Apparently 4 to 1. German military deaths and missing on the eastern front were a little over 2 million, Soviets over 8 million, now i know this includes the opening Barbarossa campaign where the Soviet border armies were just encircled and destroyed but Soviets still suffered disproportionate military deaths until 1944.

                • Strannik says:

                  Since the opening of the Soviet Archives and examination of them by actual patriotic Russian historians, not liberals, the numbers reflect that beginning stages of Barbarossa, the Germans had 3.8 million men including other Axis forces while the Soviets had almost 2.7 million men in the Western military districts. In those months most of those men were killed or captured, over half the entire original Soviet Army. That being the case, after the Moscow counter-offensive the ratio of killed and captured was more equally matched. Losing that many men and equipment early on meant that much more brutal of a campaign later on. It wasn’t luck, it wasn’t lend lease, ultimately it was the Russian soldiers unyielding might and implacable hatred of the Fascists that doomed the Axis, that and the system which organized them far better than what their fathers had to deal with in 1914-1917.

                • BC says:

                  Germans KM/D ratio with the Russian remained 3-4 to 1 for almost the entire war. The Soviets fought like shit. Axis allied troops where garbage armies without enough of anything to fight effectively and most did little more than garrison work while the Germans did the heavy fighting.

                  The German army didn’t fight spectacular well in Russia, but the foe they faced was absolute garbage.

                • The Cominator says:

                  If you take out the completely lopsided 1.3 million Soviet troops killed and taken prisoner in the first weeks of Barbarossa (for a German loss of I believe 150 to 200 thousand) its still roughly 3 to 1 over the rest of the war.

                  I think the Russians got to roughly 1.3 to 1 from operation Bagration onward. As for the Axis satellite states I think the Rumanians did “okay” while the Hungarian and Italian armies were just garbage.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Its not so much that the average Russian soldier fought like shit its that the German army (until 1944 anyway) had far better officers and especially far better NCOs.

                • BC says:

                  >Its not so much that the average Russian soldier fought like shit its that the German army (until 1944 anyway) had far better officers and especially far better NCOs.

                  The average Russian soldier fought like shit. The UK suffered a similar issue with bad officers in the field but when they had a 2-3 superiority in tanks, artillery, and supplies, etc they generally beat the Germans. The Russians had a ridiculous 10 to 1 advantage in tanks/guns/etc and got their shit pushed in continually. The Soviets barely trained their troops because they were dying so fast.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            Sure, “only” 4-5 : 1 in military losses in the opening campaign, but civilian losses also count in persuading a state to make peace. USSR’s intransigence in the face of this huge disaster was genuinely impressive, but not a testament to the quality of its equipment or organisation.

            • Strannik says:

              Nothing wrong with the equipment or the organizational quality, it’s more a testament to the ferocity of the initial German attack with numerous seasoned troops with a high ideological commitment.

              However… The Soviet Union was preparing for that moment for 20 years, at least with Stalin and a few others in the Soviet leadership. They had to do in 10 years (the 20’s were a wasted decade of power struggle and chaos) what took the West 100 years to do-carry out an militarized Industrial Revolution from almost scratch with the certain knowledge that there would be war with Germany again.

              What did come as a shock was the timing. Greece and Yugoslavia basically won WWII for the allies, critical weeks lost that would have come as an even greater destructive shock…

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                The Russian Empire was a great power already in 1917, the Bolshevils being brought to power by the Tsar losing much less badly in 3 years than Stalin lost in 3 months. The Russian Empire was less advanced than the US and UK in 1917, but so was the USSR in 1941. The main difference between the two was the solidity of the political leadership; the Tsar, like Stalin, would also have won had he held on, because the total economic capacity of the Russian alliance was much greater than that of the German, in both wars.

                The long commitment of the USSR to war rightly makes it look worse. Germany has been disarmed 6 years before the start of WWII, worse prepared than the Kaiserreich had been, while the USSR had been a military state since before the beginning, inheriting the Tsar’s wartime army and the unique sanction of Western “pacifists” to remain armed. All else being equal, the USSR should have been on Berlin by Autumn 1941.

                It wasn’t because its all-in bureuacratic production and organisation system had produced crappy tanks commanded by office politicians.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “The Russian Empire was a great power already in 1917, the Bolshevils being brought to power by the Tsar losing much less badly in 3 years than Stalin lost in 3 months.”

                  Not sure I entirely agree, the Russians were not outproducing the Germans in World War I they certainly were massively outproducing them in WWII though they were heavily dependent on “lend-lease” for certain critical items like trucks and other support vehicles.

                  Communism sucked but Stalin despite his mistakes was the only one of the Bolshevik leaders (with the possible exception of the would be Deng Xiaoping Bukharin) who would have won.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Also as much as Hitler was generally a total fuckup from 1941 on the German front likely would have completely distegrated after the failure of operation Typhoon (the Moscow offensive) if not for Hitler’s “stand or die” order in the manner of Napoleon’s Grand Armee.

                • Strannik says:

                  You said;

                  ”The Russian Empire was a great power already in 1917, the Bolshevils being brought to power by the Tsar losing much less badly in 3 years than Stalin lost in 3 months.”

                  No, things were much worse under the Tsar as Russian documentation is showing. For example, by 1915 much of the Russian Officer Corps had ceased to exist. Logistics-which was largely free market-was a nightmare. And Nicholas II was a total dithering ninny whose high command was a snakepit of intrigue instead of patriotism.

                  ”The Russian Empire was less advanced than the US and UK in 1917, but so was the USSR in 1941.”

                  Not from statistics i’ve seen and been told about. By every economic metric, the Soviet Union in 1941 was an entirely different entity than Russia in 1914-1917, and that in a far better way.

                  ”The main difference between the two was the solidity of the political leadership; the Tsar, like Stalin, would also have won had he held on, because the total economic capacity of the Russian alliance was much greater than that of the German, in both wars.”

                  But the Tsar was the Tsar, and his military intelligence begged him to sign a ceasefire in 1916 with the Central Powers or face Revolution, and to prepare for another war in 20 years. He did not, owing colossal debts to French and British banks.

                  And, it also shows the sheer lunacy of Adolf Hitler, attacking a Power even better prepared than the already formidable Russian Empire.

                  ”The long commitment of the USSR to war rightly makes it look worse. Germany has been disarmed 6 years before the start of WWII, worse prepared than the Kaiserreich had been, while the USSR had been a military state since before the beginning, inheriting the Tsar’s wartime army and the unique sanction of Western “pacifists” to remain armed.”

                  You forget the ruinous Russian Civil War/War of the Foreign Interventionists of the 1920’s, which hobbled Russia for a time.

                  ”All else being equal, the USSR should have been on Berlin by Autumn 1941.”

                  But the USSR was expecting war in 1942. As it was had they invaded Germany in 1941, they would have been in Berlin, but Operation Barbarossa as I stated elsewhere put out of action over half of the original troops of the Red Army, 2.4 of 5.4 million men.

                  ”It wasn’t because its all-in bureuacratic production and organisation system had produced crappy tanks commanded by office politicians.”

                  Actually it’s production and organization system is part of what saved them. Nor were the Soviet tanks ”crappy”, aside from the T-34 and the KV-1, even the crappy Soviet tanks were better in some respects than the German tanks of Operation Barbarossa. And men like Marshal Zhukov, Konev, Vatutin, and Rokossovsky were not ”office politicians”, rather they were products of a Soviet system that was far more militarily meritocratic compared to the Tsarist Officer training.

                • jim says:

                  Oliver Cromwell:

                  > >”The Russian Empire was a great power already in 1917, the Bolshevils being brought to power by the Tsar losing much less badly in 3 years than Stalin lost in 3 months.”

                  Strannick:

                  > No, things were much worse under the Tsar as Russian documentation is showing. For example, by 1915 much of the Russian Officer Corps had ceased to exist. Logistics-which was largely free market-was a nightmare. And Nicholas II was a total dithering ninny whose high command was a snakepit of intrigue instead of patriotism.

                  Nuts.

                  You are posting from the alternate universe where communism was a great success, and Trump’s national capitalism has been a disaster for the poor.

                  You are, I suspect, about to tell us about the Rothschilds, but not, however, about Soros and Victoria Nuland.

                  You will imply, but not state, that Trump is in the Rothschilds pocket, being strangely unconcerned about all the people in Soros’ pocket.

                  Oliver Cromwell:

                  > >”The Russian Empire was less advanced than the US and UK in 1917, but so was the USSR in 1941.”

                  Strannick:

                  > Not from statistics i’ve seen and been told about.

                  Those would be the statistics by which the four year plan was a great success.

                  If, however, we go by the length of railways and roads, the Russian economy grew mightily under the Tsars, stagnated under communism.

                  If statistics are unreliable, roads and railways are the best indicator. If you produce stuff, you have to move stuff, so rails and roads.

                  Though these days we also have nighttime illumination, which is also a very good indicator, perhaps the best. If you have modern consumer stuff, you have electricity and can afford to turn the lights on, so light at night visible in space satellite photos.

                  We don’t have nighttime satellite photos for the Soviet economy, but we have their roads and railroads, and they sucked.

                  And in recent decades we have space satellite photos, and every communist economy sucks to the extent that they remain socialist.

                  Socialism works great until you run out of other people’s money. You kill the peasant’s cows and eat his seed corn, and there is a new age of abundance, until there isn’t.

                  The Bernie Bros say that Bernie will give young people “Access to Capital”, but capital will disappear mighty fast when you give the chick with a post graduate degree in African Studies and a mountain of college debt access to it.

                • The Cominator says:

                  It should be noted that one reason why Stalin’s socialism was somewhat more successful than other forms was Stalin’s socialism was in practice more like the centralized command feudalism of Peter the Great and thus allowed for far more decentralized implementation than socialism generally allows.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I think i know who Strannick is from another forum… He is not the usual commie entryist… His ideology is odd but he genuinely supports Trump.

      • ten says:

        Will you expand this argument? Why is centralized dictatorship the only system capable of defeating the germans in this context?

        I am not entirely ignorant of the events, but not knowledgeable enough to conjecture any ideas. Seems to have largely been an issue of producing more armor to me.

        Why can’t you outsoure modern warfare logistics?

        I expect the dictatorship to have a better response time from realizing “fuck we need many, many more tanks” to supplying their army with them than the market would, otherwise i don’t see any reason for this at all

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        The only reason the Soviet Union didn’t get rolled is Anglo dollar, by Stalin’s own admission and that’s with the Nazis fighting two fronts.

        Welcome to the reality of Lend-Lease:

        >According to the Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease had a crucial role in winning the war:

        >On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR’s emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.

        >Nikita Khrushchev, having served as a military commissar and intermediary between Stalin and his generals during the war, addressed directly the significance of Lend-lease aid in his memoirs:

        >I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin’s views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States and Britain. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were “discussing freely” among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany’s pressure, and we would have lost the war. No one ever discussed this subject officially, and I don’t think Stalin left any written evidence of his opinion, but I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. He never made a special point of holding a conversation on the subject, but when we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so.

        It’s even in Wikipedia my friend, you can now stop LARPing about Deep Operation and the Soviet Union. Or are you going to argue against Stalin now? You might as well do, it’s the internet after all…

        • Strannik says:

          I’m not going to take the word of a traitor and two slimeballs like Khruschev and Harry Hopkins, if that’s what you’re wanting, there’s a mountain of evidence to the contrary out there too. Lend-Lease is an Anglo-American fig leaf that covers the fact that the Soviet Union, from Operation Barbarossa in 1941 to the destruction of the Japanese Army in China in 1945, absolutely demolished over 80% of Axis Fascist forces pretty much on their own, as the Anglo-American politicians wanted to bleed both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to death together, if possible.

          • info says:

            Even General Zhukov gave credit to American support as critical to the war effort:
            https://www.rbth.com/defence/2016/03/14/lend-lease-how-american-supplies-aided-the-ussr-in-its-darkest-hour_575559

            Of course internet search would also have others using the same quotes.

            • Strannik says:

              I’m not saying that lend-lease didn’t help-of course it did-but again it was in Anglo-American interest to help the Soviet Union just so much, to drag out the war so that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were-ideally to them-mortally wounded if possible. But with greater and greater Soviet victories came the prospect of delivering over all of Europe to them if the Allies didn’t open a second front like the Soviets actually begged them to.

              • info says:

                If that’s so wouldnt it to the interest of Anglos to never assist the Soviet Union at all?

                That certainly would have achieved the objective much better.

                • Strannik says:

                  Because a stalemate with Hitler in order to destroy the USSR would have been a win for him eventually, had he seized the the Eurasian Heartland, while a crushing of Hitler could be arranged without giving the USSR too much of Europe. Realpolitik.

          • info says:

            Red Army was powerful without doubt but without proper logistics would have fallen apart.

          • Atavistic Morality says:

            Whether it was in Anglo-American interest or not to help the Soviet Union is unimportant to the point. You’re a commie entryist claiming that the Soviet Union was great and worked great and was going to steamroll Nazi Germany on its own.

            All of it is a lie, by admission of the Soviet Union, which you will not accept because you’re a delusional commie.

            When talking to a commie, Venezuela is starving because capitalism, but Venezuela otherwise would be a paradise. You and the Soviet Union, the same.

            • jack boot says:

              countries starve when under starvation blockade. i’m beginning to think all this ideology posturing is just a distraction.

              • jim says:

                So where and when was the socialist country that did not go hungry after they had eaten the peasant’s seed corn and killed the peasant’s cows?

                We have been trying socialism over and over again for thousands of years, always with the same outcome.

    • info says:

      American Logistical support and much of American technology played a big role.

      The Land Lease with its American built Trucks especially helped in the Soviet Logistics.

      That and other logistical support by the Allies.

  6. Mike says:

    As someone who spent six months in Afghanistan at a major air base as an REMF, I agree with this wholeheartedly. I in fact did order pipes and pipe tobacco while I was stationed there, and game cartridges for my fancy Nintendo 3DS. All these things came within a matter of weeks.

    On the other hand, trying to get parts to fix the equipment I was charged with keeping in working order was a total nightmare. We often had to cannibalize parts from other non-functional equipment to get something that worked, trade items we didn’t need with other units for what we did need, and even scrounge for abandoned equipment left over from units that had rotated out of the country.

    We would continually receive shipments of items that were ordered many rotations prior to ours, which we no longer had any use for. They had been ordered by other people for purposes that were unknown to us. Or the item that part was meant to fix was already discarded by then.

    I was issued cold weather gear, which while I was in Afghanistan during the winter months, really wasn’t ideal for my particular situation. Especially the cold weather boots. I ended up spending my own money to order better boots and better socks and just kept the issued boots under my bunk until I rotated out.

    In general, I noticed that the standard issue socks were uniformly horrible to wear. They were uncomfortable and caused me to get blisters. Immediately after basic I switched to Thorlos brand socks and never looked back. Even though the price of a single pair of those ranged from 12 – 16 USD it was worth it to not have sores all over my feet.

    What irritated me most was how because I wore a uniform, people would lump me in with people who went outside the wire and actually exposed themselves to real danger. Most of the ribbons on my rack are merely fluff, no better than a participation trophy. I mean, I’m not ashamed of being an REMF and I did the best I could, but I’m not some badass warrior and I don’t wish to pretend to be one.

    • >and game cartridges for my fancy Nintendo 3DS

      BTW I found a bunch of articles and vids showing the US and UK militaries have been replacing $38K control sticks with $20 Xbox controllers for sub periscopes, some UAVs, IED destroying robots… won’t spam them here as they are easy to find but I find it interesting.

      • Not Tom says:

        I’m not really a military expert, so a lot of this could be dead wrong, but I get the sense that America inherited some of Germany’s obsession with boutique hardware, and the mindset that literally not a single component, no matter how trivial, can ever be allowed to fail in the field. Past justifications for obscene military budgets have often included phrases like “the rigors of combat conditions”. If a screen cracks, or a sock rips, it’s a catastrophe. And generally what happens with this mindset is that these components all become insanely expensive because they are so specialized, scarce and hard to make, and there still tends to be quite a lot of failures because complexity = bugs.

        Boutique hardware may be very good for small-scale, high-precision operations. At scale, though, it’s a lot more efficient to use cheap, easily-replaceable parts and build in some redundancy in case of short-term failure.

        Of course it’s a continuum, not either-or. You may have options like:
        1. $1 part, requires 1M replacements/year
        2. $10 part, requires 10,000 replacements/year
        3. $100 part, requires 100 replacements/year
        4. $10,000 part, requires 5-10 replacements/year

        You don’t really want to be in group 1, the Communist China/USSR model, even if labor is free, which it isn’t. There can be huge gains going from “garbage” tier to “mid-range”. Then you can iterate on that a few times, and still make pretty good (but smaller) gains. If you go past the point of diminishing returns, though, you end up spending more on parts (including replacements) and the labor savings isn’t nearly enough to justify it.

        The situation America is in now is even worse, it’s $10,000 parts with the same failure rate as the $100 parts (or maybe even the $10 parts) – probably due to declining demographics and declining cognitive ability within those demographics.

  7. 992. As the scale and scope of warfare increase—in concert with advancing civilization—the contest becomes increasingly cerebral, and as a consequence the leaders naturally remove themselves further and further from the front. Let’s understand exactly how this works.
    In the context of a tribal dispute, in prehistoric times, the leader need be no more than a strong brute, ideally the strongest brute in the tribe. Since there’s not much scope for tactics in say a 5v5 brawl with rocks and clubs, intelligence is unnecessary while brute strength leading the charge can be a powerful inspiration to weaker warriors. By the time you get to entire armies clashing, however, even if it’s just with swords and spears, there is considerable tactical depth to each engagement, not to mention the diverse strategies employed in the ongoing wars between the states, all of which were unknown to primitive tribes, so it no longer makes any sense to endanger your tacticians and strategists by throwing them at the front. One warrior more or less won’t make any difference there, when the clashes entail tens of thousands, whereas one tactician or strategist less (or less smart) can mean the difference between victory and defeat. After all, it’s well known that entire armies can disperse—even if they have the upper hand—just because a leader fell, or was merely incapacitated. When the brain coordinating everything dies, the organism follows suit, whether at the scale of individual organisms, or social ones. Think of it in another way too: what are the chances that the strongest man in the state will also be the smartest? Even ignoring for a moment that mental gifts are far rarer in the homo sapiens species than physical ones, it’s simply highly statistically unlikely that the strongest man—who would have been the leader in prehistoric times—will also be the smartest, who SHOULD be the leader in more advanced times. So almost by definition the best tacticians and strategists will be weaker physically than the typical soldier on the front. Now, we are told that Alexander always led the charge, and was reportedly not only tactically brilliant, but also a maniac on the front, chasing down fleeing enemies with wild abandon, and that of course inspired his troops and earned him the kind of loyalty most leaders can only dream of; but he also died at 30, most likely from exhaustion due to his endless campaigns, and what happened to his empire then? Alexander may have been “Dionysus incarnate”, as Nietzsche called him, but as a strategist he wasn’t much, from where I am standing. Dionysus, it seems, still needs Apollo to handle strategy for him, and doesn’t seem to make for a good king, let alone leader of a sprawling empire of the kind Alexander was building one giant bloodsoaked battle after another.
    And all this in ancient times, when battles and wars were immeasurably simpler than they are today, and the idea that any random grunt could do the job of a five-star general is pure comedy worthy of an SNL skit. The commoners who demand that generals fight on the frontlines have not the faintest clue of the type of complexity that modern warfare entails, and the kind of intellect, lengthy study and experience that are required to not get all your subordinates killed in it, let alone emerge victorious from it. And this without even mentioning the geopolitical game that politicians are supposed to be trained at (though of course they never are) and of which the generals know nothing.
    Now it is natural for the common soldier bleeding out in the front to resent his superiors sitting “safe” back at headquarters, but one must set aside resentment at some point and calmly ask what would be attained if we brought those superiors to the front to bleed out with you? Hitler made ONE grave strategy error, by attacking the Soviet Union with whom up to then he was allied, and almost every building in Germany was demolished as a result, and the country was split in two for generations. AND he ended up blowing his brains out in the end. So judgement comes for the leaders too, eventually (Caesar murdered, Napoleon dying out in prison, and so on); does it really matter if it comes somewhat later than for the frontline grunts? We’re all gonna die eventually, buddy, but if we have a smart leader and protect him properly, we might achieve more than if we behave like barbarians who refuse orders and mindlessly charge straight ahead in every battle—and end up slaves as a result, with all our traditions and freedoms destroyed.
    Bottom line is that as the scale and scope of warfare increase, the opponents’ center of gravity moves further and further back from the front for purely practical, logical reasons, and no amount of grunt resentment or mothers crying and demanding that the leaders’ children be sacrificed too can or should change this simple law of physics. Grunts and mothers, however, have not the faintest idea of physics, because they lack the intelligence for it, and hence we get the crying and resentment that we get. Which is why we should ignore it, and even punish it when we encounter it in especially acute form, as the military still does to the insubordinate, thank god, and as the men of the household should be doing to the crying, incoherent and illogical women, if they were still men, which alas they are not, unless, as aforesaid, in a military context, or to a lesser extent in a law enforcement one, where some measure of masculinity still survives, however small, amen.

    • Strannik says:

      Hitler and Stalin weren’t allied, they in fact were the two who truly weren’t, but aside from that…

      Ever since a student of Von Clausewitz named Vladimir Lenin stood him on his ear and made War the continuation of Politics by other means, universalizing total war, everyone has been a Soldier, every ”civilian” a Partisan in potential, every society militarized in some fashion if it wishes to survive. In a People’s War, everyone is contributing to the war effort, and is a Soldier to a degree that they are not as Civilians in peacetime. Only the advent of nuclear weapons has somewhat obscured this in the minds of many.

      And besides, logistical and supply and medical personnel are Soldiers because otherwise they merely become helpless targets unable to fight back at all if not trained militarily, somewhat. And when you don’t have a Military of the whole people, you have a mercenary force, paid to keep down outsiders and the plebians inside alike.

      • jim says:

        Hitler and Stalin were allied before they were enemies, and enemies before they were allied, depending on how the wind blew.

        Warrior is a specialist vocation. Warriors need honor. Putting the cook in uniform and giving him a military rank is an attack on that honor. Also tends to result in bad food.

        • Strannik says:

          1. Stalin knew Hitler was drawn to invade and try to conquer Russia, so he prepared, and was the last to sign a non-aggression pact with Hitler after everyone in the West failed to ally against Hitler. Stalin needed time, and space, for the coming invasion.

          2. In modern warfare, there is little honor, today it has become mere butchery, and survival. I would love to have it fought out with pre-modern arms, and if civilization continues it’s collapse, it just might.

          3. For the People’s wars, the Army of the People should be composed of them and reflect their will, as noted in the 2nd Amendment. Everyone pitches in for total victory.

          • jim says:

            > 1. Stalin knew Hitler was drawn to invade and try to conquer Russia,

            Stalin obstinately and stubbornly refused to believe Germany was about to attack, even though warned by his own generals and the west, and was caught totally flat footed.

            As Churchill remarked, the most untrusting of men trusted the most untrustworthy of men.

            > 2. In modern warfare, there is little honor, today it has become mere butchery, and survival.

            The traditional western way of war is to massacre the fleeing enemy, so that when things go bad someone flees first, so no one wants to be last to flee, because the last fleeing are more conveniently massacred. You take prisoners when they ask for quarter, not after they fall apart. This stuff about accepting surrender even after the enemy has collapsed, is new and stupid. It was the beginning of LIW (Lawyer Infested Warfare). When the battle is won, the correct course of action is to kill on sight all enemies in the vicinity of the battle who are not holed up in a position to make killing them difficult.

            > 3. For the People’s wars, the Army of the People …

            People’s wars are illegitimate. Just War Doctrine, requires, among other things, right authority. You need a sovereign that is capable of making war, and commanding everyone to make war, and making peace, and commanding everyone to be at peace.

            The customary, and highly effective, solution to people’s wars, is that enthusiastically commended by Martin Luther to settle the Peasant War. Works well, but you need the priesthood on side.

            • Jatt Arya says:

              Your views against people’s war are un-American.

              I think you need to be shipped back to Australia where you can worship the Windsors and their God-ordained authority to ship you Sudanese.

              😉

              • jim says:

                That is how America conquered the Philippines, and the Filipinos love them. Everyone loves a winner.

                When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, they will naturally want to side with the strong horse.

                The peasant rebellion that Martin Luther so vehemently condemned, and that the nobility so savagely crushed, was led by people with the holier than God religion that came to power a decade later in Münster, radical Lutheranism. It was a catastrophe, and if the peasant rebellion had succeeded, it would have been a similar disaster for all of Germany. That they got power in Münster tells me it was not crushed hard enough.

            • yewotm8 says:

              >The traditional western way of war is to massacre the fleeing enemy, so that when things go bad someone flees first, so no one wants to be last to flee, because the last fleeing are more conveniently massacred. You take prisoners when they ask for quarter, not after they fall apart. This stuff about accepting surrender even after the enemy has collapsed, is new and stupid.

              Those who know they are not going to die if they surrender are more likely to surrender. I’m surprised the benefits of giving no quarter outweigh the increased incentive to surrender unconditionally. I’m not disagreeing with your assessment, since obviously quarter was rarely given when looking through history, but it’s not an intuitive result to me.

              • Not Tom says:

                Retreat isn’t surrender. It generally implies an intention to continue the fight after regrouping, resupplying and reinforcing.

                Combatants who lay down their arms and wave a white flag should be treated humanely as POWs, provided they aren’t known for doing so as misdirection (c.f. Islam). But attacking and then fleeing? Hit and run? That’s both hostile and cowardly, and a staple of insurrectionists everywhere.

                • yewotm8 says:

                  I would think there’s a distinction between dropping your weapons and raising a white flag before battle begins, and doing so after it begins and realizing you’ve lost. I’m not a military man, but I was speaking of the latter case, which I believed was what “no quarter” and Jim’s comment referred to. Why force enemies to run, possibly get away, and come back to fight you, when you can incentivize them instead to disarm themselves and allow you to keep track of them until the end of hostilities?

                • jim says:

                  The consequences of one side suffering an unplanned and spontaneous collapse on the battlefield should be as bad as the winning side can make it, thereby ensuring that everyone on the losing side tries to start running before everyone else on the losing side starts running.

            • Strannik says:

              1. ”Stalin obstinately and stubbornly refused to believe Germany was about to attack, even though warned by his own generals and the west, and was caught totally flat footed.

              As Churchill remarked, the most untrusting of men trusted the most untrustworthy of men.”

              1. Stalin knew Hitler would attack Russia, was shocked at the ”when?” because of the sheer lunacy of Hitler leaving Britain undefeated in his rear.

              2. ”The traditional western way of war is to massacre the fleeing enemy, so that when things go bad someone flees first, so no one wants to be last to flee, because the last fleeing are more conveniently massacred. You take prisoners when they ask for quarter, not after they fall apart. This stuff about accepting surrender even after the enemy has collapsed, is new and stupid. It was the beginning of LIW (Lawyer Infested Warfare). When the battle is won, the correct course of action is to kill on sight all enemies in the vicinity of the battle who are not holed up in a position to make killing them difficult.”

              2. A fleeing enemy can always still rally and continue fighting, has not surrendered or yielded in any way really, so it’s fine to continue destroying them until they do. Am ambivalent about the rest.

              3. ”People’s wars are illegitimate. Just War Doctrine, requires, among other things, right authority. You need a sovereign that is capable of making war, and commanding everyone to make war, and making peace, and commanding everyone to be at peace.

              The customary, and highly effective, solution to people’s wars, is that enthusiastically commended by Martin Luther to settle the Peasant War. Works well, but you need the priesthood on side.”

              During the Russian ”Time of Troubles” which ended in 1612 AD, it was a People’s War under the leadership of Minin, a Butcher by trade, and Prince Pozharsky of the minor nobility, who rallied the people and kicked out the Poles and the Swedes that had occupied Russia.

              Can’t say I entirely agree with you there, although I do draw a distinction between Revolutions, which are just, and Rebellion, which are gravely sinful. Some ”Revolutions” are called such today but were in fact Rebellion, actually.

              In the absence of the sovereign representatives of the people anointed by God to lead them, Authority reverts to the people, from whom God will raise up leaders to command them and guide them to what they must do.

            • >The traditional western way of war is to massacre the fleeing enemy, so that when things go bad someone flees first, so no one wants to be last to flee, because the last fleeing are more conveniently massacred. You take prisoners when they ask for quarter, not after they fall apart. This stuff about accepting surrender even after the enemy has collapsed, is new and stupid. It was the beginning of LIW (Lawyer Infested Warfare).

              This sounds very harsh. Ideally, surrender should be accepted even after collapse. But the thing is, you just can’t stop your own soldiers at that point. There is a kind of frenzy taking them over and you can’t do much else than to wait for it to run out. I think the LIW part is more in the direction of lawyers punishing officers for not stopping what cannot be stopped.

              Sort of similar how most police beating up demonstrators tends happen when they flee. There is something akin to a chasing reflex, prey drive kicking in. Perhaps it is being both angry and afraid at the same time and when they are no longer afraid, the anger just bursts out.

              • BC says:

                >This sounds very harsh. Ideally, surrender should be accepted even after collapse.

                Why? We’ve never practiced war that way. Don’t knock what works.

                • If we never practiced war that way, where did the slaves of the Romans and Greeks come from, where did the medieval economy of capturing and ransoming nobles come from? It had to come from accepted surrender. In the Medieval and Early Modern period Mediterrean galley slaves largely came from Muslim soldiers who surrendered.

                  I think as long a surrendered soldiers had such economic value, it worked. Once all one could do is to put them into POW camps and they only cost money, did not make money or have other uses, it didn’t.

                • BC says:

                  If we never practiced war that way, where did the slaves of the Romans and Greeks come from

                  Mostly from captured noncombatants or warriors who surrendered before they broke. Warriors made up the minority of people during those periods and seldom made very good slaves. Typically they be sent to work the mines or row ships when they did surrender. I think you’re viewing things from the perspective that most men of military age were warriors which simply wasn’t the case for most of history.

                  where did the medieval economy of capturing and ransoming nobles come from? It had to come from accepted surrender.

                  Sure, but it didn’t come after they were already broken and in flight. Typically they get injured or surrounded and give up.

                  It’s a good thing when cowards die for running away. It ensures that their genes are not passed on. For warfare to be eugenic the brave need to be more likely to survive than the cowards.

                • Jan Martense says:

                  Sure, but it didn’t come after they were already broken and in flight. Typically they get injured or surrounded and give up.

                  Here is Froissart on the aftermath of the Battle of Poitiers (1356 I believe):

                  Thus this battle was discomfited, as ye have heard, the which was in the fields of Maupertuis a two leagues from Poitiers the twenty-second day of September the year of our Lord MCCCLVI. It begun in the morning[xxii] and ended at noon, but as then all the Englishmen were not returned from the chase; therefore the prince’s banner stood on a bush to draw all his men together, but it was well nigh night or all came from the chase. And as it was reported, there was slain all the flower of France, and there was taken with the king and the lord Philip his son a seventeen earls, beside barons, knights and squires, and slain a five or six thousand of one and other. When every man was come from the chase, they had twice as many prisoners as they were in number in all.

                  So the French army had already broken and was fleeing, the English gave chase, and ended up taking so many prisoners during the pursuit that there were “twice as many” prisoners as there were actual English.

                  In 1415 at Agincourt, when Henry V did actually massacre Frenchman who were being taken prisoner, it caused a massive scandal and was considered completely inappropriate and uncommon among contemporaries.

                  So in the late Medieval period at the very least, standard practice was to accept surrender at any point in time. And this didn’t just apply to the nobility; if that were the case how were there more French prisoners than the entire English army?

                  As for being “Eugenic,” war is inherently dysgenic so it makes sense to minimize casualties of any sort. The real population whose genes shouldn’t be passed on using your logic are the cowards and unfit who wouldn’t fight at all.

                • BC says:

                  if that were the case how were there more French prisoners than the entire English army?

                  Good question since 1,900 troops taken prisoner, most of which surrendered with the King and the English army was 6,000 strong. The account cited is an exaggeration since the total size of the French force was 11,000.

                • jim says:

                  Those prisoners were taken for ransom. The deal with ransom was that the captive had to pay off your captor, or die. And of course, you set your ransom high enough that a certain portion of your prisoners could not make ransom.

                  So, not so terribly different from slaughtering them all in its incentive effect

                • The Cominator says:

                  Also with ransom it was THEIR FAMILIES had to pay you off, all the valuables on your person would of course be taken by the people who took you prisoner.

                • JanMartense says:

                  The account cited is an exaggeration since the total size of the French force was 11,000.

                  Modern historians may disagree with Froissart on the exact numbers, but they agree with the general premise. Desmond Seward on ransoms:

                  A prince or great nobleman commanded an enormous price, but the market was not restricted to magnates; a fat Burgess or important cleric could be an almost equally enviable prize… For ransoming was often more like the kidnap racket of modern times, and small tradesmen and farmers had their price; even ploughmen fetched a few pence.

                  So even peasants were taken prisoner for their ransoms rather than massacred.

                  Furthermore, even if the prisoner’s family couldn’t pay, they weren’t killed outright; sometimes they were kept until a larger sum could be obtained, or sometimes even released (with a security like another family member).

              • The Cominator says:

                Ransom was generally set so people COULD make ransom though as ransom level would generally be set based upon the prisoners social rank people were less interested in taking commoners as prisoners as their ransoms weren’t too much, a peasant spearman’s ransom wouldn’t be worth the cost to feed him.

                When Henry V ordered (fearing the prisoners would join with the enemy) that the prisoners at Agincourt be killed its likely his men saved the higher ranking prisoners for the very last.

                Where surrender absolutely was not accepted well into the 19th century was after a siege, if a fortified place of any kind fell without a negotiated surrender the laws of war through the Napoleonic war was that all the defenders must die.

                • jim says:

                  > Ransom was generally set so people COULD make ransom

                  Most people, most of the time, could make ransom. But ransom was set high enough that not everyone could make it. The captor set the ransom at what he thought the captive could pay. But it was not always easy to estimate what the captive could pay.

          • Jatt Arya says:

            There is nothing without Honour.

            • Not Tom says:

              Your views against people’s war are un-American.

              Honour

              Hmmmm… what do you think, fam, faggy Euro-leftist talking about parts of the world he doesn’t understand, or recent invader to the U.S. who needs to be sent back post-haste?

              • Strannik says:

                Calling this guy a possible Leftist is an insult to Leftists, Stalin would have had his candy ass shot. Of course, I make a distinction between Leftists and Liberals, the ”Faux Left” folks brainwashed by the Academics.

              • alf says:

                Judging from his earlier posted link, associated with neoabsolutism, which has at least one member, maybe two, not sure. I lean towards nerd power larping over leftist entryism because he says nothing until triggered by Jim’s observation that absolutism does not work for army logistics.

                • Absolutism and logistics insourcing/socialism are two different things. Absolutism simply means no legal restraints on the king.

                  Actually Dutch history is precisely a good example of this, as the Spanish monarchy the Dutch were fighting against was a textbook case of absolutism. Yet the Spanish tercios, the Ejército de Flandes, as far as I know, weren’t really supplied from Madrid. Some were supplied from Italy, some from Germany, but for example the armorers in Liège also did a lot of business with them. I don’t really have good sources on this, but one reason the tercios were considered very good was the ability to be lightly supplied and live off the land.

                  Jatt might be confusing absolutism with totalitarianism.

                • Not Tom says:

                  That wasn’t my point, though I can see why other Europeans would be confused.

                  In America we spell the word “honor”. “Honour” is the British spelling, also used in Canada, many parts of Europe, India… etc.

                  So our friend here is telling us what is “un-American” while using a clearly un-American spelling. No American would ever accidentally use the British spelling. He is therefore a foreigner lecturing Americans about American identity and culture. The only question is whether he is a bloviating European socialist – they tend toward that particular brand of obnoxiousness – or if he is an immigrant living in America, perhaps on an H-1B visa, if you know what I mean.

                • jim says:

                  Dot Indian spelling is the same as British spelling.

                  Used to be that the elite hired Jews to do the dirty work against their native subjects, so that they would unencumbered by loyalty and connections to the people they were hired to destroy, and American Jews use American spelling. These days the Jews are getting hot competition for that job opening. If someone is old, and hired a long time ago by the elite do their dirty work, usually Jewish, as for example George Soros. These days we are seeing the Jews pushed to one side in that job, so the younger and lower status agents of the elite are frequently dot Indian.

                  The elite does not like to hire American Americans for that sort of job.

                • jim says:

                  How very surprising 🙃

                • I’d like to point out that it was not an intent to doxx – doxxing is an attempt to identify the person behind the handle. OTOH finding out the etymology of a handle is entirely fair game – people choose handles to send a message, it is OK to decode the message. Pretty sure it is not Oliver Cromwell using the Oliver Cromwell handle, but it sends a message. For all I know Jatt might be a white guy who respects Sikh warrior culture – and I don’t want to know anything more than that.

                • Not Tom says:

                  For all I know Jatt might be a white guy who respects Sikh warrior culture

                  Yeah I’m sure that totally must be it, but I’m going to start referring to him as Atwal regardless.

    • ten says:

      Dumb crazy wall of text, take your pills and format your writing.

      The strongest brute isn’t the typical leader among any species with multiple males per group, the male with the highest capacity for prosocial alliance and loyalty is.

  8. TBeholder says:

    From the time of Xenophon to the Crimean war, every long distance campaign by westerners had a free market following the camp and the march

    The “westerners” part really needs definition, somewhere beyond the point you bring Xenophon in. :]

    And didn’t even Brits try to enforce some very non-free markets when they still had a trade empire?
    Of course, it’s in the interest of a power consistently more competitive on a given market to open it, and of a power not competitive enough (but capable of pursuing economical goals by other means) to close it.
    It follows that since the same power is not necessarily a half-ton gorilla on every market, some would try to have it both ways.
    Smugglers exploit price “tension” created by tariffs; there needs to be profit worth the risk. If there’s a free market, where would smugglers come from? Thus crackdowns on contraband are a sure sign of conspicuously high tariffs (as well as embargoes, of course).
    So, «Brandy for the Parson, ‘Baccy for the Clerk…»

    • jim says:

      For thousands of years, armies have applied various forms of coercion to their camp followers and suppliers, all the way to kill, loot, rape, and burn.

      What they have not done is put them in uniform and call them soldiers.

      • Jatt Arya says:

        Warrior religion fixes these problems.

        • Strannik says:

          How’s this for The Warrior, the Lord of Hosts?

          ”God came from Teman,
          the Holy One from Mount Paran.[b]
          His glory covered the heavens
          and his praise filled the earth.
          His splendor was like the sunrise;
          rays flashed from his hand,
          where his power was hidden.
          Plague went before him;
          pestilence followed his steps.
          He stood, and shook the earth;
          he looked, and made the nations tremble.
          The ancient mountains crumbled
          and the age-old hills collapsed—
          but he marches on forever.
          I saw the tents of Cushan in distress,
          the dwellings of Midian in anguish.

          Were you angry with the rivers, Lord?
          Was your wrath against the streams?
          Did you rage against the sea
          when you rode your horses
          and your chariots to victory?
          You uncovered your bow,
          you called for many arrows.
          You split the earth with rivers;
          the mountains saw you and writhed.
          Torrents of water swept by;
          the deep roared
          and lifted its waves on high.

          Sun and moon stood still in the heavens
          at the glint of your flying arrows,
          at the lightning of your flashing spear.
          In wrath you strode through the earth
          and in anger you threshed the nations.
          You came out to deliver your people,
          to save your anointed one.
          You crushed the leader of the land of wickedness,
          you stripped him from head to foot.
          With his own spear you pierced his head
          when his warriors stormed out to scatter us,
          gloating as though about to devour
          the wretched who were in hiding.
          You trampled the sea with your horses,
          churning the great waters.”

          We have the ”Warrior Religion”, the one that happens to actually be True.

      • TBeholder says:

        There’s no necessity to completely lose distinction between the real army and all those attached to it, but normally kept away from fighting, indeed.
        There are good reasons for the situation where this distinction became blurry and easy to erase, however. It does make sense that the guy who delivers ammunition to a battery should belong to its unit and double as reserve driver for its other needs, and in a pinch be shuffled into it. The guy who delivers ammunition from the factory to the warehouse, much less so. But it’s a continuum.
        At which point, there are several less than good reasons to fully absorb them all into army. Unrelated parties who would want to do it “in your face” are… unlikely to be be in the top half of this list.
        For one, there are variations of bloat common in bureaucracies. Including “we got bigger army now, we need bigger budget”. And “more soldiers, more generals”, “we’ll have a cushy lace for the nephew of Gen X where he won’t need to do much beyond signing papers” . It’s not just an army, it’s a ministry.
        Also, dull simple solutions. The legal side of ordering the drivers and wall painters around does suggest that they must be in some structure subordinate to those who will give orders. Forms of that are, of course, not limited to plainly including them all into units — but it’s simple. Humans being humans…

  9. In its highest form, logistics is synonymous with maneuver. The act of getting your men from point a to point b and completing your task before your enemy can respond is the peak of military strategy.

    But if you are going over spreadsheets, negotiating with contractors, ect., that’s not logistics, that’s procurement. You should have 3-5 bored officers handling that job, and no one else.

  10. Encelad says:

    But wouldn’t outsourcing of military logistic increase the risk of military technology being stolen?

    • JanMartense says:

      Yeah I agree. But the funny thing is that the area where this provides the biggest advantage is military hardware development, which in Western countries is actually completely private. Meanwhile the vital and arcane arts of sandwich making, sewing, and other mundane human requirements that could be accomplished by any wife or hanger-on, or entrepreneur for that matter, are entrusted to the formal army. Basically, the one solitary advantage of so-called “socialist” logistics isn’t even used.

      Not sure why that is. Could be that the cowardly segment of the military, seeking status without danger, can handle making sandwiches, but not designing rockets. So just a question of competence. But still it seems backwards.

      • Jatt Arya says:

        Military is make-work and make-status program.

        • Not Tom says:

          And now the truth finally starts to come out. The guy shouting “how do you do fellow warriors, I will defend your way of life!” turns out to hate them all and considers them low-status.

          Where have we seen this before? Can’t quite put my finger on it…

    • TBeholder says:

      Why? All “military technology” comes from a factory, and that’s closer to secrets than those who only see how containers are marked. Also, “by military for military” began to spread long ago, there weren’t many secrets of this sort visible from the logistics side at all.
      Operational security can be more of a problem. There’s going to be a lot of people who will inevitably know “how much”, “where” and “when”, and whose necks are not all the way in it like that of frontline soldiers. It makes sense to use an organization for people who can be checked before they get this far, ordered to be where they are needed at the right time, and then told to sit here and not go chat with strangers in the nearest village market after they do their part.
      At higher levels this makes less and less sense, however. As in, if production of khaki pants suddenly grew 10 times, trucks that move it from the factories to the warehouses probably are not the weakest link.

  11. Viking says:

    Campfollowers maybe
    Letting the Rothschilds and amazon (or Haiburton) shake down the army not so much.
    NRx always thinks it’s imagining something neo and edgy and it always turns out to be neocon2.0
    No idea what the last two paragraphs have to do with the rest one does not require the other. But let’s begin.
    First whites build all these great civilizations. Then fuck it up by trying to scale up. Can’t be done really either you’re conquering other whites which is eating the seed corn or you’re conquering niggers which is retarded you need nigger land kill niggers take jungle. Empire beginning of end of white civilization. Do we really need to explain why this is so?
    But say anyway one finds ones army out and about. Goal should be make army supply itself with its enemies supplies I don’t feed my hawk store bought meat I keep it In yarak and she (Kate) hunts better. Now there may times when this doesn’t suit and an army should be prepared for anything. Capitalism back home as long as it’s subordinated to the culture the volk the state is a mighty white thing. And of course it will automatically respond to the needs of war but certainly you can’t put your warriors lives and do the life of the nation in the hands of fucking capitalists are you mad man? Since as you hint at in the end all men must serve there will be some to old or otherwise not suitable for actual battle they can battle the capitalists make sure the thieves are well prepared and not gouging the army/ nation and are made to understand they not only exist at the pleasure of the nation but can not exist outside the safe space carved out by warriors. These second class warriors should also be the ones to supply chain capitalists are not even second class warriors and can’t be trusted to make sure it happens the nations existence depending on it happening no matter what.
    You have to incentivize these second class warriors for this with a uniform and tank they know all men know each other’s true rank and no o e thinks a quarter master is the same as a gunnery sergeant unless the quartermaster has a medal that says he did some brave shit needing doing or the gunnery she has no campaign ribbon.
    What’s more important than even generals fighting is the sons of elites fighting or at least serving. Elites who know their own eldest son will have to carry out the absurd ideas they come up up with will think twice in time elites will all have served and will not need to think twice.
    Now some might say an army not in battle is an unknown so empire is good to keep an army in shape.
    While this has an element of truth in practice the army morphs into you arming your enemies to fight other enemies while you turn into a faggot.
    What is a better way to stay fit is to plunder on a regular basis but not in a way that risks much and also by finding nigger lands killing all the niggers and growing your people this keeps your people in a martial spirit yarak not allowing peace and prosperity to give impressions priests traders can take over civilization followed inevitably by Jews faggots and women.
    Of course you want traders scholars artists etc but never let your people get sense of martial times has passed.
    Of course you can’t exercise plunder and genocide if you have a faggot religion like Christianity. Warriors should be the “priests” your god is a god of war and of the volks ascension through war into godhood. The last such religion approaching this in white world was nazism damn good religion almost perfect way to transmutate modernity into destiny.

    • Not Tom says:

      Is there some unwritten rule that every time Jim writes a post about the military it has to be brigaded by paganfags, like every post about Jews being brigaded by wignats and fed shills?

      This hurts the eyes and the brain. Seriously. And don’t give me that shit about “I’m a warrior, I don’t need writing skill like some pussy priest academic” – famous warriors throughout history have had incredibly sharp and clear writing. Good warriors are still smart, they are just applying their wit to a different profession.

      • Jatt Arya says:

        Pagan worship Weapons

        Christcucks worship Jews

        that they would show up to posts about their topic of choice makes sense.

        Viking learn to use the enter key.

      • Viking says:

        Says the keyboard warrior who doesn’t address any argument only writing ability. Is there somewhere I’m pretending to be a good writer it’s true my life’s course has acquired skills other than essayist.
        Loyalty to your leader I suppose is commendable but he’s wrong he’s fun clever funny but way to in love with his own shtick sometimes. It’s like he hits upon a novel insight and irreverent way of framing it but can’t resist the urge to milk it for more than it’s worth
        Neocons and libertaritards told us about $2000 toilet seats decades ago when Jim and I were neocon libertariantards its a problem that could even be solved within altright NRx say shoot a few generals and ceo for treason once in a while. Instead Jim goes full moldberg land wants to have some kike profiteer hold the lifeline to our army which is the lifeline to everything. Yeah that’s brilliant

        • jim says:

          Stalin tried that solution. It helped, it helped a lot. But it was not all that effective or successful.

        • The Cominator says:

          Why not do both. Periodic public executions for profiteering and semi privatized logistics.

        • Not Tom says:

          it’s true my life’s course has acquired skills other than essayist

          No it hasn’t.

          A person’s writing reveals their state of mind. Everyone misspells things, makes typos, grammatical errors, etc. But your writing is chaotic and disordered, and that reveals a chaotic and disordered mind.

          You aren’t a great warrior. Warriors crave order and create order. To create order they may have to cause some temporary disorder, but that is not what you are doing, you are incapable of structured writing and therefore incapable of structured thinking. There’s a distant possibility you have amazing visual-spatial skills and are some kind of savant, but that’s not even close to how you present yourself. Maybe you are a grunt, maybe you are somewhat effective at cracking skulls based on the instructions of a superior and have gotten the false idea that this makes you a great leader. Or maybe you’re simply puffing yourself up to anonymous strangers. You’re either lying, or deluded.

          It’s like shaman said, so many months ago. It’s one thing to write in a way that’s awkward, boring, laconic, or a dozen other kinds of “quirky”, but quite another to write in a way that’s disordered, deeply ugly and offensive to the eyes.

          • Viking says:

            Your reading comprehension pathetic. Twice now despite being corrected you insist I claim to be a great warrior which is nowhere stated or implied in the comment.
            I am a large man and better than most with my hands and weapons but did not serve and all of which is beyond beside the point. I will give you that bad writing skills or probably closer to my situation la y skills is often a sign of low cognition. As long as you will stipulate my ideas and vocabulary belie this quick hack and that grammar cunts are usually utter faggots. Deal?

            I’m a builder more than a warrior a capitalist a hunter father lots of things I can build anything. Including ideas that fit together without breaking gears when you turn them on. I hate things that don’t fit together properly. Except I guess sentences well that’s not true I’m a voracious reader and lit lover it’s just I can’t type as fast as I think with one finger and assume you’re smart enough to get my shorthand

            So back to the points you keep ignoring. Focus or decline to read my Deeply ugly style. I must kinda.ike it since mayb cuz it offends your ilk the way land uses that deconstruct speak like the cult marxist professor he is to filter his readers.

            • Setarcos says:

              That’s a hecking good riposte, let me tell you.

            • Not Tom says:

              Twice now despite being corrected you insist I claim to be a great warrior which is nowhere stated or implied in the comment.

              You probably have me confused with someone else, as I don’t think I’ve replied to you twice before, at all, period. Unless you use alts and I replied to one of those. I was going by the “Viking” handle which sounds like pagan larping, and I suppose the fact that this thread has attracted a bunch of other pagan larpers. If you really never intended to give that impression, then fine; I stand corrected.

              On that specific point. The rest, I stand by. I’ve heard the “I can’t type as fast as I think” excuse before. I type pretty damn slowly when I’m posting from my phone and have to constantly correct the autocorrect. Can you tell the difference between the phone posts and keyboard posts?

              You want your points to be taken seriously, then fine; cut it out with the blatant anti-intellectualism, and respect your readers enough to try to be coherent. Doesn’t have to be Hemingway tier, I’d settle for Urban Dictionary tier. Just not this out-of-tune singing, nails on a chalkboard, assault on the senses, please-make-it-stop level of aggressively and offensively impenetrable.

              Yes it hurts Marxist professors, but not because they’re Marxists – because they’re literate. It hurts Marxist professors in the sense that a nuclear bomb detonated in a populated city hurts criminals. You need better targeting precision than that.

              • Viking says:

                I promise you when it crumbles you will be my slave and it will be because I spent my time on more useful skills than learning to type. And no you can’t be my scribe you will learn to work many like you I will stuff into lockers to calculate my rocket trajectories. But you will clean toilets.
                I am I intellectually anti intellectual. You’re just so many iterations down fdrs buthole you don’t really understand why his cousin had boxing matches in whitehouse your the problem not the solution. It’s not that cognition or capitalism is not useful it’s that it’s not the point.

                • jim says:

                  The basic white tactic is that a smart elite cooperates with each other, comes to rule, imposes its mode of cooperation on the white masses, and proceeds to conquer everyone.

                  For this tactic to work, you need a smart elite. Your comments look like you fail to qualify.

                • Not Tom says:

                  So much for “I never claimed to be a warrior”. You’re really not very good at this game, are you?

                  It’s not that cognition or capitalism is not useful it’s that it’s not the point.

                  Evolutionarily speaking, cognition pretty much IS the point. There have been many animals that are faster, stronger, better coordinated, more agile, more indestructible than man, but none more intelligent, and here we are standing on top. True, we haven’t colonized space yet, but there is no Earthly frontier we haven’t conquered, including the skies. That is the power of cognition, the all-powerful g – the likeness of God in which He created us.

                  That does not mean we should worship Marxist professors; but Marxist professors, despite having reasonably high cognition themselves (not very high, mind you, just better than average) are anti-civilization, which means anti-cognition. Cognition creates civilization and civilization sustains cognition. Marxist professors want to break the virtuous cycle, and so do you.

                  And you, like a typical leftist dimwit, assume that smart people are all a monolith, all a class, all aspie nerds. You can’t even conceive of the possibility that there might be people here who are both smarter and stronger than you, or smarter and better with their hands, or smarter and a better shot.

                  No imagination. Very sad. Low energy.

    • JanMartense says:

      > First whites build all these great civilizations. Then fuck it up by trying to scale up… Empire beginning of end of white civilization.

      Based on this sentiment, I’m inclined to believe you’re either a leftist shit who enjoys simpering about “decolonization” and how evil Europeans should have respected the sacred autonomy of Sudanese hill tribes, or just a retard. “Empires” didn’t kill white civilization, or any civilization for that matter. Liberalism did. Simple as that.

      > Of course you can’t exercise plunder and genocide if you have a faggot religion like Christianity.

      Ofc you ignore what was by far the most successful territorial expansion by a population in human history–the Christian colonization of North America. Didn’t require genocide, just numbers and resourcefulness. Meanwhile your beloved Nazis ended up blowing their own foot off, killing far more whites than Jews.

      > You can’t put your warriors lives and do the life of the nation in the hands of fucking capitalists are you mad man?

      Armies have fed themselves by doing exactly that, and with great success, for thousands of years. Yes, if you are in enemy territory and it happens to be summer or fall, take the free food, that’s obvious. And personally I think wives and women are superior in this regard to merchants for purposes of morale. But it’s certainly not “mad” to have a market, as the Anabasis or any Medieval history makes clear.

      • Jatt Arya says:

        Christian beliefs against bathing got them North America.

        • ten says:

          God awful. The shit eating retard even believes this sort of crap.

          He’s like feather indian twitter.

          Christian “beliefs against bathing” stemmed from bathhouses being aids infested gay whorehouses, which they incorrectly blamed on excessive bathing, a problem large enough to warrant suppression.

          Excessive bathing.

          Face washed every morning, hands every morning and before and after each meal, full body at least every saturday. At least.

          A general idea of dark age bathing patterns, for the poor. Among the rich, lavish bathing remained popular for ever, and was reintroduced broadly after the crusades.

          Your idiocy, ignorance and hatred of our people and our success will get you eaten by dogs.

      • Viking says:

        “Based on this”- did you see the part about taking the land and killing all the animals currently inhabiting it? Does that sound like a leftist decolonialist?

        It quite beloved but I give credit where due. Might more accurately blame Churchill and Roosevelt for killing all the whites. Certainly if nazis had run world past 75 years whites would not be about to go extinct

        As per (((Jesus))) worship it served us as long as insane altruism accrued to fellow (wait for it) -whites. And while it created a white nationalist hegemony “ Christendom” our success shrank the world and made Christianity morbid to us. This isn’t complex. Stop reflexively defending it like some neocuck thinking the Cold War is still on

        As per manifest destiny it required we acted like nazis or rather like any healthy animal
        The Indians still left are result of the extent of Christian poz. Or tortoise flipping we put them in Indian game parks where they reside as a genetic bank we might find useful one day or just entertaining we should reduce the numbers and put all the other races small in preserves and take away their west tech toys high we blew the easy opportunity to do right after we dealt the Indians

        No one said it was mad to have a market. It was said the market should have freedom and I said its freedom should be circumscribed it should not have freedom to gouge the army or to neglect the army
        We love us some capitalism because it serves us not because it is a beautiful machine that must not be defiled capitalism is robust and always survives monarchy commie tyrants theocracies it makes due only I. Recent west have Jews been allowed to subordinate people culture nation to capitalism and dummies like you bobble head assent. You ought to look at what Halliburton and co has cost our people in past twenty. Then consider if Halliburton and Jews didn’t actually create the wars as well as profiteer off them.
        Capitalism is a tool like a hammer. Not a deity.

        You don’t think very deeply

        • JanMartense says:

          Capitalism is a tool like a hammer. Not a deity.

          I actually agree with this. Read my comment about make-work further down for example. It’s an extremely useful tool but not infallible.

          However, it is incredibly difficult for me to take anything else you say seriously. For example, just now you said

          No one said it was mad to have a market.

          Whereas three days ago you literally said

          you can’t put your warriors lives and do the life of the nation in the hands of fucking capitalists are you mad man?

          That’s one of the most blatant, shameless self-contradictions I’ve ever read. Lots of people tell lies, but few are so obvious about it. Now you’re trying to hedge, “oh I only meant Jewish capitalism, not ALL capitalism,” despite not mentioning Jews once in that entire paragraph.

          You also blamed today’s demographic problems on the colonial empires, just like leftists who say Europe deserves what its getting now as a reparation to their past colonization. I don’t think you are a leftist but you share their position on this. Being an empire does not automatically cause decline.

          Certainly if nazis had run world past 75 years whites would not be about to go extinct

          TFR of Germany in 1890 under the Kaisers: 5.2 (which had remained steady for at least a century)
          Average TFR under Hitler: ~1.6-2.4 For most of the Nazi period, TFR wasn’t even above replacement. Pathetic.
          And no, it isn’t just a time period effect: Francoist Spain had steady TFR in the ~2.7-2.8 range into the 1970s.

          Monarchies are what would have kept the white race from”going extinct.” Especially Christian monarchies. Leftist new-world-order Utopians like Hitler are what has ruined it. I concede he is perhaps only far left instead of extreme left like today’s democrats and communists, or Weimar.

          Also:

          It quite beloved but I give credit where due

          lol. Maybe I don’t think deeply, or maybe I just can’t make sense of your gibberish most of the time.

          • Viking says:

            No contradiction hammer is not right tool for every job and don’t think Halliburton or be on Jews.
            Was pretty clear capitalism can only be counted on to profit by any means necessary.
            You bless we are the capitalist in question then the profit is not our interest the supposed interest is the reduced profit caused by a competing capitalist as you say a market
            As long as market is not selling to enemy for higher price. Selling inferior product to soldiers.. overcharging etc etc market good tool but of course markets will always try these things and worse wasps sold out to Jews for short term profit. Capitalists will sell out a nation. It’s what they do.
            You are blinded by neoco. Muh Cold War crap. You can have a market serve you Jewish. Capitalism is worse. Because destroying us is not even regrettable it’s a bonus to them. Bye trust me I never hedge I say it all but many lack ability of complexity. But true no time to explain all moldbergs mistakes. On a sentence ethnat is only way. But not enough. We must turn hbd on ourselves as well and elites must also be as was once the case pre Jew and Jefferson subordinated to the people culture nation.
            Being an empire does automatically cause decline it just doesn’t always happen immediately. But eventually it turns our men to faggots because they outsource fighting. It also is multiculturalism in an outnumbberered context. MS13 now has chapters in California police Dept and murder officers who don’t join or are white objectors.

            Still larping monarchy running dog for moldberg he’s laughing at you. Leftist Jefferson was correct in this much a good king hard to find one with good son almost never Merlin heard of. So meritocracy vast improvement over aristocracy. But you see how sharp the edge we whites walk becomes as we take civilization to its limits. Need I spell put meritocracy is not how would that fag land put it demotion?

            Bonus info. Not only turn hbd ruthlessly on ourselves but step back what’s all this about. Utopianism. This perfect machine like your beloved capitalism. But how’s evolution actually worked? Think man it’s random and slow and rarely sheds old code which hangs around for some opportunist to pwn. In short it’s absurd to think there is possible some system that will work its chaos we will always be playing catch up. The shame is we don’t learn basic lessons whites have been taught so many times empire is road to death. Just as surely as female autonomy and thinking Jews are kinda white.
            Whites like NRx gags are in love with ideas over volk this is dysgenic. Have ideas subordinate to volk nation and the culture that sustains them. Everything must be subordinated to the prime directive

            • Not Tom says:

              Was pretty clear capitalism can only be counted on to profit by any means necessary.

              Please state your definition of “capitalism” for the record. If it includes the word “capitalist”, then state your definition of the word “capitalist”.

              If you even have a functional definition, I will be surprised. If that definition is not “peasants with two cows” or something similarly detached from reality, I will be even more surprised.

              House rules: you may debate socialist economics and socialist ethics, but you are not allowed to assume that we agree with either one. You may argue against capitalism, but you are not allowed to use the communist definition of capitalism and assume that we accept that definition.

              You obfuscate it under many layers of gibberish, but underneath the impenetrable gibberish, it’s all the same rehashed communist nonsense. The gibberish, intentional or not, serves mainly to obfuscate this clear violation of the house rules. You argue from a communist frame, and imply that we agree with that frame. If you don’t think that’s what you are doing, prove it; give us a very simple one-sentence definition of capitalism that any eight-year-old could give.

              No spin, no tricks. Just state your definition.

              • jim says:

                The Marxist definition of capitalism always smuggles in, by definition, the supposition that capitalists don’t do anything, they are just looting a secret stash, that capital creates no value, that the merchant class creates no value, that the entrepreneur creates no value.

                Hence always a justification for the priestly class looting the merchant class. Supposedly the masses are going to get a share of the loot, but a loot shortage always develops very quickly, and the masses find that they are at the back of the queue.

                Observed Marxists generally have a background that lacks participation in value creation. They believe in the secret stash, because they lack real world experience in actually creating value.

                They are hostile to anyone they see creating value, because envy and covetousness, so though theoretically it is the one percent that they hate, but observed Marxists hate everyone who creates value and is doing OK. Notice how Jack Boot revealed his hatred towards moderately successful farmers and engineers, and Carlylean Restorationist hates the man who owns a pizza franchise. Trotsky hated the peasants.

                The centerpiece of Mao’s great leap forward was an attempt to produce steel without capital (steel foundries) or people in charge that had any idea of how to make steel. That is the labor theory of value. But a lot of Marxists have the progressive pure secret stash theory of value, that value just comes out of the ground by itself, and labor is just something that evil capitalists make you do out of sheer sadism. Which was the predominant Venezuelan theory and the major Chilean theory.

                • jack boot says:

                  [*Marxism 101 deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Heard it all before, far too many times. It has all been rebutted before, far too many times, with rebuttals all the way back to the nineteenth century. If you acknowledge the rebuttals by attempting to respond to them, that would be great, but the mere confident assertion of Marxism 101 as if it was uncontroversial fact is just tedious and repetitious spam.

                  No Marxist in the history of Marxism has ever responded. If you were the first, that would be interesting.

    • Setarcos says:

      Campfollowers maybe
      Letting the Rothschilds and amazon (or Haiburton) shake down the army not so much.
      NRx always thinks it’s imagining something neo and edgy and it always turns out to be neocon2.0

      Drop the mic right there. You’ll never have a better line.

      • jim says:

        Reflect on the prices that military pays for nuts, bolts, ladders and coffee makers.

        Reflect on our staggeringly expensive, and largely non flying, F35.

        No one is going to outsource to the Rothschilds, for they have been out of power, out of business, and out of money for decades. Trump’s Space Force are going to outsource from Musk. I look forward to Trump’s space force using Musk’s rockets to drop rods from god on the heads of our enemies.

        Compare Musk’s rockets to NASA’s rockets.

        If Musk gives the space force the capacity to assassinate any leader anywhere, including deep underground, he has earned every billion.

        for rods from God to be a viable weapon, you need cheap lift to orbit. Musk is delivering cheap lift to orbit. Currently he is putting up a thousand satellites to give us fast world wide internet coverage from space, but cheap lift of lots of satellites gives us cheap lift for Space Force rods from God, after the fashion of the movie “GI Joe”.

        Capitalist weapons are always more deadly than socialist weapons.

        A rod from God is only equivalent to about fifty tons of TNT – but it will be fifty tons of TNT anywhere Trump wants it any time any place with no warning or defense.

        Rockets that have the capability to make Musk’s Starlink internet economically viable have the capability to make Space Force rods from God a viable weapon.

        • R7 Rocket says:

          Praise the StarProphet (Peace Be Upon Him)!

        • Jatt Arya says:

          Better to view public vs privatization on a continuum.

          Small country needs state funded news agency because demand for news in that language/culture low.

          America doesn’t.

          Privatization is good in many instances bad in others.

          As long as we agree with this, let other argue the details||

        • What? says:

          Why do you want to attack Iran? It is irrational for you to hate Iran because some jews have grudges against the Iranian regime. Or are you some pathetic anglo that lost money after the ’79 revolution? You get stupider with every post. German from 1933-1945 was a close to what you want in this world but your Anglo hatred of Germans prevents you from seeing that.

          • The Cominator says:

            Jim does not want war with Iran, Jim approves of killing Solemani because Solemani was likely acting independently to either cause a war or setup something similar to the Iranian hostage crisis such that Trump would lose the election.

          • Strannik says:

            For such an Non-Nazitard Blog, this blog sure has it’s share of Nazitards.

            • jim says:

              To a leftist, everyone to the right of Pol Pot looks like a Nazi.

              The left has one response to every fact it does not like “”Racist”. If that does not work “Nazi”.

              Which poster and which hate fact led you to conclude that the poster is a Nazi?

              • Strannik says:

                1. And yet, Nazis do exist.

                2. Being one of those people that is usually called a ”Nazi” and a ”Racist”, I have to remind myself that while I am on the ”Right”, there are people on the Right to whom my views are repugnant to them and their views are repugnant to me. As I said above, Nazis really do exist, or at least some pretend to be as such in this day and age.

                3. There are obvious German Nazi fanboys here like the Neopagans who troll you as I’m sure you notice, and the one to whom I was replying. And there are no ‘hate facts’, only facts. Nobody goes to the lengths some desire to in re-fighting the Great Patriotic War’s conclusion unless they wanted to undo that conclusion if they could.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Real nazis do not exist any longer, what exists now are pathetic stupid larping wignats who the actual nazis would have shot in the Roehm Putsch or treated as asocials.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Don’t mistake fed shills and leftist shills for real people. If this isn’t the first rule of the chans, it’s definitely in the top 10, and since comments are anonymous/pseudonymous here, same rules apply.

                  Since time immemorial, or at least since the New Deal, progressives and communists have tried to infiltrate right-wing groups and spread their pozzed Marxist ideology in the form of fake Jew-hate.

                  The easiest way to sniff out the bullshit is to watch for monomania, watch for people who literally can’t stay on topic and have to make everything about the Jews. Actual “Nazis” have a casual sort of resentment, same as our resentment toward dot-Indians and Central American invaders. That is, they’re not frothing with genocidal rage, they just don’t want to be around Jews. Many of us think that’s a bit misguided – cape, not matador – but it is altogether different from the fanatical Marxist frame that Jews control everything with secret mind-control rays, and we know that’s true because Jews own a lot of stuff.

                  The shills tend to be rather successful, which is why they keep doing what they do, but they’re even more impotent here than they are on the chans. They don’t know how to challenge a reactionary frame, because they’re unable to actually comprehend or even acknowledge a reactionary frame. They’re entirely adapted for dealing with the “disaffected conservative” bloc that periodically congeals into groups calling themselves paleocons, alt-right, dissident right, etc. Those people are good people, mostly, but tend to be susceptible to propaganda, and so the shills think their 70-year-old COINTELPRO tricks are eventually going to work, if they just keep throwing themselves at us.

                  Ignore them or sharpen your claws on them, but either way, don’t stress too much about them.

                • jim says:

                  > 1. And yet, Nazis do exist.

                  Do they?

                  Name one and tell me what makes you say he is a Nazi.

                  You said there is a Nazi in my comments section. Who is he and what is the unspeakable hate fact he mentioned that led you to conclude he is a Nazi?

                  The only “Nazis” I see are commie and progressive shills saying what they think Hitler said – except that they do not know what Hitler said and refuse to find out, just as you do not know and refuse to learn what we are saying. An actual Nazi would actually know what Hitler said.

                  There are ironic Nazis, who just want to make progressives cry, and there are ironic Nazis who have a bee in their bonnet about Jews, but they are readily distinguishable from shills posing as actual Nazis. An ironic Nazi is always hinting he is joking, while a fake Nazi pretends to be completely serious.

                  The biggest tell revealing fake Nazis is that they will rant about Jews and Rothschilds, but never about Soros and Victoria Nuland, and they will rant about Israel, but never Jerusalem. An ironic Nazi who genuinely has an excessive focus on Jews will mention Soros frequently, and is aware that the Rothschilds are ancient history.

                  If someone is complaining about US power meddling in foreign countries, he typically says “Washington”, or perhaps “The State Department”, an organization headquartered in Washington. But a fake Nazi will never use the word “Jerusalem” in a way that implies that it is the capital of Israel, because his employer, who is likely George Soros, refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

                • Mike says:

                  Strannik is obviously Eastern European Jim. I’d give him a bit of break on the “Nazi Question.” Lord knows he has more reason to be interested in pursuing that, whether rightly or wrongly, than you do as an Australian.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m 95% pretty sure I know Strannik from another forum… he is NOT eastern european (nor a liberal entryist as his support for Trump is sincere despite Strannik having somewhat delusional views on economics) but he lived in Russia for a bit and his wife is Russian.

                • jack boot says:

                  “the fanatical Marxist frame that Jews control everything with secret mind-control rays, and we know that’s true because Jews own a lot of stuff.”

                  i think most people capable of blaming jews blame them mostly for usurious financial practices, pornography opiates and hollywood. hollywood in particular isn’t secretly mind control rays its explicitly mind control rays, literally mind control literally rays.

                  i’m sure bloomberg isn’t the chosen ones, see you on super tuesdat

                • Atavistic Morality says:

                  @The Cominator

                  That would explain his delusional obsession with the Soviet Union.

                  What is the equivalent of a weeb for Russia?

                • Not Tom says:

                  i think most people capable of blaming jews blame them mostly for usurious financial practices

                  (designed and implemented by the Bank of England)

                  pornography

                  (created by whores)

                  opiates

                  (what the actual fuck?)

                  and hollywood

                  (which was far less woke when Jews still ran most of it)

                  hollywood in particular isn’t secretly mind control rays its explicitly mind control rays, literally mind control literally rays.

                  Retard.

                  But you don’t really believe any of these things. You just blame anyone whom you perceive has wealth or power – bankers, movie executives, even drug lords. Jews are your proxy for people with capital.

                  Most people capable of blaming Jews blame George Soros and Jeff Zucker. They blame the comical overrepresentation of Jews at CNN and Harvard, in the NGOs and “interfaith” churches. You, unsurprisingly, never blame them, because they are on your team.

        • Viking says:

          Rothschild rhetorical though my understanding is they still wealthiest but learned to hide wealth well who knows we do know Jews generally

          I like me some capitalism when and if it is serving me my people nation culture it’s a great tool and trust me subordinating it doesn’t hurt it a bit in fact not subordinating it is how it morphs into corporatism cronyism etc

          Not saying can’t use well supervised capitalism long as you shoot a corrupt general and capitalist regularly but in any way relying on capitalists to have ANY interest other than profit is retarded they can’t be trusted to follow you into battle with supplies.

          The new based space race is cool but if not for German and American govt wouldn’t be space race. NASA pozd surely but so is entire west musk for now is avoiding poz but how long before they come for him.

        • A says:

          Why does Trump need rods from god when your only serious enemies are domestic?

          • jim says:

            We have some mighty deadly “non serious” enemies, I myself have been in the vicinity of explosives set by Dar al Islam, in the sense that when I was on one of the bloody borders of Islam, I regularly visited a mall which later, while I was still in the area, but not in the mall, got blown up by Dar al Islam, hence my enthusiasm for rods from God.

            I am in favor of doing what the French did in 1830 – kill enough Muslims and take enough Muslim land and women that terrorism stops for a hundred years. Of course, for the settlement of Muslim land to stick permanently, we are going to need a fertile elite. So first, a fertile elite, then start clearing Muslim lands until Muslims accept the peace of Westphalia, stick to it, and keep on sticking to it.

            The French occupation was a response to the terrorism of their day, which had afflicted the west for centuries where the west was close to the bloody borders.

            • The Cominator says:

              Trump was right about stopping Islamic terrorism if you get a terrorist need to hunt down and kill his entire family.

              I dislike doing this kind of thing as I spoke out about bastards being killed (and that as far as possible you should try to minimize mistreatment of course once the bastard problem is minimized) as you know but with Muslims there is no other way, in a tribal society as Islamics live the way to stop terrorism is to hold the tribe responsible if a member commits typical Islamic violence. I just don’t know of any other way with insane fanatic muslims (particulary Wahabbist).

            • A says:

              This weapon could be just as easily used against a competitor star civilization. Trump and Musk are very, very close to the truth, yet Trump is still persuing victory through democracy, and Musk is still building Teslas.

              I do not want me or my brothers to end up like Solemani or Gaddafi.

              • jim says:

                > This weapon could be just as easily used against a competitor star civilization

                So?

                I look forward to the day when we have two civilizations settling the stars, the Holy American Empire, and the Han supremacy.

                I also want a civilization with science, technology, and industry, capable of settling the stars, to be able to deal with backward people who are attempting to impose on us a religion incompatible with science.

      • R7 Rocket says:

        @Setarcos

        I’ve noticed that fed shill Setarcos often comments after Viking. Do they work in the same office?

        • jack boot says:

          [*deleted*]

            • jack boot says:

              it’s my fault really. totalitarian fanatics are not to be argued with. and if you were standing behind me you wouldn’t hesitate to pull the trigger. censorship is violence, which is why it was historically applied only to degenerates and libertarians such as yourself. because it escalated so quickly to death penalties and genocife.

              • jim says:

                You are spamming out justifications for taking my stuff, which the past two thousand years tells me will turn into justifications for killing me and killing my children.

                Yes, when we are in power, we will kill commies, because commies killed over a hundred million during the twentieth century, and if allowed, will do it again.

                • Viking says:

                  Apes like us are capitalistic and socialistic
                  Obviously both serve the prime directive. “Life’s good I want more fucker” communism and capitalism both have iterations that do not serve. In fact are both parasitic. Of course “ life” is perspective bound. In fact al morality is perspective bound. As in moral hazard who whom.
                  Capitalism resembles evolution ideally in reality sometimes. Sociobiology kinda evolutionary.
                  So let’s not act like boomers muh Cold War let’s act like white men kings of nuance civilization and tune capitalism to serve us again by roughly subordinating it to “us” white people nations cultures ( which we need to survive as people /nations) let’s see if we can understand ourselves about our socialist tendencies that HBD are in our genes and see if we can realign again with our genetic interest. Who whom but OF COURSE THROUGH THE LENS OF future time wisdom our forte. In other words to what extent might socialist structure really serve us as a people not merely some of us that our on the dysgenic side of the curve. Which would not serve us. Surely we can understand that all communist must be ruthlessly murdered eventually and never allowed to resurrect. While at same time understanding our evolutionary interest in group strategy.
                  Land and moldberg are never moving to Elysiium because it would turn out just like the movie. But there have been periods of euro history much nicer than that but they had to be defended by whole nations larger the easier.

              • The Cominator says:

                I don’t know about Jim but I would not hestitate to pull the trigger, Hans Hermann Hoppe despite some flaws realized what I realized we cannot coexists with leftists.

                We will not be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last communist.

                All leftists (and Muslims) need to be “physically removed from society” one way or the other.

                • Theshadowedknight says:

                  Muslims and leftists are both Satanists, but only the Muslims have it codified into an actual religion. In that sense, Islam is essentially the continious religious strain of leftism. Killing all leftists necessarily includes killing all Muslims.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes and no.

                  Islam deeply sucks and Islam is definitely about stealing other people’s stuff for not being sufficiently Islamic but theoretically within Islamic law if there is no jihad to justifying stealing (in practice this means an Islamic ruler with enough strength to kill anyone who goes around claiming he is insufficiently Islamic and can enforce the peacetime law) the market is sacrosanct.

                  So Islam is an evil civilization destroying religion like progressivism and communism, but its not quite the same religion.

                • Not Tom says:

                  “jack boot” is not Havel’s Greengrocer. I would not hesitate either. Nor would he hesitate to kill all of us just to get a little extra seed corn, given the opportunity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Havel’s Greengrocer in communist countries where they’d shoot you I’m sympathetic to. I’m not so sympathetic to people who became faux SJWs to fit in with their equally phony friends without any major real threats hanging over them.

                  Fuck those people they should go on the helicopter.

              • Theshadowedknight says:

                Ah, the old leftist saw: “Your speech is violence, our violence is speech.” Then the leftist faggot complaining about murder and genocide. lol

                Jim, do these lunatics actually think we are libertarians, or is it the new version of calling everyone else a Nazi?

        • Viking says:

          Only been back a few days only noticed one reply from him nor that he struck me as fed
          Frankly I doubt Feds give a fuck about Jim or even me. If they di$ they would heartiste him.
          Feds to dumb to get NRx or most alt right they’re lost in past neo nazis they get if they have pictures no pictures here
          Jews get ideas important plenty Jews here but only trying to steer.

  12. Jatt Arya says:

    The Iraq & Afghan wars had more contractors deployed than NATO troops at various points.

    Military force is being increasingly privatized especially at the back end ie intel, targeting etc.

    This throws up other issues like conflict of interest ie a PMC wants a conflict for its own business interest not national interest.

    Like I said you’ve peaked.

    You’re right on half or even most stuff but the limits of your christcuckery are showing.

    • Setarcos says:

      There’s a two-step sanity check.

      1. The American security establishment has been monotonously privatizing for the past approx. four decades.

      2. Is it getting more or less dysfunctional?

      Sadly, the Cold Warrior capitalist ideologue cannot compute this thought from start to finish.

      • jim says:

        Was losing, now it is winning.

        Looks like it is becoming more functional.

        Iran has been quelled, Isis is no more. No more Benghazis.

    • Not Tom says:

      Saying “you’ve peaked” implies that you are a high-status person whose opinion matters, rather than a turd-flinging down-syndrome HIV-positive mutt. Maybe you could understand what he is trying to say if you could take 5 minutes out of your busy bathhouse schedule and actually read it for once, instead of randomly banging keys on your semen and shit stained keyboard and hoping it forms something resembling complete sentences.

      You’ve got all the hallmarks of a military washout. Either they didn’t let you in because your IQ was too low, or you didn’t make it through basic training, or you are actually one of these stolen-valor parasites who wore the uniform but never actually served or did anything of real value. Those are the only conceivable reasons why you would hint constantly at being some kind of insider, yet know even less than the average civilian. Which is it, I wonder?

      • Jatt Arya says:

        Making fun of christcucks is hetereo behavior.

        We agree on most things on the bottom level.

        Christcuckery being deontological and separating the bottom from the top (creation from God) creates an identity which doesn’t figure that high level stuff is where public/private merge.

        The public vs private dichotomy is just anglo boomer tier shit.


        Eh, retarded whitoid. :shrug:

        • jim says:

          When we, rather than progressives, get to interpret Christian theology, you are going to hear the phrase “Deus Vult” again.

        • Not Tom says:

          Christcuckery being deontological and separating the bottom from the top (creation from God) creates an identity which doesn’t figure that high level stuff is where public/private merge.

          This literally makes no sense. Not even wrong, just incoherent babble peppered with big words like “deontological” in the hope of sounding smarter.

          I would guess that it’s trying to make some point about the hierarchy of ownership – which is an astoundingly stupid argument to make to a group of reactionaries who generally agree that the King owns everything and delegates autonomy and property in order to improve efficiency.

          Crown corporations are not “public”, they are owned by the crown and only the crown; to call them “public” implies that the crown is owned by the people, which implies democracy and revolutionary government, which implies communism.

          You keep trying to put up these smoke screens, but are so profoundly inept at it that you only end making yourself look stupider; lurk moar and watch the other crypto-communists, they don’t succeed either but at least their fake identities last more than a few hours.

          • right hand path says:

            [*deleted*]

            • jim says:

              If you make confident assertions about Marx and Marxism that very few people believe, need to supply evidence and argument, not just confident assertion.

              Also, claims that all the smart people believe something need to be accompanied by evidence that you are one of the smart people, such as correctly using our shibboleths.

              • Setarcos says:

                [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  You have absolutely no idea what our position is, and absolutely no interest in finding out, but want to tell us what is wrong with it.

                  I happy to debate, but I am not interested in receiving, or responding to, one way spam.

        • Bilge Pump says:

          “whitoid”

          Faggot street shitting poo, go back to your stinking shithole of India

  13. The flip side of all this is that as long as warriors are tainted by socialism, warrior rule is not going to be all that great.

    Modern military dictatorships generally had one job and done that well: stop Communists. Argentine Dirty War, Honduras, Chile etc. However with the exception of Chile they didn’t seem to be very good at running a good economy. Good non-socialist leadership in countries with so much still low-hanging extensive growth possibilities should be able to produce 5-6% growth per year for at least a decade and that tends to make people really like the system. The numbers are not pulled out of my ass, it is what certain Eastern European economies are doing right now.

    • jim says:

      Kingly rule works impressively well for Dubai.

      The problem with recently existent military rule was, as always, insecure power, which makes high ranking officers act more like mobile bandits than stationary bandits.

      The problem was that they were nominally adherents of an official religion that rejects military rule, which undermined their stability. Plus the hegamon, America, has been hostile to military rule.

    • Jan Martense says:

      However with the exception of Chile they didn’t seem to be very good at running a good economy.

      I’m not so sure about this. In South America at least military dictators and militaristic governments seem to have a good economic track record, not only in Chile, but also Brazil, Paraguay, and Peru. Especially in Brazil, the dictatorship brought the country from Africa-tier to almost first world (at least the white areas). Franco, Mubarak, even Kagame despite horrible human capital, all did/are doing very well. The sole exception is Argentina, but the place is financially ungovernable and the Peronists didn’t do any better.

      I will grant, though, that military governments tend to prioritize threats of violence over other (e.g. cultural) threats, which is why many are overthrown by fanatic leftist propaganda despite their success. This is probably a reason to prefer a more formalized monarchy over direct military rule, it has greater popular legitimacy.

      • Not Tom says:

        I will grant, though, that military governments tend to prioritize threats of violence over other (e.g. cultural) threats, which is why many are overthrown by fanatic leftist propaganda despite their success. This is probably a reason to prefer a more formalized monarchy over direct military rule, it has greater popular legitimacy.

        To maintain popular legitimacy, a ruler needs a state religion and an elite priesthood. Military governments should prioritize threats of violence, and delegate the cultural problems to the priests.

        And if the priests fail to solve the problems, or if they make the problems worse, then replace the priests. Many rulers fail to establish a priesthood, but failing to dissolve a holiness-spiraling priesthood is an even worse problem.

        • Jan Martense says:

          >And if the priests fail to solve the problems, or if they make the problems worse, then replace the priests.

          It’s not that simple though. “Replacing the priesthood” itself requires legitimacy, or else the people, and your own soldiers, are prone to side with the old priesthood over you. When the sovereign orders a grunt with a kalashnikov to “replace the priesthood,” and at the same time the high priest tells said grunt to “kill the unbeliever,” the grunt needs to have some compelling reason to listen to the former and not the latter.

          Ultimately all conflict is between priests because warriors only fight for stuff they believe in. Your average grunt with Kalashnikov, regrettably, does not understand jouvenelian neoabsolutism. A King, who has an established relationship with religious figures (hence legitimacy), is therefore generally more effective than a random general.

          • The Cominator says:

            Death squads should follow your army and categorically execute the priesthood en masse.

            • The Cominator says:

              The point btw is to start getting rid of them under the fog of war which makes it a lot easier…

            • Jan Martense says:

              The “death squads” of the Roman Emperors were the Praetorians. As the Imperial Cult declined, they became notorious for dealing death to the Emperor himself, rather than his enemies.

          • Not Tom says:

            Even in a country literally run by holiness-spiraled priests, popular sentiment and legitimacy always defaults to the warriors. Look at the polls evaluating various institutions; the military and police are always highest, despite decades of being marginalized and demeaned.

            As long as the top guy is actually a warrior, actually an alpha, his men will follow him, not the priests. A warrior can always dissolve the priesthood, he just might have to literally dissolve them.

            But it all runs much more smoothly when the warriors and priests work together. That’s the formula for the spontaneous order that libertarians think just magically pops into existence and socialists deny exists at all.

    • Quality of warrior rule usually positively correlates with the quality of priestly ideas selected by the warrior to be the organizing principle of the state.

      Washington conquers America, uses whiggery to organize state, America prospers but eventually goes to shit.
      Franco conquers Spain, uses Catholic corporatism to organize state, Spain prospers until it falls to outside pressure.
      Pinochet “conquers” Chile, uses Chicago School econ. to organize state, Chile prospers (for now).
      Stalin conquers USSR, uses Marxism-Lenninism to organize state, USSR goes to complete shit.
      Mao conquers China, and I think you know here this is going.

  14. Strannik says:

    I wanted to answer you Jim, but didn’t have a ”reply” function on your post so here it is;

    ”Do they?

    Name one and tell me what makes you say he is a Nazi.”

    The poster; ”What?” is an example.

    ”You said there is a Nazi in my comments section. Who is he and what is the unspeakable hate fact he mentioned that led you to conclude he is a Nazi?”

    Facts aren’t ‘hateful’, but you’re mirroring the narrative of your Liberal enemies in using those words in a mocking matter, disarming the intended force of the enemy blow. I however am not a Liberal.

    ”The only “Nazis” I see are commie and progressive shills saying what they think Hitler said – except that they do not know what Hitler said and refuse to find out, just as you do not know and refuse to learn what we are saying. An actual Nazi would actually know what Hitler said.”

    There are a lot of that type to be sure.

    ”There are ironic Nazis, who just want to make progressives cry, and there are ironic Nazis who have a bee in their bonnet about Jews, but they are readily distinguishable from shills posing as actual Nazis.”

    Those too.

    ”The biggest tell revealing fake Nazis is that they will rant about Jews and Rothschilds, but never Soros and Victoria Nuland, and they will rant about Israel, but never Jerusalem.”

    I agree.

    ”If someone is complaining about US power meddling in foreign countries, he typically says “Washington”, or perhaps “The State Department”, an organization headquartered in Washington. But a fake Nazi will never use the word “Jerusalem” in a way that implies that it is the capital of Israel, because his employers refuse to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

    An actual Nazi would, for now anyway, strategically ignore the problem of the Jews. Of course the capital of Israel is Jerusalem, Nazis of today will live in the real post-1945 world too. What distinguishes the true ones is that they always want to fight the war they lost, all over again, but this time to victory. To remind them of how and why they lost the war of 1914-1945 is to trigger them and reveal them.

    • jim says:

      > > Name one and tell me what makes you say he is a Nazi.

      > The poster; ”What?” is an example.

      There is no commenter using the handle “What?”. Give me a link.

      And, predictably, you refuse to tell me what makes him supposedly a Nazi.

      • Strannik says:

        Jim, you said that;

        ”There is no commenter using the handle “What?”. Give me a link.”

        Here’s what he said, I believe it was to you not sure;

        ”What? says:
        2020-02-03 at 21:44

        Why do you want to attack Iran? It is irrational for you to hate Iran because some jews have grudges against the Iranian regime. Or are you some pathetic anglo that lost money after the ’79 revolution? You get stupider with every post. German from 1933-1945 was a close to what you want in this world but your Anglo hatred of Germans prevents you from seeing that.”

        So then you also said to me that;

        ”And, predictably, you refuse to tell me what makes him supposedly a Nazi.”

        Predictably? This is my first foray onto your Blog, and I’m giving my opinions here. If you and others don’t like them i’m not going to collapse into a puddle from crying.

        This guy is a Nazi, a literal German Nazi. He quite unironically says;

        ”German from 1933-1945 was a close to what you want in this world but your Anglo hatred of Germans prevents you from seeing that.”

        So it is what it is, i’m neither making it more than what it is, nor less by denying it even exists out there.

        • jim says:

          If a commenter was an actual, for real, Nazi, he would say “Nazi Germany was good, and it was good because of such and such and so and so” And he would say, or imply that such and such and so and so was what he wanted, and were good things.

          Obviously in his mind, the accusation that what I want is similar to Nazi Germany makes me look really bad, because obviously in his mind, the accusation that I am a tool of the Jews makes me look really bad.

          This man has no previous history of commenting to my blog, and I do not see that that very brief comment identifies him as a Nazi. Or even a German. Or anything. He could be, and very likely is, arguing that what I want is Nazism, but that I fail to notice because I identify with Anglos. He fails to tell us that what I want is what he wants. Indeed, quite obviously it is not.

          Maybe he thinks that what I want is good, and Germans accomplished those good things – but rather obviously he does not think that what I want is good. The “You are a Jewish shill” line is itself a typical shill line. Social Justice warriors always project.

          If group A and group B hate each other, and group B and group C hate each other, this is no reason to suppose that group A likes group B. He assumes there can be only two sides, which is progressive thinking, not Nazi thinking.

          The sort of reasoning in that comment, that I hate Iran because I am a tool of the Jews, is characteristic of progressives and commies, who project their own nonsense onto their enemies. Nazis knew, and Ironic Nazis know, that diversity plus proximity equals war. They did not think the way the man who wrote that comment thinks.

          Soros employees always accuse everyone whom they imagine to be to the right of Pol Pot both of being a Nazi and of being employed by Jews, and there he is accusing me of being a Nazi employed by Jews in one sentence.

  15. What? says:

    1. You use the word ‘honour’ instead of the american spelling ‘honor’. That makes you no better than any foreign leftist or holy spiraler lecturing americans about america.
    2. Instead of promoting brown communism like AOC you promote some Victorian / Feudal english society instead, again, making you no better than AOC for wanting to fundamentally change America according to your biases.
    3. You are a retarded anglo who thinks his ideas and so called values are universal. This is a mental disease that subjects of all empires in history have suffered from. Doubly so for britfucks because of geography.
    4. Geography, the UK is an island, a rainy shitty socialist island ruled by a political monopoly and the people have no where to run because of the island thing. This means the english are more tyrannical and insular than other european nations as a result. It also means that the insular nature of your society means you think your local customs are universal, they are not and people are sick of anglo ‘ideas’ like neo-liberalism.
    5. If you want to bow down to a monarch why did you come to America? You could have stayed in Britain or go back.
    6. Calling nazis leftists only sort of makes sense to the english mindset and isn’t even true in reality. Have you ever considered that nazism was just a political formalization of aspects of german culture that have been around since ancient times? The socialist part is a red herring.
    9. Socialists like taking guns like in the UK, Germans had firearms under Hitler.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich
    10. Neo-liberalism is responsible for hollowing out American manufacturing all so the correct class of people, the people you worship, can make money destroying industry. People like bankers, hedge funds, and CEOs. Thank you Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.
    11. Calling people wignat is some stupid anglo mental tick so you can assert some sort of class superiority otherwise it makes no sense. A good leader would whip these people into shape, you let them rot and laugh at them. Hitler whipped Germany into shape.
    12. Calling people wignat makes you sound like a bougie.
    13. I read you to try to understand the conservative anglo boomer mindset, I still don’t get it.
    14. I find conservative politics in english speaking countries to have really, really gay undertones.
    15. I probably got stuff wrong but whatever, I have productive stuff I need to do instead of fact checking everything because of your autism.

    • jim says:

      > sick of anglo ‘ideas’ like neo-liberalism

      “Neo liberalism” is a term used by leftists who think Latin America is poor because white American capitalists are bleeding it dry, rather than because mestizos are stupid and feckless.

      Tell us. Why is Latin America poor? Why is Africa poor?

      You screwed up your shibboleths. “neo-liberal” is what leftists call insufficiently left wing leftists. It means a left winger who is not doing enough to destroy the economy of flyover country. It is what an internationalist anti capitalist calls an internationalist who is insufficiently anti capitalist. The commie wing of the Democrats think that the Clinton wing of the Democrats are neo-liberals.

      If person A calls person a neoliberal, it is always an attack on person B as insufficiently left wing.

      People use the world neoliberalism to attack international rootless corporate capitalism – but the criticism is never that American jobs are going to China, but that third worlders are selling off their resources and working in sweatshops – it is an attack from the internationalist socialist left, not the national socialist right.

      Anyone who calls Trump a neoliberal does not think that the Obama/China trade relationship was China exploiting America. He thinks it was American capitalists exploiting Chinese.

      Tell us: Was the old deal between China and America, before Trump’s trade war, a great deal for China and a terrible deal for America, or was it a great deal for rich white American capitalists, and a terrible deal for Chinese?

      Tell us: Is there a glaringly obvious relationship between race and IQ, and an equally obvious relationship between national IQ and national wealth?

      • What? says:

        >Why is Latin America poor?
        Because its filled with shitskins and the IMF or America financially attacks it. It isn’t one or the other but both. There is a white minority that can run things stably but not if they have constant financial attacks.
        >Tell us, tell us, tell us
        I’m not playing your binary thinking game because it isn’t correct. America’s pre-Trump trade with China benefited the rich in America and the nation of China as a whole to the detriment of the 99.9% in America. Even programmers have been getting replaced for decades.
        >race, iq, national wealth
        That theory falls apart with America because whites should be richer than they are today but we have a hostile elite that is trying to destroy white America. You assume some sort of pre WWII state with that question and ignore the hostile minority that got power after WWII that wants whites dead and gone.

        >If person A calls person a neoliberal, it is always an attack on person B as insufficiently left wing
        Only in your fevered mind. What do you call the ideology that hollowed out American industry? It wasn’t the commmies that destroyed American industry but the corporations, the capitalists, and the banks. The Pentagon is reliant on China for its supply chain now, good move capitalists.

        Jim Jones, how are you any different than AOC? She promotes brown communism and you promote recreating England in America. You have to go back like the Mexicans have to go back. Fuck the English.

        @TheDividualist
        >traditional German culture
        Most of the Germans in Germany didn’t seem to know much about traditional German culture either thanks to capitalism destroying their way of life.

        • jim says:

          > > Why is Latin America poor?

          > Because its filled with shitskins and the IMF or America financially attacks it. It isn’t one or the other but both. There is a white minority that can run things stably but not if they have constant financial attacks.

          OK, pretty good evidence you are not being paid to write this and paid to pretend to be on the right, because if you were those words would likely get you fired. So now I am debating you on the theory that you actually believe, and are not parroting your master’s script like a third world help line worker on an unhelpful help line. (Which I get a lot of.)

          Describing the IMFs activities as “financial attack” is incorrect. The IMF gets taxpayer money from rich countries, and then “lends” it to poor countries for stupid activities, subject to stupid conditions, which loans are seldom repaid, in part because the money tends be embezzled, partly by local elites, partly by ngos staffed by Democrats. The IMF and World Bank close their eyes to this embezzlement, because of the revolving door between the ngos and the World Bank and IMF.

          If the conditions are bad, don’t take the money. Taxpayers in rich countries are compelled to pay, but governments in poor countries are not compelled to borrow.

          What happens is a corrupt elite borrows the money, embezzles it, and then, unstable power means someone else comes to power and is faced with demands that the money that was pissed away on corruption and stupid projects be repaid – which does indeed look like an attack. but it is not an attack. It is still a transfer of funds from wealthy smart white people to poor stupid brown people. Also a transfer of funds from taxpayers in flyover country to people like Biden’s son, a transfer of wealth within America from people in flyover country to people in the bicoastal megalopoli, using the story “We care deeply about far”, to attack and rob near.

          OK. Next questions (I am still a little bit suspicious. I get a lot of enemy action.)

          Why was Venezuela rich, and now it is poor? Was the election of Hugo Chavez the masses seizing power from neoliberal imperialists, or was it brown people kicking down the doors of the white run bakery to loot the place, and then wondering why the shop shelves are empty and they cannot buy bread, brown people seizing the factory, having no idea how to operate it, and then ripping out the equipment to sell it for scrap?

          What do you think caused the food shortage in the Nazi empire that led them to starve Greek Nazis? Why were Greek Nazis starving? Why did Greek farmers stop producing food?

          Strannik thinks you are a genuine Nazi. I am asking these questions to figure out what you are. “Neoliberalism” is a commie concept, and the idea that capitalism is new is a commie concept.

          If you are a genuine Nazi, I am going to take your national socialism seriously and debate it, arguing for Trump’s national capitalism (only more so). The use of the term “neoliberal” still leaves me suspicious, so I am still to pin you down and figure out what you are.

          If you are an genuine Nazi, I recommend you read Mike’s excellent link and Ex’s excellent explanation which lucidly explain the difference between reaction and nazism. (Hint. We are not neoliberals, and neither is Trump. And even if you are not a paid shill, you do not seem to be a Nazi.)

        • jim says:

          > What do you call the ideology that hollowed out American industry?

          Progressivism. It was not capitalists that looted the Ukraine, unless you think Hunter Biden is a capitalist because he is on the board of numerous companies at extremely high pay.

          As an engineer, I complain a lot about H1Bs, but it is not H1Bs that are shitting in the streets of San Francisco. It is mostly illegals brought in to live on crime and welfare, and boost the blue state count in the census, thus increasing Democrat federal representation in the House and the Electoral college.

          > Most of the Germans in Germany didn’t seem to know much about traditional German culture either thanks to capitalism destroying their way of life.

          This accepts the Marxist doctrine that capitalism is new. Capitalism is ancient. King Solomon assumes that capital is created by families, that it is rightly owned by that family, and that value is created by the owner and creator of that capital, who uses the market in capital to apply capital to its highest and best use. The parables of Jesus assume the unlimited authority of the owner of that capital who uses the property rights in that capital to create value, and the freedom of the employer to contract with employees according to the consent of the employer and the consent of the individual employee.

          The doctrine that capitalism is new is a lie issued by the priestly class who want to rob the merchant class.

          The trouble with Nazism is that it was heavily influenced by communism, but you are using a lot more commie shibboleths than Nazi shibboleths. You are using a lot more commie words and commie ideas than Nazi words and Nazi ideas.

          Nazism and communism are both theories of priestly supremacy, the main difference being that Nazism derives from Lutheranism, via the radical Lutherans that Luther urged the princes to suppress, while Marxism derives from Judaism and the radical Puritans that Oliver Cromwell suppressed. And your words are words that come from Marx translating Judaism from the next world to this world in preparation for Immanentizing the Eschaton, not words that come from radical Lutherans translating Lutheranism from the next world to this world.

          “Bourgeoisie” in the sense that you are using it comes from Marx translating the Jewish Eschaton to the Communist Revolution. It is not Nazi or radical Lutheran terminology.

    • >Have you ever considered that nazism was just a political formalization of aspects of german culture that have been around since ancient times? The socialist part is a red herring.

      Hitler said that the big mistake of German conservatives was not noticing that socialism is very useful for nation-building. So Hitler was doing something new, not something traditional, took socialism seriously at the very least as a tool, used symbols like the swastika that had litle to do with German history. (The Teutonic Cross would have been a lot better, and they used that too, but the swastika had nothing specifically German, an esoteric symbol, even its Aryan associations fairly loose. And the Nazi eagle had one head, the Imperial one two heads. I don’t see them trying for symbolic continuity.)

      You know nothing about traditional German culture, how there was no such thing as the Russian type socialistic village community but individual allotments of land (Hufenverfassung, hide system). Read Mitterauer’s “Why Europe?” The manor was a capitalist enterprise growing and processing (milling, baking) food for the cities and paying workers in land allotments instead of money. It was by no means a primitive-socialist community. And how traditional German culture differs from all that proto-New-Agey esoteric Aryanism. And you know nothing about Nazis either. On that account, you could read this: https://carlsbad1819.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/reading-some-actual-nazis/

      • The Cominator says:

        ” took socialism seriously at the very least as a tool”

        The horribly failed Nazi agriculture policy (not necessary as part of a prep for total war… and the Nazis didn’t even use their socialism for Total War until 1943 as Goebbels and Speer bitched about to no end) proved they took it seriously as an end in itself.

        The worst thing is that Hitler went for the socialism aspect AFTER suppressing the socialistic wignatish nazis in the Roehm Putsch.

        “11. Calling people wignat is some stupid anglo mental tick so you can assert some sort of class superiority otherwise it makes no sense. A good leader would whip these people into shape, you let them rot and laugh at them. Hitler whipped Germany into shape.
        12. Calling people wignat makes you sound like a bougie.”

        Wignats are in general hopeless idiots and controlled op, they deserve the label you stupid fucking wignat.

        • Bilge Pump says:

          “Wignats are in general hopeless idiots and controlled op, they deserve the label you stupid fucking wignat.”

          I’d rather be around white people than any other people. I’m fine with forcing everyone else to gtfo.

          Here’s some statements to establish my non-shill status:

          Women love sociopath badboys and generally if allowed will fuck things up until they find one to fall in love with. Giving them any political influence is a mistake.

          Jews, poos, and niggers too must go

          Democracy is fuckin stupid and needs to gtfo. Personally I don’t want to have to worry about political bickering, I’m interested in doing other things with my time, but if some group of annoying faggots or satan worshiping trannies or street shitting poos is getting on my nerves I’m going to do what it takes to get them to stop. To me this means going against democracy and the faggishness that brought poos niggers spics and Jews here to begin with.

          Of course going against democracy lends support to poodom, with it’s caste system. Poos want to establish a new caste system with whites beneath them. Capitalists are hiring them and enabling them to do it. Sure government aka socialism made H1B into law, but greedy Bezos shits are the ones hiring them. The entire thing is a clusterfuck of annoying fuckery.

          • jim says:

            Yes

            Just as people are willfully blind to female misconduct in the workplace, they are willfully blind to the fact that diversity plus proximity equals war, willfully blind to what happens when you hire too many H1Bs for a critical business function.

            When you get enough Indians of one caste in the engineering department, first they get rid of the white engineers, and management thinks that is fine, then they coordinate to disempower management, and management fails to notice because noticing is racist, and then they run the company into the ground because they do not know how to manage the company.

            Management thinks that they are getting cheap docile slave labor engineers, and that will elevate the status of management in the company and lower the status of engineers, but when you get a critical mass, less docile than they seem.

          • Not Tom says:

            What makes wignats wignats – why the slur exists – is the specific belief that White (almost always capitalized like that) is a cohesive identity and inherently virtuous in and of itself, and all other groups are deliberately oppressing them, which is remarkably similar to what naggers believe about themselves.

            Simply observing that white supermajorities are less dysfunctional than racial diversity, and wanting to live in such a supermajority, is not wignat, it’s just common sense. If you dial that up to 11 and want 100% racial purity, then it starts to sound a little extreme and more importantly, insanely complicated (because most white Americans are not 100% European, Jews are not 100% Ashkenazi, etc.), but still not wignat, just impractical.

            Wignat is claiming that all white people are inherently good, including the communists, and that socialized medicine would totally work if we got rid of all the nonwhites, just like it did(n’t) in 80s-90s Canada with its >90% white population.

          • Pooch says:

            Democracy can work in a white supermajority. Worked in the US 1783-1960. Would have worked even better if the blacks were kicked out when they were freed like Australia did to its Pacific Islander slaves.

            • jim says:

              Democracy failed when they enfranchised women and men without property. This was the first step on the government electing a new people. Pretty soon the idea that Africans in subsaharan Africa are not allowed to vote themselves American’s stuff will be deemed morally unthinkable.

              • Pooch says:

                That’s not true. Married women overwhelmingly vote the same as their husbands. Democracy failed when marriage was destroyed unless you are saying democracy is the reason marriage and family formation was attacked.

                • jim says:

                  Democracy was a big part of the reason marriage was attacked.

                  The priestly class wanted to demonize a warrior aristocracy by blaming them for female misconduct, so pushed the doctrine that women were sexless angels, hence any form of coercion against female sexuality was wrongdoing. This attack on marriage was not in itself initially motivated by democracy.

                  This, of course, created a class of women dependent on the state, rather than husbands, who could be relied on to vote for more of the same. And then they gave them the vote, and the attack came to be motivated by, and supported by, democracy. Replacing marriage with child support is, like illegal immigration, the government electing a new people, even though the initial attack on marriage long predates electing a new people.

                • Dave says:

                  That’s why the 19th Amendment didn’t cause an immediate collapse of marriage, but it unleashed a feedback loop where unmarried women voted for government benefits, which then reduced the incentive for other women to marry.

                  To the single woman, government is the father she never knew and the husband she’ll never have.

                • 1) I have a suspicion, I cannot quite prove it, that the reason democracy emerged was that warrior-aristocrats kind of got beta, could not control their wives, listened to their wives, who generally liked the ideas idealistic young intellctuals preached and held back their husbands hands when they wanted to crush them. Otherwise why didn’t warrior aristocrats crushed the whole thing, nipped it in the bud? Can you imagine medieval knights would have put up with this?

                  There was a loss of manhood when knights turned into ballet-dancing courtiers.

                  Pulling a Montesquieau again: “In monarchies women are subject to very little restraint; because, as the distinction of ranks calls them to court, there they assume a spirit of liberty, which is almost the only one tolerated in that place. Each courtier avails himself of their charms and passions, in order to advance his fortune: and, as their weakness admits not of pride, but of vanity, luxury constantly attends them.”

                  Recall how Act I of the French Revolution was that the aristocrats complained that the kingdom is in debt because the king is buying diamonds for the queen. If it was true, doesn’t it sound like being a weak man who gives in too much to the wife? Do manly men of their own decision tend to spend too much on luxuries or is it generally the influence of their wives?

                  Maybe pull Adam Smith here:

                  “In a commercial country, abounding with every sort of expensive luxury, the sovereign, in the same manner as almost all the great proprietors in his dominions, naturally spends a great part of his revenue in purchasing those luxuries. His own and the neighbouring countries supply him abundantly with all the costly trinkets which compose the splendid, but insignificant, pageantry of a court. For the sake of an inferior pageantry of the same kind, his nobles dismiss their retainers, make their tenants independent, and become gradually themselves as insignificant as the greater part of the wealthy burghers in his dominions. The same frivolous passions, which influence their conduct, influence his.”

                  “The tenants having in this manner become independent, and the retainers being dismissed, the great proprietors were no longer capable of interrupting the regular execution of justice, or of disturbing the peace of the country. Having sold their birth-right, not like Esau, for a mess of pottage in time of hunger and necessity, but, in the wantonness of plenty, for trinkets and baubles, fitter to be the playthings of children than the serious pursuits of men, they became as insignificant as any substantial burgher or tradesmen in a city.”

                  I cannot quite prove it yet, but I definitely sense a weaking and feminization of 18th century warrior aristocrats, their wives gaining more and more influence over them.

                  2) In the modern era, I think there is a multi-generational process. When girls grow up with fathers, they tend to consider the fathers alpha. Thus they see good provider beta men as alphas. I think the first generation of “liberated” women divorced their husbands seeking a merely a better beta, someone more like their fathers. But in the second generation girls grew up without fathers and that is when they became really, really feral.

              • The Cominator says:

                And its very very hard in a republic or democracy to maintain a restricted franchise. Its probably possible to resist enfranchising women but the pressure to enfranchise people without property becomes overwhelming in the event of total war (which is why Rome for centuries did not let the “Head Count” serve in the legions and they only enrolled them under the pressure of the massive Cimbric invasion under Marius).

            • Not Tom says:

              If you’re going to claim that democracy works in the USA, then you have to put the termination date at 1933 when democracy formally ended. And that’s a full 30 years before any significant demographic change.

              But democracy really ended in 1883 with the Pendleton Civil Service Act; voting has been little more than a formality since then. Which puts your “success” period between 1783 and 1883, exactly 100 years.

              And a political system that lives only 100 years cannot be said to “work” by any useful definition of that word.

    • Bob says:

      >Have you ever considered that nazism was just a political formalization of aspects of german culture that have been around since ancient times?

      “He builds legions but he doesn’t build a nation. A nation is created by families, a religion, tradition: it is made up out of the hearts of mothers, the wisdom of fathers, the joy and the exuberance of children. [Of Germany under Hitler he says]….an all-swallowing State, disdainful of human dignities and the ancient structure of our race, sets itself up in place of everything else. And the man who, alone, incorporates in himself this whole State, has neither a God to honour nor a dynasty to conserve, nor a past to consult….
      “But of our Germany, which was a nation of poets and musicians and artists and soldiers, he has made a nation of hysterics and hermits, engulfed in a mob and led by a thousand liars or fanatics….” – The Kaiser

      • info says:

        Dan Carlin the historian observed:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvkFkJolsWA

        That the german military of wwi far surpassed the military of nazi germany. With far superior logistics to boot.

        • Strannik says:

          I think it was Marshal Zhukov who once opined that ”I have fought the fathers and I have fought the sons, and the fathers were better fighters”, or something like that.

          • info says:

            @Strannik

            Probably. National socialism and hitler who is pretty much a loon in many respects really did a number on Germany.

        • Bob says:

          Yeah, wasn’t Dan Carlin’s source on the superiority of the WWI german military none other than the quoted personal opinion of Hitler himself?

          Carlin quoted observers saying the german army marched through their village in perfect lock step formation, singing the same songs at the same cadence, for eight hours. No breaks or gaps. No pauses. Just an eight hour long line of perfectly marching soldiers. That level of organization and cooperation could’ve gotten us to Alpha Centauri by now. Thanks, Obama.

          • The Cominator says:

            Thanks Wilson… a man far far worse than Obama could ever.

          • Strannik says:

            Funny that for all of Hitler’s anti-Slav hatreds, he said somewhere that the best infantry in the 20th century were the Serbians…

    • Not Tom says:

      1. You use the word ‘honour’ instead of the american spelling ‘honor’. That makes you no better than any foreign leftist or holy spiraler lecturing americans about america.

      When did Jim do that? Maybe I missed something, but that spelling is coming from the Indian shills, not Jim.

      2. Instead of promoting brown communism like AOC you promote some Victorian / Feudal english society instead, again, making you no better than AOC for wanting to fundamentally change America according to your biases.

      muh horseshoe theory

      3. You are a retarded anglo who thinks his ideas and so called values are universal.

      Obviously a lie, since he (and we) acknowledge that these ideas are in fact thought crime, not allowed to be spoken in polite society, so obviously not universal. What they are is correct, and proven by the historical record. If you don’t read or know or care about history, then shut your mouth and listen to the people who do.

      4. Geography, the UK is an island, a rainy shitty socialist island ruled by a political monopoly and the people have no where to run because of the island thing. This means the english are more tyrannical and insular than other european nations as a result. It also means that the insular nature of your society means you think your local customs are universal, they are not and people are sick of anglo ‘ideas’ like neo-liberalism.

      Wonderful little piece of inductive reasoning that has no resemblance whatsoever to reality (other than the UK being socialist, but who isn’t these days?) and, as Jim already pointed out, gets the shibboleths all wrong.

      5. If you want to bow down to a monarch why did you come to America? You could have stayed in Britain or go back.

      Other than maybe the Arab world, where is there an actual, functioning monarchy? Asserting that the UK is a monarchy is just dumb. The Queen couldn’t even prevent the establishment of a “Supreme Court”. The royal family has not exercised executive privilege since… well, long before any of us were born.

      6. Calling nazis leftists only sort of makes sense to the english mindset and isn’t even true in reality. Have you ever considered that nazism was just a political formalization of aspects of german culture that have been around since ancient times? The socialist part is a red herring.

      Nazism was right-wing culture tainted with the left-wing ideology, which gradually took over the movement. If you don’t believe it contained real socialism, then explain the massive expansion of social programs in Nazi Germany.

      9. Socialists like taking guns like in the UK, Germans had firearms under Hitler.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_Germany#Gun_regulation_of_the_Third_Reich

      Gun grabbing and socialism are independent. Leftists in general tend to love both, but disarmament isn’t a hard requirement for socialism, or liberalism in general.

      10. Neo-liberalism is responsible for hollowing out American manufacturing all so the correct class of people, the people you worship, can make money destroying industry. People like bankers, hedge funds, and CEOs. Thank you Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

      Gay.

      11. Calling people wignat is some stupid anglo mental tick so you can assert some sort of class superiority otherwise it makes no sense. A good leader would whip these people into shape, you let them rot and laugh at them. Hitler whipped Germany into shape.

      Congratulations, you’re the 10 millionth person to make the “don’t marginalize them, integrate them!” argument. You win no prize. Some low-functioning people can’t be integrated, which is why the military has an IQ requirement. And wignats are low class; if you disagree, point us to one that’s been considered high class, at any time and in any place. Nazi Germany doesn’t count, either; Teutonic supremacism is not white nationalism.

      12. Calling people wignat makes you sound like a bougie.

      Using the word “bougie” makes you sound like a communist faggot.

      13. I read you to try to understand the conservative anglo boomer mindset, I still don’t get it.

      Oh yeah, Jim is crazy popular with boomer cons, that’s why Fox is racing to interview him and National Review is racing to publish him.

      14. I find conservative politics in english speaking countries to have really, really gay undertones.

      Nazi party was literally full of homosexuals. They had more fags than the Catholic Church.

      15. I probably got stuff wrong but whatever, I have productive stuff I need to do instead of fact checking everything because of your autism.

      Ok, so you weren’t too busy to write a 15 point screed, only to fact check it. Good to know.

    • >and the people have no where to run because of the island thing

      In actually reality the most stereotypically British to do has been to get on a ship to live somewhere else – North America, Australia, Africa, India… this has been so stereotypical that we in Continental Europe used to wonder how they don’t seem have a geographical kind of patriotism, of being attached to the geography of the homeland, how are they able to make homelands for themselves all over the planet. Later it was explained as the difference between farmer vs. peasant populations.

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        How is that a British stereotype? To get on a ship to explore has been mostly a Southern European venture. The British only started to get on the business when someone else did the dangerous job first, to be merchants mostly and then perhaps settle, Anglos and merchants really go hand in hand, you know, Adam Smith: island, navy, commerce, anglo, yes. It’s a no brainer, islanders with boats being merchants are like a human meme, convenient ports being centers of commerce is a natural affair.

        Where are you from in “Continental Europe”? I think geographical patriotism is fake and gay, modern nationalism is fake, gay and socialist (Perfidious France). Alexander and the Romans didn’t care much for it, neither did the Spanish Empire and its supreme infantry. But really, I don’t think any European particularly cared considering that the monarchs and nobles were often not native to the land.

        People cared about religion/culture and blood, which makes sense. Geographical patriotism is the retarded idea that the commie living two blocks down is somehow your fellow more than the Christian living 300 miles away. Caved-in retarded fake and gay thought process, almost as bad as progressivism.

  16. Pooch says:

    General Question:

    Is Neoreaction/Dark Enlightenment fascism? If not, what is the difference? Reading the wikipedia definition I don’t see a ton of differences. I’m not using fascism in a negative context to be clear.

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

    • Mike says:

      Your first mistake was reading the Wikipedia definition, and not reading how its been articulated by Moldbug, Jim, Spandrell, Parallax Optics, Aidan MacClear, and others who actually call themselves the term.

      Read this article that the Dividualist posted above: https://carlsbad1819.wordpress.com/2017/03/24/reading-some-actual-nazis/

    • Ex says:

      The wikipedia definition is indeed terrible.

      > …characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and of the economy which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.

      That’s a better fit for Soviet Russia than for Fascist Spain.

      But even taking these alleged characteristics as given, let’s consider them –

      1. “dictatorial” is a slur. Neoreaction believes that democracy is mostly fake: you either have a recognized ruling class, or an unrecognized ruling class. If the people in a “democracy” want one thing, for example, less immigration, and the ruling class wants another, the ruling class consistently gets its way and the people don’t. Recognize the ruling class and identify the ruler, it’s more honest.

      2. False premise. Neoreaction is to a great extent about abolishing the implicitly totalitarian mindset that drives ideas like an internal “opposition”. My father does not have an opposition in his family trying to vote for a new father. The store where I buy my sausages does not have an opposition trying to turn it into a vegan store. The company where I work does not have an opposition. This blog does not have an opposition. Several of these may have _enemies_, but not the political class of opposition.

      The notion of an “opposition” assumes a democracy-style state of ongoing jockeying for unstable leadership. Neoreaction is not democratic.

      To the extent there is violent rebellion against the ruler, of course, Neoreaction believes in forcibly suppressing that, like every functional theory of government does.

      3. Neoreactionaries do not believe in strong regimentation of society and the economy. People will mostly regiment themselves and each other if the government does not actively fuck them up. This is not libertarianism – the neoreactionary government sets a healthy frame – but it is certainly not the ongoing regulatory frenzy that most Western governments get up to.
      (Really, it’s some bloody cheek for the writers to accuse anyone else of ‘strong regimentation’.)

      Marriage, for example, was around before the US. But the US government has regimented things to functionally abolish marriage. Any marriages you see in the US are running on habit and social inertia, not law. In the US, you are forbidden to bind yourself to a marriage. The state can, will, and does void marital promises and contracts you may have made. As seen in the infamous _Diosdado_ case, the judge will claim to be defending the sanctity of marriage even as he orders a unilateral no-fault divorce to protect an adulterer.

      • jim says:

        > 2. False premise. Neoreaction is to a great extent about abolishing the implicitly totalitarian mindset that drives ideas like an internal “opposition”. My father does not have an opposition in his family trying to vote for a new father. The store where I buy my sausages does not have an opposition trying to turn it into a vegan store. The company where I work does not have an opposition. This blog does not have an opposition. Several of these may have _enemies_, but not the political class of opposition.

        This excellent comment references the neoreactionary idea of subsidarity. The Nazi state replaced the father in his family, and the businessman in the sausage shop. The union was nazified, but the boss could no longer fire the unionized workers if they did not do what he told them. The union boss could, however, have the workers beaten up if they did not do what the union boss told them. And, of course, the union boss did not in fact understand how to run the business.

        The core of neoreaction is that the father is the head of the family, and the priest of his family, priest and King, and the King of the land still has to knock on the door of the peasant’s hovel and wait for the King of the hovel to open the door for him. And if the dog of the hovel threatens the King of the land, the King of the land has to wait quietly outside the peasant’s gate for the King of the hovel to tell the dog to cut it out.

        The property rights of the merchant class have to be secure, including unlimited authority to throw out the problem customer and the problem worker, in order that they be free to create value.

        Merchants need property rights extending over distance and time, property rights in contracts, and this necessarily gets more complicated, messy, and more subject to state regulation, which leads to more priestly involvement in merchant affairs, which leads to the priesthood getting out of the sovereign’s control. This is not only a threat to the merchant class, as Trump regularly and colorfully complains when addressing an audience of businessmen, but a threat to the power of the Sovereign. And King Louis XVI of France died of that threat.

        The Sovereign therefore needs to keep the unavoidable priestly meddling in merchant affairs on a tight leash, the tightest leash possible, not only for Trump’s reason that merchants need freedom to create value, but also to prevent his priestly servants from acquiring dangerously great power, the power that proved fatal to King Louis XVI of France.

        • Pooch says:

          Perhaps this is what “What?” is getting at above, but how does Reaction address the fact that the businessman wants to hire brown migrants to work in the sausage shop to do the same job a white man does for half the cost regardless of the negative effect that has on society. Or better yet outsource the entire sausage shop to India for half of that cost. To him that is good for business.

          In the Restoration period of England this was not a problem. Today it is and I’d imagine national socialism is better equipped to handle that problem which seems to be one of the points the national socialist above is trying to make.

          • Ex says:

            Depends on several factors.

            But at a first guess, it seems likely that the kind of brown migrant willing to work for half wage is the kind of brown migrant that will swiftly be arrested for street shitting or petty theft in a reactionary state, and the outsourcing to India is half cost because the regulatory state doubles the cost of hiring a native worker.

            With that said, tariffs to maintain home industrial base and home employment are one of the things several neoreactionaries have considered as a socially useful measure for a state. The US govt was funded by tariffs before it had an income tax. Tariffs (especially flat, global tariffs) are a potential example of a healthy frame that points the market in a direction without micromanaging it.

            • jim says:

              Pretty sure that H1Bs hired to write software are not the ones shitting in the streets of San Francisco.

              The problem with the H1Bs hired to write software is that diversity plus proximity equals war. When you get a critical mass of H1Bs, first they coordinate to remove the remaining white engineers, and also coordinate to disempower the white management. Wherupon it becomes apparent that their management is even worse than their software, and the company goes down the tubes, Informix being a good example of this process.

              • Pooch says:

                You’ve identified the problem. Capitalists want mass immigration even though it’s bad for the nation state. You have not identified the solution.

                Always having a strong leader like Trump that tells the capitalists to fuck off?

                • jim says:

                  Capitalists want mass immigration of productive people. That is not what we are getting, so you cannot blame capitalists for the current problem. H1Bs are a problem, but if you walk the streets of San Francisco, it becomes glaringly obvious that even for engineers, they are not the big problem.

                  People like José Inez García Zárate, the judges that allowed him to stay, and the jury that acquitted him are the big problem. It was not capitalists that brought him in, nor capitalists that allowed him to stay. Pretty girls no longer walk the Embarcadero.

                  Still plenty of smart white engineers in those towers, but considerably fewer pretty girls dare walk the Embarcadero.

                • Ex says:

                  Part of a solution is allowing people to once again require and advertise white-made products from white-owned businesses, which is currently illegal in America.

                • Pooch says:

                  That’s not what I see in the northeast US. I see a local sandwich shop that I liked near my office which used to have a pleasant all white staff now only employ poor english speaking low IQ hispanics. They are doing the same work for half the wage of their white counterparts and live 20 to a house to make up for it.

                  They are productive at their low skill jobs and aren’t shitting on the streets here. This seems like a problem inherent to modern capitalism to me. The Italian and Irish immigrants of the early 1900s did similar so maybe this is not a problem after all? I don’t know but an injection of low IQ browns (even if productive) doesn’t seem desirable.

                • jim says:

                  H1Bs are in fact substantially less productive that white engineers and cause problems, but crimestop prevents managers from noticing it.

                  And similarly I bet your sandwich shop is part of a business big enough to have a Human Resources Department, and the human resources department forbids the boss to discriminate against brown workers who do half the work in an inferior way to white workers. If your sandwich shop was owned by the shopkeeper himself, I suspect its staff would reflect the owner’s race.

                  Not everything is a progressive conspiracy, but one hell of a lot of it.

                  And that pretty girls no longer walk the Embarcadero is definitely a progressive conspiracy. Were capitalists responsible for the fact that José Inez García Zárate came to San Francisco illegally, lived on crime and welfare, and is still there despite illegal status and numerous arrests for very serious crimes?

                • Not Tom says:

                  They are productive at their low skill jobs and aren’t shitting on the streets here. This seems like a problem inherent to modern capitalism to me.

                  You’re defining “modern capitalism” as free trade and free movement, neither of which have anything to do with ancient capitalism. They were introduced by progressives and – predictably – made part of the canon by “conservatives” who now accept it as gospel.

                  Employers do want cheap labor, yes, but cheap foreign labor and cheap foreign materials can be denied without also denying other aspects of economic productivity; tariffs are a simple and effective tool.

                  Employers want all kinds of crazy things, and employees want all kinds of crazy things, and normally they will sort this out through negotiation as long as neither party is allowed to cheat – say, by offshoring to escape local market rates, or by forming labor unions to artificially inflate market rates.

                  Employers might be less desperate to bring in foreign ringers if there were not so many perverse incentives, like tax havens, over-regulation of the domestic market, disparate impact lawsuits, sexual harassment lawsuits, and so on – but even if they did, it’s not a problem that they want it, only a problem that we give it to them. Every 6 year old wants candy for dinner, but if the parents give it to him, it’s the fault of the parents, not the child or the candy store.

                • >They are doing the same work for half the wage of their white counterparts and live 20 to a house to make up for it.

                  Surely they don’t want to live like that forever. Eventually they will save up money and buy a single-family house in Mexico. So my point is, if you ban immigration, domestic, citizen browns will not accept such wages, because they don’t have another country to go to where they can buy a single-family home cheaply. I am somewhat familiar with this mindset because many Eastern Europeans do this in London, living like that sucks but what makes them go on is that in 5 years they can buy a house at home. If they were citizens of the UK and not citizens of an EE country, so they would have to buy their house there, it would take 20 years of living so which is something they would not accept. Some peoples indeed do have lower standards, but remember how US blacks lived pre-Civil Rights, it might have been a worse house than what whites had but a single-family home, not 20 to a house.

                  Another observation is that due to bad white birth rates, we sort of ran out of white poors. I don’t really understand how fertility by class works, maybe someone has data on it, all I can say is that in Western Europe whites do not take cheap burger-flipping jobs because their parents did not take them either, somehow everybody alive has at least upper-working class parents, somehow the white under-working class of 1950 was even worse at reproduction than whites in general. It is truly weird. Do you know any whites in the US who had unskilled laborer parents? There used to be white unskilled laborers but somehow they had even less kids than whites in general?

                • Not Tom says:

                  Do you know any whites in the US who had unskilled laborer parents?

                  That depends on what you mean by unskilled. Factory workers and coal miners? Definitely. Burger flippers? No, not really.

                  But I think that is partly because most whites are smart enough to realize they can’t properly raise a family on a burger flipper’s wage. Those jobs are best filled by youth or elderly, or semi-skilled adults needing temporary supplemental income. I know many whites who worked crap jobs in their youth, but had better jobs by the time they had kids. And lots of elderly go to work as Walmart greeters, often just so they have a reason to get out of the house.

                  In my opinion, a huge part of the problem is that whites who clawed their way up the career ladder the hard way are determined to make it “easier” for their kids, specifically by sending them to college. That leads to young adults who (a) think low-skill work is beneath them and (b) are saddled with so much student debt that low-skill work can’t actually pay the bills, even if their degree doesn’t qualify them for any in-demand high-skill work.

                  It’s tragic, and the maintenance of this broken system is part of the reason why we have “crops rotting in the fields” and demand for low-skill immigration. It’s an addictive painkiller, for which we have to keep increasing the dose just to feel somewhat normal.

                  Yes, I literally blame Harvard for the disappearance of white people from menial jobs; the triple threat of status inflation, female hypergamy, and mass immigration all reinforce each other and push white men out of historically white male jobs.

            • Ethnic unity is one of the glues holding ruling classes united, every responsible state that wants to keep secure power secure will be against large numbers of ethnically different immigrants even if they behave well. Skimming India for the cream of their best one million people, out of a billion, there is a good chance they would be good people not shitting on the streets, but then you have a power block of one million Indians, not very good for power security. One million relatively smart, hence ambitious people. Not good, too dangerous.

              Many libertarians see the Victorian period as the golden age of unregulated free market. And within states this might have been true, but between states the tariff barriers have been far stricter than anything today. A lot of people were employed in enforcing that and chasing down smugglers. E.g. there was this story that international help to clean up some oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico has been hindered by a law that only US ships may carry goods between two US ports, and that law was made back then in that supposed libertarian golden age.

              Back in the day I was reading a lot of libertarian economics so the idea of tariff barriers isn’t really intuitive to me. Won’t captive markets make domestic industries lazy due to reduced competition? This sort of thinking. I guess one answer I could give to that is that states also compete through war and beyond open war there is that kind of diplomatic pressure of one state that would clearly win a war against another state just making demands and they better obey. This gives a very clear incentive to every *responsible* state to protect their domestic industries only to a necessary level and not too much, because they want to keep them in strong enough competitive shape so that when needed they can turn out good tanks and cannons that can compete in the battlefield.

              Medieval Venice had a huge state-owned factory for both warships and commercial ships. Of course rubs me the wrong way, why state-owned. But the state had a clear competitive interest in making good warships, so the commercial ships if modeled after them won’t be too bad either. A small city can afford only one such factory. A big country more, hence not state-owned, but some state protection could work on the same principle.

              • Not Tom says:

                …the idea of tariff barriers isn’t really intuitive to me. Won’t captive markets make domestic industries lazy due to reduced competition?

                Yes, possibly. Then again, if the foreign business is only able to keep prices low because of foreign government intervention or business practices that would be illegal here, is that really competition in the libertarian sense of the word?

                The problem with libertarian thinking on trade is that it is all black and white, imagines the entire world as following libertarian ideology and does not account for the activities of warriors or priests, domestic or foreign. Everything must be optimized for everyone acting like a completely rational agent who believes sincerely in libertarian ethics. In that sense it’s a totalizing ideology not unlike progressivism.

                In the real world there are problems, solutions, and tradeoffs.

                Problem #1: Government needs money. Is it more efficient to tax foreign trade, or domestic productivity?
                Problem #2: Foreign governments don’t have the same laws, leading to asymmetric and unfair trade. Is it more efficient to install a supranational government, construct heinously complex multilateral treaties, or just make some price adjustments here and there?
                Problem #3: Capital mobility and labor mobility break the underlying assumptions of international trade. If you’re a net importer, you end up leaking capital and accumulating labor until you look like a third world country. Are there sensible precautions we can take to avoid this situation but still keep trade functioning?
                Problem #4: Foreign governments impose their own tariffs. Are we not allowed to impose retaliatory tariffs, because muh principles?

                and so on.

        • Viking says:

          Better question would have been how is neo reaction different from neoconjob

          • jim says:

            Neocons are Trotskyites pretending to be republicans. We are not Trotskyites, and we are not pretending to be Republicans.

      • >Neoreaction believes that democracy is mostly fake: you either have a recognized ruling class, or an unrecognized ruling class.

        That’s one dimension, the other dimension is united vs. divided ruling class. Sort of a 2-dim political compass.

        So recognized and divided ruling classes happen in “true” democracies hence they devolve into civil war quickly. One man, one vote, once.

        In the post-1945 West there were divided recognized ruling classes, i.e. figurehead political parties, but a united unrecognized ruling class behind them. This is especially obvious in international politics, a country outside the US is defined democratic if they are protectorates of Washington, and democratic peace theory is the same as nazi peace theory or communist peace theory: neither Washington, nor Berlin, nor Moscow, nor Beijing allowed their protectorates to go to war with each other.

        The idea that there should be only recognized ruling classes is formalism. One might or might not accept formalism, it does sound a tiny bit autistic, humans are supposed to be able to sense informal status hierarchies and not need to have it served them on a platter, but you see that was meant for small tribes. Non-autists should be able to deal with informal hierarchy in a group of 300 people. But not in three million or thirty million. No way to coordinate on the larger scale but formally.

        If one does accept formalism, and thus that ruling classes should be recognized, then that they should be united is obvious, as civil wars obviously suck. The glue to unite them is loyalty to a person (king) and loyalty to a set of ideas (state church) and loyalty to each other and the ruled (ethnic nationality). The human tendency is very strongly towards not being united so it really does need a lot of duct tape.

        • info says:

          Qin Dynasty managed to do just that. And as the reunifications commenced the Dynasties grip lasted longer and longer.

          China has a terrain as varied as Europe and had many nations as much as cultural diversity as Europe. But the wars of Anniliation made this unification total:
          https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2016/07/china-was-never-empire-of-mind.html?m=1

          • You know, recently I was playing a bit of a Poltical Turing Test kind of thing on myself: if I was a Chinese dude studying Western history, what would I find the weirdest? And it would be this:

            “How comes you guys never got around to reunite the Roman Empire? Your mandarinate in the Middle Ages was speaking Latin, much of European population was speaking a Romance language and the most powerful of those who didn’t, the German-speakers, had a guy who was literally called Holy Roman Emperor! And you had a common enemy, the Muslims, to unite against. You had an idea of a Christendom above all these petty kingdoms. You had everything you needed to do the job!”

            And my first answer would have been “well whites just liking fighting each other too much” but that guy would laugh that one out. Chinese history also shows the Han like fighting each other a lot, too.

            So my second and current answer is the opposite: “whites are just too good at making compromises”. That is, instead of keeping on fighting until there is one Emperor and one Empire, whites basically made compromises like okay there is this bunch of warlords, each will rule whatever territory he conquered as a king, as his *property right* and future wars will just be about whether this or that nephew of a childless king has rightfully inherited this or that province but never about full reunification.

            • jim says:

              1. Chinese are just more submissive. You see it in the kids in every school. Whites are more inclined to make trouble when they see authority acting unjustly. From age zero Chinese children are less trouble.

              2. Whites have a gut level feeling that authority should rule lawfully. Chinese are just more amenable to centralization.

              3. Christianity. Old Testament says the King should respect the hereditary property rights of his subjects, and that if he does not God’s wrath is likely to result in the King being killed. So when the King centralized, the lords figured that they were likely to succeed in killing him. And frequently did.

            • Strannik says:

              I’d tell your hypothetical Chinaman from far Khitai that the Papacy is to blame for the failure to reunite the Roman Empire.

              But that doesn’t mean we’re finished trying to reunite it.

      • Atavistic Morality says:

        Francoist Spain wasn’t fascist.

        Franco was a soldier that defended the roots of Spain as a nation united under one faith. He wanted to reestablish the monarchy as well. Taxes really low, solid and robust middle class with several children comfortably paid with the father’s wage, marital power, unemployment virtually zero, streets safe for decent people, criminals, agitators and gypsy scum afraid of leaving their dwellings… he raised the country from its ashes. A Jimian nation would look a lot like Franco’s “dictablanda”.

        It’s really tiring how these dogshit progressives and subhuman leftoids have been brainwashing everyone to the point even reactionaries will believe this nonsense. Franco undermined and subverted the original Falange at every turn, removing them from any position of power or influence from the very beginning. For the time he was solidly established, the Falange was something else and fascists were every day more irrelevant.

        Fascists were faggots that unironically used the term “social justice”.

        • jim says:

          Franco tried socialism, with the usual results. He backed off from socialism, but not far enough and the failure of socialism discredited him, even though he backed off in a timely fashion. The retreat from socialism discredited Francoism. Compare with Trump’s successful national capitalism.

          So, National Socialist.

          National Socialism was less crazy than communism, because it did not consider the productive enemies to be destroyed. Communism, like progressivism, mobilizes envy, so any act of production is seen as a hostile act, and the person producing an enemy to be annihilated – Trump boasts of factories and oil wells, but progressives see them as an evil to be destroyed.

          But it still failed for all the usual reasons explained by Hayek and Mises.

          It is today a walking dead ideology, and too many of its adherents are overly influenced by progressive ideology, and in some cases conspiratorially and furtively employed by Soros, the CIA, and the FBI, though their ngo and contractor cutouts.

          National socialism, like communism, was tried and failed.

          • Halion says:

            Franco was not a socialist, he was a pragmatist. Franco had 2 distinct stages: autarky (1939-1959) and economic opening (1960-1975). The first can be considered as a form of economic fascism (inspired by the social doctrine of the Catholic Church, an attempt to reconcile “capital” and “work,” that is, discipline businessmen and trade unionists). In part, it was also due to the isolation imposed on his regime. From the 60s, with the thawing of relations with the anglosphere and the end of the blockade, Franco leaves the government in the hands of technocrats who make reforms to liberalize the economy.

            • jim says:

              Halion:

              > and economic opening (1960-1975).

              Economic opening was the correct policy, but was perceived as a defeat for Francoism, a retreat, and a loss of power by Franco and Francoism. He was perceived as losing power to a permanent government that did not much like Franco and Francoism, and rather did like the enemies he had been trying to suppress and purge.

              In contrast, Trump’s national capitalism has been a huge success, which success is a major reason Republicans are signing up with Trumpism and Never Trumpism is a dead movement.

              Trump appeals to the Trike: technology, capitalism, Patriarchy, identity, faith and ethnicity. National Socialism appeals to the Dike, manliness, identity and ethnicity, and is in therefore in practice much weaker on patriarchy and therefore manliness than it aspires to be. The Nazi party turned out to be full of gays.

            • Franco’s story is the classic story of insecure power. He had no *right* to rule but he played an uneasy coalition of monarchists and Falangists against each other, who were actually fighting each other although less than on the other side the Communists were fighting the Anarchists, but it still did happen that Falangists threw bombs on Carlist (monarchist) meetings because they are “capitalist pigs”. Franco indeed tried to undermine the Falange and especially its socialist aspects, but as an insecure rule he also had to swim with the flow. He had to try that shit, had to see it fail, had to have evidence it does not work in order to be able to convince the Falangists that socialism does not work. Insecure power. He could not just give orders. He was very much dependent on his popularity among his supporters.

              Well, no government ever can work without support. But I think the reason we are monarchists is the difference between consent and metaconsent. Consent means you like how the guy who rules, rules. Metaconsent means that you consent that he has the right to rule, because he is legitimate, and even when you disagree with your policies you accept he has a right to rule.

    • Pooch says:

      Ah makes sense. Thanks

  17. stategovAnon says:

    looks like impeachment has shown fault lines of balkanized us.
    dems can’t choose a candidate, so they make a caucus unable to do so.

    • jim says:

      Results of the Iowa Democratic Caucus are delayed pending discovery of unopened boxes of ballots. The vote counting app committed suicide by shooting itself in the back of the head twice and then hanging itself from a prison bed at knee level.

      • The Cominator says:

        DNC rigging it against Bernie again (because Bernie being an old school red will confiscate the cathedral elite’s wealth too) but they botched it spectacularly in a way that is great for Trump.

        Apparently it gets even better the faggot who “won” the caucus (the DNC sure knows how to pick em, they picked a faggot with the word “butt” in his name) apparently was directly connected to selecting and adminstering the vote rigging app

        AND Bernie apparently suspecting the Mensheviks in the Democrat party were planning to screw over his Bolshevik ass sent lawyers to all the caucus sites to record the actual tallies… which will make it extra beautiful when he gets screwed over.

        Trump will win bigger than I thought.

        • jim says:

          Trump is planning to run against Bernie Sanders so I would not be surprised if Bernie got a heads up from praetorians in presidential security loyal to Trump. The app team were supposed to rig the outcome for Biden, but the males in the app team look gay, so are likely literally and metaphorically in bed with Boot-Edge-Edge.

          This chaos is analogous to the chaos that followed the Gracchi violating term limits in the Roman Republic.

        • Not Tom says:

          the DNC sure knows how to pick em, they picked a faggot with the word “butt” in his name

          They actually do know how to pick em, as despite all of that, he’s the only one who could really give Trump any serious competition in the general. A lot of that is just because he’s an unknown quantity, but he comes across as a moderate.

          Problem is, the guys who are supposed to do the picking aren’t doing the picking anymore. Or at least aren’t doing it unopposed.

          • Pooch says:

            He’s a pretty well polished politician as well in the same vein of Obama. There’s no glaring vulnerability to him except homosexuality that I doubt Trump would attack openly. I want to face him the least as well.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            > [Buttigieg is] the only one who could really give Trump any serious competition

            Surely you jest. He is a laughingstock, a boyish wonk worse than Dukakis only gay, who would make a laughingstock out of the United States if elected, and this is not lost on the public. Just because Trump would politely ignore the pink elephant in the room (while ruthlessly crushing the Mayor of Bend South in every other way) doesn’t mean the voters will do so in the privacy of the voting booth.

            The only Democratic candidates who could touch Trump are Warren and Bloomberg. Both of them have huge issues with their platforms and persons, but Bloomberg (unlike Warren) has several advantages that neutralize some of Trump’s big strengths. The DNC will probably try to engineer Bloomberg as the nominee in exchange for fleecing him of a couple billion dollars to rebuild the party and fund their entire 2020 slate of candidates; but he isn’t well liked and has little time to renovate his image even with the whole MSM behind him. Bernie and the others will brand him a carpetbagger buying the nomination, an ersatz Trump within the DNC, which would obviously correspond to the actual state of affairs and destroy the votes that Bloomberg needs to have any legitimacy.

            The blatant shenanigans of the DNC are *great* for Trump, a titanic gift from God. Bernie being election-frauded right out of the gate for all to see, and the imminent “election interference” on behalf of Bloomberg will be a warning sign to all sentient Americans that the Democrats cannot be trusted with the integrity of the 2020 general election. Since the MSM says that Trump also cannot be trusted, because Russia, the obvious solution is to monitor everything everywhere election related, which would place too many eyeballs in too many places for the Soros secretaries of state to do what they were installed to do.

            The disintegration of the DNC will accelerate spectacularly over the next year. Interesting times, for them.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              When will hand-counted paper ballots become a voting rights issue, and on both sides of the political spectrum no less?

              That’s what I’d call progress. No More Apps. No More Apps.

            • Not Tom says:

              No, I don’t jest. Read the polls. They overstate Democrat support in general, of course, but they don’t lie about the relative rankings.

              Elizabeth Warren? Not even close. Bloomberg polls awful with blacks as well. You’re projecting your personal opinions about these candidates onto others, not looking at the facts.

              I doubt any of them could actually come close to Trump now, because the party has truly splintered. About 20-30% of voters say they won’t vote for anyone except their preferred candidate, and that preference is split 3 ways, meaning 10-15% of the Dem vote is just lost. But in terms of who could actually pull votes from moderates – not partisan Democrats – that’s really just Buttboy.

              • jim says:

                They also lie about relative rankings, since voting against a sodomite is almost as disreputable as supporting Trump

                • Not Tom says:

                  Those polls are generally consistent with the actual votes, so I have no reason to doubt either.

                  You don’t have to like Buttboy. I sure as hell don’t, he’s 100% pure Astroturf. But he’s got the name recognition, whether he earned it or not, and is perceived as a moderate, whether sincere or not (probably not). His black support isn’t great, nowhere near Biden’s, because black Democrats oppose sodomy more than white Republicans, but it’s still not as bad as Warren’s.

                  That’s important to keep in mind: maybe white liberals can be shamed into supporting a homosexual, but not blacks. They are already higher on the intersectional totem pole.

                  Democracy is cancer, the Democratic party is in disarray, and none of these candidates are likely to pose a serious challenge to Trump. But if we ignore all that and ask who has the best odds out of all the terrible candidates, it’s Butt. He’s the Mitt Romney of Democrats, a reliable establishment type.

                • Pooch says:

                  He’s also young and a good speaker which plays well for him in the debates on tv. His black support is relatively weak (as is for all non-Biden candidates) so Trumps strategy may likely target the black vote a bit more, ironically. Maybe why Trump mentioned African American like 50 times in his speech last night.

              • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                The DNC has no way of beating Trump and knows it cannot beat Trump, so the relevant question is what other objectives they hope to achieve.

                Bloomberg provides a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the DNC leadership to make a billion dollars or so disappear into its pockets, win or lose, while salvaging (with additional Mike money) what they can of the Congressional races, and crushing or excising the Bernie/AoC overt socialist wing for the foreseeable future. If Mike is willing to be generous, they will take that deal in a nanosecond, not only for the billion dollars but because the alternative is total collapse under Trump’s chariot wheels.

                Warren is rather hypothetical since she lacks the billions. Her support seems low to you because Biden is still, on paper, in the race. She is the likeliest to benefit from his imminent demise. I do not believe any poll that has Mayor Sodom “on top”, and even if true he has insurmountable weaknesses for the general.

                Blacks are a non-issue in the general election. A considerable fraction of black men will go Trump and the remaining blacks will be hardcore robotic Democrat voters who will vote a straight (ahem) ticket as always whether it is Bloomberg or anyone else. Large differences in black support could swing the primaries but the DNC can engineer whoever they want for the good of themselves or the party. Fewer blacks would turn out if Buttigieg is the nominee.

                • Mister Grumpus says:

                  “Let’s not all start sucking each other’s dicks just yet.”

                  There are all kinds of dirty tricks, Hail Mary’s, and color revolutionary shenanigans that they can try between now and November. All kinds. Anyone who thinks they’ll just lay down now is the least imaginative simpleton on earth.

                  They may not even be trying to prevent or win a federal-level election anymore, per se, but rather be each following his own instinctive need to out-signal and out-run his own-side mob of status-salvaging and lifeboat-mobbing fellow sore losers. Running with Pol Pot is fucking dangerous, and the danger is strictly own-side.

                  Remember that “Ha-ha Trump’s rednekks sure R dumb” “U-crane” skit on cable news? The white liberals are especially desperate to get as far leftward of the lions as humanly possible, and who knows what they’ll come up with next.

                  Like what?

                  Well for example, just last week I was one of those people who suspected that the Wuhan Virus situation was a false-flag kicked off by nefarious non-Chinese (or nefarious Chinese-Chinese?) to kick up chaos and get them to fight us.

                  I’m not one of those people today (what a relief) but that’s not the point. The point is that I, for one, had never even imagined a play like that. The concept itself caught me by surprise, like just as an idea. Which means there are all kinds of other plays I haven’t imagined either.

                  So look I admire (some of) you guys, but don’t give me this cotton candy about it already being over. Rather, start thinking about what these terrified bloodthirsty freaks might try next.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  They seem to do an awful lot of literal slavish repetition of the same plays, which suggests that improvising new approaches in real time is difficult. What’s changing is that the plays are ever more open and notorious, as if they want you to see it and be all the more cowed. Or that the competence and asabiyah needed to do things quietly is severely eroded.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Her support seems low to you because Biden is still, on paper, in the race.

                  No, her support seems low to me because all of the pundits, liberals, progressives and Dem partisans in general that I know all hate her. And I know a whole hell of a lot of them.

                  The one group she’s semi popular with? Tech elites. That’s it. And she’s not very popular with them either, just more popular than Sanders. She has zero mainstream appeal. Progressives consider her a liar, liberals consider her a nobody, moderates consider her to be abrasive and generally unlikable, and Republicans consider her to be woke garbage, a slightly less ghastly version of Hillary.

                  Nobody really cares that Buttigieg is a butt pirate, except blacks and religious Republicans. I understand that you care about that; I care about that, and all reactionaries should care about that. But normie whites don’t care. The groups who do care are not a small bloc, but still much smaller than the blocs that hate Sanders, Warren, and Bloomberg.

                  The DNC would have a lot of things to gain by nominating Bloomberg and letting him run, but winning the general election isn’t one of them, even after discounting for the low odds of any Democrat winning against Trump.

                • jim says:

                  > But normie whites don’t care.

                  You will be surprised.

                  It is forbidden to admit, or even to know, that you care. This makes assessment of what normies really think highly unreliable.

                  The normie opinion of gays is exactly the black opinion of gays. It is just that gays, being higher on the status pole, can know what they think and say what they think.

                  Similarly, people think they care deeply about “pedophilia”, but actually they do not care about older men having sex with fertile age females.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You are wrong about blacks their turnout is critical for dems and they wont vote for Butt pirate.

                • Not Tom says:

                  You are wrong about blacks their turnout is critical for dems and they wont vote for Butt pirate.

                  His viability doesn’t come from the partisan Democrat voters, it comes from the moderate (cuck) independent and Republican and Never Trumper voters. Mitt Romney voters would vote for Buttigieg and probably Biden. They will not vote for Bernie Sanders and are very unlikely to vote for Warren.

                  Dems can’t win general elections on partisan voting alone, they don’t have the numbers. They need at least some white men to vote for them too. Even 5% of white men compensates for a 50% drop in black turnout. Trump won because Democrats lost too much of the white male vote, too soon, or alternatively Trump reanimated the white male vote that had given up after the Late Obama Age Collapse.

                  Either way, these voters are still willing to vote for moderate Dems, and we know that because they still do vote for moderate Dems, it’s just that there aren’t many moderate Dems left.

                  Make whatever claims you want about preference falsification, but if that logic were correct, it would also have applied to Obama, and it didn’t. No one “really” wanted a mulatto president either – who was almost certainly gay himself. So either the preference falsification isn’t that significant, or it’s so significant that it actually affects the votes themselves.

                • jim says:

                  Make whatever claims you want about preference falsification, but if that logic were correct, it would also have applied to Obama, and it didn’t. No one “really” wanted a mulatto president either – who was almost certainly gay himself.

                  Obama the redeemer promised that we would be washed clean of the sin of racism.

                  We weren’t.

                  If BootyEdgeEdge promises to wash us clean of the sin of homophobia, I doubt he will get a receptive audience.

                • jack boot says:

                  peter thiel is proud to be a butt pirate at rnc and you love him and the crowd roared.

                  and then there are all these anal loving actors musicians and comedians

                  i don’t thick normies care.

                • jim says:

                  Butt pirates are politically useful, because the left cannot cry racist/sexist, but no one trusts them or likes them.

                  When we are in power, we should purge them because treacherous and unreliable, but Peter Thiel and Milo have been mighty valuable to us.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Not Tom, do you live in San Francisco, or a place where “San Francisco” and “Massachusetts” are not used as pejoratives?

                  The poll numbers are cooked and Iowa democratic caucuses are votes by social persuasion, not secret ballot, so we don’t get to see what people actually think.

                  Mayor Peter as a serious candidate with national appeal is a blatant MSM construct, no different than if they had fixated on Yang or some other lost cause as their pet. There are a lot more homosexual than Sinophile journalists, so gay it is. He won a few thousand votes to be mayor of a mid-sized town, fucked that up, was correctly labelled as Alfred E Neuman by Trump, and otherwise has done nothing much except be a Harvardized NPC who (unlike other less entitled gay politicians) can’t help but shove gayness in everyone’s face. Barney Frank is an irritating schmuck but he did not push “his husband” on the world, declare that his ancestral religion must subordinate itself to Gay, or try to run for POTUS. Buttigieg’s role is to be the story hour drag queen, the center of a humiliating re-education ritual inflicted on the public so Gay Journalist can feel how good and holy it is to do the inflicting. OPEN WIDE.

                  Some people are more cucked and programmable than others, but enough feel the disgust at this gavage (much more than the gay-ness per se) whether or not they can verbalize it or admit it. I read Buttigieg’s candidacy as a cynical psyop where the unlikely event of actually winning the presidency is just a potential bonus, the raffle ticket that goes with the church sermon, but is not the primary purpose. Buttigieg is lubricating the Overton sphincter, as it were.

                • The Cominator says:

                  “His viability doesn’t come from the partisan Democrat voters, it comes from the moderate (cuck) independent and Republican and Never Trumper voters. Mitt Romney voters would vote for Buttigieg and probably Biden. They will not vote for Bernie Sanders and are very unlikely to vote for Warren.”

                  They need blacks too, the cucks are not enough without them as they had more cucks in 2016 then they will in 2020 so hes doomed too.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Not Tom, do you live in San Francisco, or a place where “San Francisco” and “Massachusetts” are not used as pejoratives?

                  Asking me to self-dox? Nope.

                  The poll numbers are cooked and Iowa democratic caucuses are votes by social persuasion, not secret ballot, so we don’t get to see what people actually think.

                  Neither the poll numbers or local groupthink factor into my analysis. The progs I know don’t particularly care for Buttigieg – but they’d still vote for him in the general. Polls change constantly. What matters, more than some reactionaries like to admit, is the platform. He is running on a moderate platform. No doubt he’d break hard to the left if elected, but squishy moderates still believe what candidates promise them, as long as they haven’t already destroyed their own credibility like Warren did.

                  Mayor Peter as a serious candidate with national appeal is a blatant MSM construct

                  Yep. He is. And like so many media constructs, people will believe it if there’s no strong opposing narrative.

                  was correctly labelled as Alfred E Neuman by Trump

                  He was? My observation has been that Trump has largely ignored him, which is what you do when you don’t want to raise someone’s profile (compared to e.g. AOC and Tulsi Gabbard, whom he boosts in different ways and for different reasons). I’d be curious to find out if Trump hasn’t marginalized him as much as I’d assumed.

                  …has done nothing much except be a Harvardized NPC

                  AKA, the perfect Democrat.

                  Buttigieg is lubricating the Overton sphincter, as it were.

                  Also likely. I view that as the potatoes, not the meat.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  So much for the theory of Buttigieg as the DNC anointee. He could certainly be standing down on DNC orders, in exchange for a promise of later reward. As stated above I see Mayor Sodom as a psyop not a serious candidate (at least from his backers’ point of view).

                  The logic still points to Warren or Bloomberg as the DNC candidate, with Biden’s family blackmailing the party for one last payoff-to-end-all-payoffs in exchange for getting him off the stage. Bernie doesn’t have enough votes to do a Trump 2016-style hostile takeover of the party and his “frontrunner” status is illusory due to having many similar opponents fragmenting the vote. As the field consolidates his stock will drop, the question is how fast can the DNC force Biden out before Bernie builds an insurmountable lead, and what sort of spectacular Godfather level of negotations are going on behind the scenes. It’s like everyone involved (other than Bloomberg) has an angle to squeeze 9 figure sums of money from the rest if they play the cards right.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Probable DNC plan is to use senile old fool Biden as a ringer to screw Bernie.

                  Moochelle Obama will be the nominee at a brokered convention, butt pirate will be the VP. Bloomsperg will be promises secretary of state or something.

                  Moochelle (she won’t beat Trump but this is likely the plan) will likely shortly after taking office resign “for reasons of helath” or something and the Manchurian candidate (Buttigieg’s background is the most sinister thing you can imagine far worse than Bernie) then becomes president.

                • jim says:

                  The Democrats are incohesive and disorganized. No one is in charge, and the oligarchs are under real threat from both Trump’s national capitalism and Bernie’s borderless socialism.

                  They do not have a plan, or rather have far too many plans.

                  The left’s normal reaction to such internal leftwing chaos is to line up behind the leftmost, and murder those who do not line up. Which would mean uniting behind Bernie. But even if they managed unity, Bernie is simply incompetent.

                  The left has to move leftwards as a shark has to swim – but the only direction leftwards on offer is race war now, which the lily white Democrat party is none to keen on. Bernie found himself at the top by offering a leftwards direction other than race war now. Instead of race war now, Venezuela now.

                  To stop Bernie, they have to steal the nomination from him – but in order to steal the nomination from him, they have to agree on whom the beneficiary of the theft is going to be.

                • Pooch says:

                  The DNC is very clearly colascing around Biden to try to defeat Bernie.

                • The Cominator says:

                  but in order to steal the nomination from him, they have to agree on whom the beneficiary of the theft is going to be.

                  I think as far as top Democrat decision making they have more stable command and control then you think. But their followers are absolutely unruly and hard to control.

                  Between a visibly senile old white guy, an incompetent jewish white guy the party elite hates because he is too honest about the agenda, an autistic billionaire trying to buy the nomination who the democrat party rank and file really hates the logical choice is Moochelle with the idea that they can sell her to the Democrats as a stand-in for Obama (who was an empty suit anyway) and who if she doesn’t want the job (she doesn’t) can just resign in favor of John Brennan’s favorite communist fudgepacker.

                  Consensus will be for moochelle, with the Cathedral’s inner circle who control the DNC, Deep State, CIA and media (though not the Democrat rank and file) getting their preferred man mayor butt pirate via a quick resgination. Of course it won’t work because Trump is going to win but Moochelle is going to be harder than it would be with Biden or Bernie.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The DNC is very clearly colascing around Biden to try to defeat Bernie.

                  But as a ringer for a brokered convention, not as the nominee. Biden can barely remember his fucking name at this point, the Democrats are insane but in different ways then to make them think that is a good idea their party elite who are using him to screw Bernie know he will be almost as much of a downballot disaster as Bernie (maybe worse given how angry the commie berniebros are going to be). Moochelle is the most logical choice for them at the convention. She can do as her husband did read a teleprompter get debate answers through an earpiece and then just plan to resign.

                • Pooch says:

                  Michelle will run in 2024 as President. After Biden’s dominating win in SC with high black turnout they are hoping to rebuild the Obama coalition. A Biden-Kamala Harris is likely. At a brokered convention they will have the delegates nominate the Biden ticket over Bernie. Things get interesting Bernie has a majority but not a plurality in which case he can threaten to run 3rd party.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Biden’s problem is not with the black vote its with the white democrat vote and centrist suburbanite impulse voters who are not going to vote for somebody that visibly senile even if they don’t like Trump. His running mate in the unlikely chance he is not ditched at the convention won’t be Harris for that reason.

                  Harris may be black but because she was outed by Tulsi as a crooked prosecutor (blacks really hate crooked prosecutors and cops) she is not going to help with the black vote and in fact will likely massively hurt with it.

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  Other than Obama himself (who, even if there is no constitutional barrier to his candidacy, would be trounced by Trump), there is no electable paladin who can credibly swoop in as a deus ex machina at the convention.

                  Michelle is a nobody. Her performance against Trump would be an embarrassment that sets the idea of an ADOS black president back into pie-in-the-sky territory. The Democrats are stuck with a probably nonrecoverable disaster as their party disintegrates under the leftward pull of Bernie’s Soros soldiers and Cthulhu’s tentacles. Only a billion or two of Bloomberg money, if he gives it to them, can save them for the downballot races and 2022-24 elections. Otherwise they are being drawn and quartered by the permanent realignment and will schism or collapse while keeping the brand name “Democrats”.

                  The Obama coalition, in donors and internal powerbroker support, is essentially Warren which is why she has survived this long, and she is the logical vessel for the 2016 white female Hilary voters. If only she could stop proving her own unpopularity at every primary (i.e., get Biden out of the race to take his white votes), she could make a go of it. Her only strategy is to wait for Joe or Mike to crash and have the saner parts of the DNC come to her aid at the convention.

                  Bloomberg, were he likable and not a China shill, would have been the necessary paladin. The DNC is insolvent and on the ropes, so he can be their financial savior in exchange for other things down the road, but the DNC is no longer agreement capable. The entryists have taken over too much of the lower rungs of the party for the higher ups to be able to make credible promises.

          • The Cominator says:

            “They actually do know how to pick em, as despite all of that, he’s the only one who could really give Trump any serious competition in the general.”

            Tulsi Gabbard was the only one who had a chance at all. I know we all have a generally low opinion of women in politics but she was BY FAR their strongest candidate in part because a lot of Trump supporters can’t help but like her and most people outside the swamp sympathize with her uncompromising zeal to leave the Middle East entirely (something Trump also wants to do but compromised upon because in the Democrat zeal to destroy him he needed the neocons). Shes also not corrupt and most Trump supporters don’t get the feeling that she is going to either have us all killed if she wins or allow the Democratic party to do so. She is merely deluded on economics.

            But Trump is not going to have any trouble with some empty suited butt pirate who the nigs won’t vote for no matter what.

            And no Fauxahontas and Mini Mike were not viable either. Mini Mike despite theoretically being a highly intelligent man in some ways (a jewish electrical engineer who got monstorously rich via inventing a new financial information system) he can’t help having a particulary obnoxious personality.

            Mini mike thinks its a good idea constantly advertising (he advertises here in Florida nonstop) that he shut down coal plants and is going to take your guns.

            • Not Tom says:

              Tulsi Gabbard was the only one who had a chance at all.

              As with the guy above, you are either projecting your own opinions or listening to people on the fringes. Tulsi would indeed probably be the least destructive of the Dem candidates if elected, and her takedown of Kamala was epic, but she has never polled above a few percentage points. No name recognition, no chance.

              • The Cominator says:

                She never had a chance at the nomination, but she would have been the only one with any chance against Trump in the general election.

                Buttigieg has none. Democrats need high black turnout and nigs don’t want to vote for a white faggot.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Blacks hate Warren more than they hate Buttigieg, by a considerable margin, and Warren is creepy and fake to all races. She did have a chance at the nomination, at one point, but blew it after the debates and the impeachment circus (which also took her off the campaign trail). She never had a chance at the general. You’ve got this exactly backwards.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Wasn’t talking about Fauxahontas who obviously had no chance against Trump i was talking about Gabbard.

            • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

              > Fauxahontas and Mini Mike were not viable either

              Both are genuine success stories who did not come from wealth. Warren is a grandmother who, before she miscalculated and went off the leftist deep end with tranny pronouns, wrote books with policy prescriptions that Tucker Carlson has promoted as sensible bread-and-butter family economics stuff that Republicans neglect at their peril. A lot of the Hillary voters and Obama donors align with her, she will pick up Biden’s support without too much trouble when Joe is gone and she is the natural candidate for all the Democrats who want a do-over of the 2016 election.

              Mike has similarly harmed himself, above all with his servile comments on China just before he changed his mind about running for office.

              But those are recoverable problems, unlike Biden’s senility and the gay zero-ness of Buttigieg. The Democrat vote will be an anti Trump vote. Trump didn’t win by being likeable and the Democrat voters will probably disregard personality in trying to unseat him.

              All the Dem candidates are very far from being able to beat Trump but Warren and Bloomberg seem to me by far in the best position to rally the opposition against him. Bloomberg more so with his unlimited budget and his personality troubles “fixed” and obscured by the 24/7 MSM spin.

              • The Cominator says:

                Warren is not even all that well liked in Massachussetts she might have been good at being a shyster lawyer but she isn’t a very good politician nor is Bloomberg despite being a tremendous success financially.

                Trump otoh is a very good politician. They have no chance against him. Bloomberg in fact REALLY has no chance because he is honest about his tremendously unpopular agenda of massively expanding the nanny state for your own good of course and disarming everyone (and he advertises this in Florida… where everyone including the smiling ditzy broad at the coffee shop has 5 guns).

                • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

                  I had the misfortune of meeting Warren many years ago, and later on of hearing her lecture, so I understand your point.

  18. What? says:

    1. Not everything is a progressive conspiracy, it is greed that moved the jobs overseas and hollowed out America. If the words neo-liberalism bother you then you shouldn’t have let the left brand it as such. Amazon is a progressive conspiracy and you want to give them tanks and warplanes because your worship money.
    2. Wignats are people that need leadership, something you will never do. Hitler whipped Germany into shape while you let your people rot and then proceed to mock them. Maybe Germans are just better people than the Anglo peoples, probably. The current strategy of mocking and leaving the wignats to rot isn’t working is it?
    3. “But we need REAL capitalism / free markets / whatever term will satisfy your autism!” You guys sound like commies in 1991 trying to figure out why the Soviet Union failed. “But REAL communism has never been tried!” Keep dreaming.
    4. The progressives around 1900 had an insane idea of having one corporation run the entire economy, Amazon is heading this way and that is why I call it a progressive conspiracy.
    5. https://imgur.com/a/BEushfK that image sums it all up. I’m done and goodbye.

    • The Cominator says:

      “Wignats are people that need leadership”

      Wignats are not tall enough for this ride.

      You can’t do anything with people who think that all considerations of optics, tactics and realism is some sort of weakness and furthermore are generally very stupid not much smarter in general than the nigs they hate.

      The salvagable part of the wignats have been salvaged, the stubborn holdouts cannot be saved. Hitler had to shoot his own wignats in 1934.

      • jim says:

        > The salvagable part of the wignats have been salvaged,

        They are still coming on board. Our ideas are penetrating. Wingnatism is converging to reaction and neoreaction.

        • Not Tom says:

          Perhaps. But since this particular guy keeps writing new replies and refusing to engage with the old ones, I’m leaning toward either shill or stupid (or both). He won’t directly answer your questions, just spews nonsense, walks away, comes back and spews more nonsense. If that is representative of real wignats, then they won’t be persuaded by words, and engaging directly with them is pointless.

          I honestly think this might be the same guy as Jatt Atwal. Same temperament and posting habits, at least – talks down to us as though he’s higher status but gives us neither evidence nor any reason to care. And starts new threads instead of debating.

          • jim says:

            “What?” appears to be a genuine wingnat, but his socialism is internationalist communist descended (“bourgeoisie”, “neoliberal”) not national socialist descended.

            Spencer’s socialism on the other hand is national socialist descended, and he is OK.

  19. Strannik says:

    Wanted to post this here for ”the Cominator”, for his benefit, because I don’t have a ”reply” function on where he posted on the thread. He commented;

    ”I’m 95% pretty sure I know Strannik from another forum… he is NOT eastern european”

    I am from non-first generation east european immigrants to America.

    ” (nor a liberal entryist as his support for Trump is sincere”

    Definitely not a Liberal. My support for Trump is qualified on his support of Christian morality and civic virtue in general. His enemies in this regard are absolute animals.

    ”despite Strannik having somewhat delusional views on economics)”

    I am emotionally attached to Socialism but intellectually and morally realize that Socialist societies doesn’t last very long due to human greed and selfishness, and perverse economic disincentives. And that is what it is. I am also generally opposed to most Socialists on principle due to their Atheism. I won’t have anything to do with a God-Fighter.

    ”but he lived in Russia for a bit and his wife is Russian.”

    Yes. And by heart and heritage I am one. Indeed, they have persuaded me of my qualified support for an ethical Capitalism.

    • Not Tom says:

      Just reply to the parent comment and blockquote him, that’s what we all do.

    • info says:

      Modern capitalism has a lot of parasitism via usury as the Austrian school of economics noted. That’s partly why it isnt doing so well currently.

      Fractional reserve banking and the current Federal reserve are the problems.

      • Strannik says:

        Well, I think that the problems of modern Capitalism certainly involve Usury, that and a non-metallic money supply, fiat money that can be expanded or contracted at will. And, while it may well be for myself that I find Socialism to be ultimately unable to exist for human beings as they are in this world, I in my darker moments think the same of Capitalism. That is, while the critique of Capitalism might be true, there is no cure for It given fallen human nature.

        • Info says:

          This is why I favor a debt jubilee cycle every 7 years. It minimizes usury and the problems inherent as capitalism is currently existing in the west.

        • info says:

          Biblical jubilees is worth looking into. And I believe is a good solution to impossible debts.

          • jim says:

            The Hebrew Jubilee gets spun by commies.

            Its objective was to bind a nomadic people to the land, not give the poor free money.

            The old Christian position on usury, which allows interest bearing debts against property that creates value, but not against people, was sound. But again, not free money for poor people.

            • Not Tom says:

              I actually interpret it as a primitive sort of prohibition on maturity transformation. There isn’t a large market for 30 year loans; sure there are potential borrowers, but no or very few sincere or legitimate lenders. Any loan of such extreme duration is probably dishonest and possibly usurious in nature, so better to ban the practice entirely by declaring it null and void after a much shorter period.

              The Christian tradition is better at solving the usury problem. But if you view MT as inherently destructive, as I do, and as Moldbug and the Austrians do, then the Hebrew tradition is also pretty interesting.

              If you offer to loan me money for 20 years, I should assume you’re running some sort of grift. I wouldn’t mind making that heuristic official.

            • info says:

              Not Tom explains it better.

      • The Cominator says:

        The problem of debt with our current system is that the currency is based on debt.

        I know Lincoln has few fans here but Lincoln was absolutely right about fiat currency, if you are going to have fiat currency make it fiat for real. Don’t base it on debt, base it on the fact that you need the currency to pay taxes.

        Abolish the Fed note and bring back the Greenback.

        • jim says:

          Bitcoin demonstrates that a currency can rest on thin air. Currency, even gold, is always a bubble that never bursts, a shared delusion that we imagine into real existence, because it is the one case where it is rational to value an item solely on other people valuing it.

          Having cheerfully abandoned any foundations, and sailing forth on a sea of purely speculative value, one then asks what stops people from issuing unlimited amounts of the currency, a chronic problem with fiat.

          Bitcoin has no end of serious flaws, but none are inherent in the basic concept, and I think it likely that blockchain based settlement and blockchain currency is going to replace fiat.

          A huge problem with bitcoin is the blood diamonds problem – that it is possible to declare some bitcoins tainted, which is how they shut down the use of uncut diamonds to bypass currency controls. Monaro is designed to resist the blood diamonds attack, but it is not scalable.

          Sooner or later, bitcoin is going to be subjected to the blood diamonds attack, which I think will kill it as it killed uncut diamonds. We are going to need a scalable blockchain based crypto currency resistant to that attack.

          • The Cominator says:

            If the government is run by commies will have unlimited inflation with greenbacks but this isnt a real problem as commies will kill the economy anyway inflation or not.

            If not run by commies you will get steady inflation… Steady inflation of the currency is IMHO a good thing. Currency is meant to flow to investments not be hoarded, people can buy things if they want to hoard.

            • Not Tom says:

              Currency is literally meant to be hoarded, that’s why currency was invented (independently in hundreds of geographic regions and historical eras). The fact that people want to hoard it is what makes it valuable as a currency.

              Whether people intrinsically want to hoard it or whether they hoard because the state declares it to be money – well, that seems to matter slightly less than Austrian economics suggests that it should.

              But if it’s economically unsound to hoard money, then it’s not really money at all. If the average person no longer wants to hold onto their money and avoid spending it, that implies hyperinflation, or debasement, or something else that’s very very wrong with it.

              Investing is done to earn more money, just like working, but more efficient if you already have a lot and are good at predicting future capital flows. But for most people, for the average person, the best strategy should be to just collect and hoard money. The vast amounts of capital flowing into 401k “investments” and similar instruments are a sign of economic sickness, not health. It means no one really trusts the currency anymore.

            • Dave says:

              If currency isn’t a good store of value, it eventually stops being a unit of account and medium of exchange too, as people become ever more eager to spend it quick before it loses more value. The idea that monetary velocity and prices must never decrease is Keynesian hogwash.

              Hoarding gold, Bitcoin, or stocks as a hedge against the “steady inflation” of central bankers is relatively harmless. Hoarding real estate is very bad because it forces young people to stay with their parents or live in tiny capsule apartments, leading to Japanification and eventual extinction.

              • The Cominator says:

                Real estate values are inflated because the government allows more leverage to be used to buy real estate then it allows for innearly anything else. Otherwise not a good hoarding asset because not very liquid.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Real estate values are inflated because the government allows more leverage to be used to buy real estate then it allows for innearly anything else.

                  Because of maturity transformation.

                  Nobody would be willing to loan to the banks at the same rate and term that they loan out for mortgages. So how can the banks do it? They have to lie, take your zero-term deposits and lock them up for 30 years. That is why they can provide such insane leverage – because they pay next to no interest themselves, the whole transaction costs them practically nothing.

                  Cure the disease, and the symptoms will go away.

  20. Anonymous says:

    [*deleted*]

  21. The discussion with Pooch upthread about how Hispanics are depressing wages in the US reminded me that interestingly, the donor countries are also often not happy about skilled people emigrating – when you need a doctor or plumber and can’t find one because so many have emigrated, that is a problem. So the funny thing is this. Ignoring now crime, welfare and ethnic tension, for the immigration recipient countries, the ideal thing would be if immigration would only happen up to the level when it solves a lack of skilled labor shortage in one segment or another. Similarly, for the donor countries, emigration would be good only if takes the surplus, unemployed workforce away but does not cause an acute skills shortage. I cal tell you Eastern Europeans are bitching at least as much about the UK stealing their doctors as the Brits were bitching about cheap EE labor. And maybe farmers in Mexico are bitching about a cucumber-picker shortage.

    So the globally ideal immigration-emigration policy should be getting the numbers exactly right, it should clear the market exactly right, not flooding any country and not causing a skills shortage in another. But we already know this is impossible, markets exist because you cannot issue a market-clearing policy, no way.

    Which means two things. Either immigration-emigration should be somehow a market in itself, but I don’t know how to do that properly. Or just close the fucking borders and let the job market inside countries clear. The lesson of this is that no policy can get this right, market-clearing policies do not exist by definition. Quotas make as much sense as food rationing. You can make an argument for opening up the job market for foreign doctors or programmers and you can make an argument for closing it down and letting the market generate more doctors and programmers by paying them more. What one cannot argue is to set a quota. No government ever can figure out what quota will make the job market clear just right. That is why it is a job market.

    • Ex says:

      You can get a chunk of the way to market with Immigration Insurance, as proposed by various people including Steve Sailer.

      Any prospective immigrant, seasonal worker, or other in-wanderer to America has to post a bond to cover crimes they may commit. Companies planning to import workers are expected to post the bonds for their workers. Most of the bond is refunded if the migrant returns home or assimilates without having committed crime yet.

      Insurance companies will very quickly start pricing well-behaved immigrants with lower rates to cover the bond.

      • Small brain: “Discrimination is bad.” Big brain: “Discrimination is OK.” Galaxy brain: “Discrimination should be turned into a precise actuarian statistical science.” I like that, but it does not solve that problem where plumbers in country A are bitching that plumbers from country B are undercutting them, while people in country B are bitching that they cannot find a plumber when they need one.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Microecon 201 is that commodity labor – which plumbing approximates – gets priced at marginal product absent collusion by buyers or sellers.

          If EE plumbers are cheaper, it’s because they’re worse – same with agricultural labor.

          No one gets paid out of employer generosity.

          The economic problems with immigration are the externalities – crime, welfare, medical care paid for by the race tax on whites who show up in hospitals, degeneration of social trust, use of schools and roads and parks, increased demand for land away from bad neighbors, etc. The high end of the market presents different problems – redistribution of status away from people working in fields with immigrant competition, creation of cohesive networks of hostile outsiders , etc.

          • Jan Martense says:

            Microecon 201 is that commodity labor – which plumbing approximates – gets priced at marginal product absent collusion by buyers or sellers.
            If EE plumbers are cheaper, it’s because they’re worse – same with agricultural labor.

            The marginal product (in $) represented by a plumbing job decreases as the supply of plumbers increases. If there’s only one busy plumber in town, a desperate wine mom will be willing to pay an extraordinary amount of money to fix her overflowing toilet. If there are plumbers waiting at her convenience outside the door, she’ll pay much less. So even if the immigrant plumbers are just as skilled, they will still undercut native wages. A neoclassical economist wouldn’t regard this as a problem though.

            From a classical perspective, the only immigration downsides are, as you say, externalities. Which modern economists refuse to recognize.

            • jim says:

              The major externality of immigration of skilled labor is that diversity plus proximity equals war, which is a mighty big downside, which downside becomes visible to those that have eyes to see in companies that employ too many H1Bs.

              As for unskilled labor, the major externality is that they are not coming here to work, but to live on crime, welfare, AFDC from single moms on welfare, and being counted for the census, which apportions seats in the House and the Electoral College.

          • jack boot says:

            [*deleted*]

      • jim says:

        This is approximately what Dubai does – the effect of what Dubai does is similar, in that misbehaving guest workers are a cost to the employer who brought them in. Works great.

      • Pooch says:

        For many low IQ race immigrants, it’s not them but their children who become criminals in as Moldbug points out in his castes piece. Somehow the work ethic that drove them to succeed in America does not translate to their children.

        • Dave says:

          Or maybe the immigrants were exceptionally capable people in their homeland and their children reverted to the mean.

    • Jan Martense says:

      You can make an argument for opening up the job market for foreign doctors or programmers and you can make an argument for closing it down and letting the market generate more doctors and programmers by paying them more. What one cannot argue is to set a quota.

      The thing is, “closed borders” are really just a specific subset of quota: one where net migration is set to zero. Pakistan might artificially set net immigration of doctors at -1000/year, while America artificially sets it at +1000 a year, and if China chooses to artificially set it at the midpoint between those two values, this isn’t any more rational from a classical economics perspective.

      I like your thinking here. But imo a “capitalist” critique of open borders would probably have to proceed from an acknowledgement that population is not a totally fungible resource– something obviously true, but that few mainstream economists currently admit.

      This one huge error is probably the biggest single culprit behind the recent anti-market turn of many rightists. And deservedly so.

      • A negative number is out of question. The basic question of locks is out vs. in. Locking people out of your house or out of your country is completely normal. But locking people *in* a house/prison or country requires a strong justification and most people don’t deserve that. The Soviet style of locking people in the country was seriously shitty. So no negative immigration quotas i.e. emigration quotas. Keeping people who want to move out is super unethical and not even efficient – forced labor was always low quality. No, borders should always be open outwards and the only quetion is inwards.

        • Jan Martense says:

          > So no negative immigration quotas i.e. emigration quotas.

          Sure, we can accept that as a premise. But it still doesn’t address the problem– why, if we accept the modern liberal mindset that workers are fungible, is a “zero” quota special or more rational than any other?

          Note that most countries still have some control of negative net migration even barring emigration numbers. For example, say Poland loses 2000 workers/year to Britain, but gains 1500/year from Ukraine. Its net migration is -500. If it bans immigration from Ukraine, that number falls to -2000. Similarly, if America banned all immigration, its net migration would become negative. Is there a rational justification for Poland to set a net migration quota of -2000 (eg, immigration of 0) as opposed to -500?

          • Not Tom says:

            Zero is a good heuristic when you can’t be sure how much is a problem.

            How many sick people per year should you limit your personal exposure to, in order to avoid getting sick yourself? That number is not actually zero, but it’s sensible to assume it is zero and plan accordingly.

  22. BC says:

    So the Senate trial comes to an end as a grey wash when the GOP senators doing everything possible to harm Trump including scheduling things to take the wind out Trump’s SOTU speech. Still no signs that Trump has the GOP under any sort of control or Mitt Romney wouldn’t have thought about playing the traitor.

    • Strannik says:

      1. How did the GOP Senators manage to ‘take the wind out of Trump’s SOTU speech? It was a political masterpiece in my opinion that publicly rendered the Impeachment the total irrelevancy that it really was, President Trump being acquitted the next day-today. And, it showed the public once more (with the Iowa fiasco fresh on people’s minds) that the Democrats are total evil lunatics who can’t do anything right

      2. Mitt Romney’s core reason for even being a US Senator is envy and spite. As it is he’s the only GOP Senator who voted for the President’s removal from office. Everybody else simply knew better, and nobody could fail to see what Romney was going to do.

    • The Cominator says:

      Nobody has much control over Romney unfortunately (unless blackmailing him) for what its worth I do know a Mormon and I asked him to try to petition to get Romney excommunicated. That is something Romney might actually care about.

      • BC says:

        The issue is no one is going to punish Mitt for it. Trump needs to be feared by back stabbing rats like Romney if he’s ever going to be in charge.

        • Bob says:

          I can authoritatively say that Romney won’t be ex’d because of this. Even if a hundred thousand letters were sent to Salt Lake demanding it.

          There is a proposed law to allow recall of Senators, however. With his falling popularity, he might eat it that way. He only barely won the primary, against a no name guy, after being denied his request to the Utah gop to let him skip it. I’m hopeful.

          • jim says:

            How authoritatively? Without doxing yourself or anyone else, tell where did you get this from?

            • RedBible says:

              I can’t tell if which part of Bob’s post you were wanting clarification on, but I know a few things from an external view of the Mormon church.

              Unlikely to be ex’d, because if it’s the way mormons see it, getting ex’d is for “super duper” bad sins. From a more “outsider” perspective, it’s also used to punish “crimes against the church”. Seeing how mormons are steadily becoming more progressive by the year, (like, last year they changed the “temple ceremony” so that the wife in no longer answers to he husband to answer to god, but just straight to god herself) as well as that many mormons disliked trump since he is “too worldly” and “grabs ’em by the pussy”, highly doubt that Romney is going to get in trouble with the leader of the mormons.
              Though is it likely to cause him to lose re-elections since even Utah overall liked Trump.

            • Bob says:

              Low to moderately authoritatively. My sources of knowledge are seeing other public figures ex’d and access to the manual outlining the excommunication process. I’m not privy to what anyone in any leadership is thinking or their willingness to break precedent.

              Excommunication in the LDS church is done by one’s bishop, not by the leadership in salt lake. The heretic Kate Kelly, who was advocating for women to get into the priesthood, hadn’t been to her ward in months/years, but got an email from the bishop of her ward telling her he was starting and she should come back to be at the meetings, which he would run. She had thousands of followers agitating the leadership in salt lake, but nothing happened to her until her bishop in Virginia emailed her. Maybe someone in slc told him to ex her?

              The list of excomminicable acts is made up of sexual sins, felony crimes, and teaching (not just believing) false doctrine.

              Harry Reid was rather liberal and never given a hard time by leadership.

              Precedent could be broken and it’s possible, though unheard of, to be called to salt lake for a disciplinary council and have one’s politics examined.

              Does anyone know something I don’t?

    • Not Tom says:

      Did they ever call on Ciaramella to testify? Lindsey Graham was adamant about wanting to. But impeachment circus is boring AF so I don’t know if it happened.

      That, to me, is the biggest deal. If they couldn’t even publicly unmask the little shit who colluded with Schiff to start the whole thing (and had his fingerprints all over Russiagate), it means we’re still a long way off from solving any coup-complete problems.

      They did drag it out an extra week, pull key Democrats off the campaign trail as I pointed out before, which likely helped to create the chaos in Iowa. So not a total loss I guess. But still just playing the stupid game of democracy, eking out marginal wins rather than fundamentally changing the game.

      • jim says:

        If Trump cannot punish people who use illegal means to overthrow him, it is going to escalate.

        The Senate trial turned into another greywash. Greywash only kicks the conflict down the road a way.

        When the elite struggles for power using coercive means, it is not going to end until one side dies. They will arrest, and then kill, Trump and his family, or Trump will arrest, and then kill, them.

        Once the elite deploys the coercive apparatus of the state against each other, it can end only when one side is decisively coerced.

        The compelling logic of violence is that it escalates till one side decisively wins, and the other decisively loses. The Rubicon has already been crossed. Maybe it will end with the deaths of a small handful of Democrats, maybe the deaths of a small handful of Republicans, maybe it will end with cities being nuked. But violence, once started, can only be ended by deploying sufficient violence to end it.

  23. Strannik says:

    Wanted to reply to this but had no ‘reply’ function;

    ”Atavistic Morality says:
    2020-02-06 at 13:29

    @The Cominator

    That would explain his delusional obsession with the Soviet Union.

    What is the equivalent of a weeb for Russia?”

    First of all, having lived there, having that heritage, being Orthodox Christian, and having Russian wife and family and friends, I have no ”obsession with the Soviet Union”, It’s ruins are something that I had to come across pretty much every day. And yes many people there, probably two-thirds, miss the Soviet Union and actually more than a few had better lives back then in a Socialist system than they do now. But most know there’s no going back, only forwards, and Capitalism in Russia is there to stay for the indefinite future. And the kids know nothing else than post-1991 Russia. Point being, a Socio-Economic system is merely that, and the underlying materialism of both Socialism and Capitalism is what is killing people inside, the soulessness of modernity.

    Understanding the past helped me understand the present. And coming from my Cold War child in a military family background, I have no desire or incentive to be some kind of Commie fanboy. When I was in Russia, I also saw what the God-Fighting Bolsheviks had not destroyed but had tried to, the Russia before 1917, the traditional and Orthodox Russia. Reaching down into the living remains of that era, I realized something about Russia and Russians;

    Russians are the most innately reactionary of peoples at their core, from what I’ve seen, and 75 years of Communism didn’t change that. If anything, They changed the Ideology and diverted it into a Great Russian Nationalism under the guise of Marxist-Leninist dogmas and Shibboleths. The Soviet period is just a bad period in Russia’s 1000 year history, like the Mongol Yoke era or the ”Time of Troubles”. They survived and overcame.

    I didn’t write this for you, it’s possible that none of this will change your opinion and I really don’t care, but it’s the truth and that is what’s important.

    • Bob says:

      I don’t know anything about Russia. Are Russians reactionary in that they think women shouldn’t treated like, or have as much respect as men? Do they think race correlates with biology in ways that determine culture and thus explains many of the difference between the Boers and the Zulu? I imagine the communist system is still having effects, but are the effects reversing?

      • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

        The short answer to your first two questions is “more or less YES”. Russian women tend to be submissive, domestic violence without serious injury has been legalized, and along with most Eastern Europeans they are relatively race-realist.

        • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

          ^ The race realist “they” above referring to Russians in general, not the women specifically

        • Not Tom says:

          Russian women tend to be submissive

          Maybe in Russia they are. In North America they launch brutal shit tests, even the first-generation immigrants.

          • jim says:

            > In North America they launch brutal shit tests, even the first-generation immigrants.

            Pretty brutal in Russia also, though yes, the quality of women is substantially better than in the US. But Russia still has a huge feral woman problem, in some ways better than the US, but in some ways worse.

            • The Cominator says:

              I don’t think its worse, “domestic violence” within limits is now legal in Russia (you can’t do it every night and you can’t send the girl to the ER) and from what I’ve heard not worse.

              American women have all sorts of conscious unrealistic expectations but secretly want Jeremy Meeks, Russian women have a completely reasonable expectation that their man not be a dysfunctional drunk and Putin is apparently considered the ideal alpha male (he is the only right wing leader on earth who gets a higher % of the female vote than the male vote and he has female pop songs about him).

              Russian women might be a bit more “whorish” but far less feminist and far more prosocial in what they are attracted to.

              • jim says:

                Yes, Eastern European women are far more prosocial in whom they are attracted to, but still suffer badly from the universal and unchanging woman problem of cashing in their youth and beauty to party rather than form a family with the highest quality man they can form a family with.

                • Strannik says:

                  I haven’t seen much of that sort of woman over there, either (not saying they don’t exist) but one factor modifying behavior is that men and women over in places I’ve been to in Russia don’t seem to have the luxury of engaging in nonsense. I’ve mainly been in smaller cities and in rural areas, and i’ve never seen more solid and sensible plain-spoken people in my life-except when I was growing up in rural 1970’s Texas and Oklahoma.

                • Not Tom says:

                  i’ve never seen more solid and sensible plain-spoken people in my life

                  Russia and Eastern Europe are less pozzed than the USA and Western Europe right now, but that’s seriously romanticizing the way they live. There is plenty of nonsense.

      • Strannik says:

        ”I don’t know anything about Russia. Are Russians reactionary in that they think women shouldn’t treated like, or have as much respect as men?”

        The Russian men I saw were the boss in and out of their homes, and their women were respectful of them

        ”Do they think race correlates with biology in ways that determine culture and thus explains many of the difference between the Boers and the Zulu?”

        Russians were racial realists before, during, and after the Soviet period.

        ” I imagine the communist system is still having effects, but are the effects reversing?”

        In both bad and good ways. More people are turning to God in their lives, but there is more egoism and anti-social behavior.

        • Bob says:

          It’s interesting that the communist country believes in equality less than us. I’m sure Jim and Moldbug have talked about why, but what the heck? Heaven forbid Trump doesn’t stop the leftist singularity, but if we turn into a socialist hellscape, will the survivors be as based as the Russians?

          • Not Tom says:

            Russia and China today are not communist countries. You could say “formerly communist countries”, but formerly they were just as equalist as America at the time.

            A socialist hellscape likely would produce a more red-pilled population, largely because the blue-pilled will all get killed. But we would lose an enormous amount of useful capital, both human and material, in the process.

            • >A socialist hellscape likely would produce a more red-pilled population, largely because the blue-pilled will all get killed

              I am not sure I understand that. In Soviet type countries, if blue-pilled means being a Communist either by faith or opportunism that is a way to career, not getting killed, only those who have too radical faith get killed as troublemakers. And perhaps a naive kind of blue-pillers who believe the system is benevolent, but even they did not as much got killed as got used. Killing was more on a class basis. And being openly red-pilled was punished.

              The safe way was to be kinda half-pilled. Do not trust the system, but do say its shibboleths, and that is far easier if you have a little belief in them. So the safe belief was to believe Communism is basically a noble idea but it is currently being ran by scumbags one must be cautious with.

              And having the West as a comparison was very eye-opening. The problem of the West is not having its own West – an obviously better model somewhere else. I mean, okay, China does look better, but when you see stuff like arresting the doc who blew the first whistle on the virus… not ideal.

              Then another redpill came that when the Soviet system came crumbling down, the new quasi-Western way of life was not so good either. Capitalism was implemented in entirely wrong ways, instead of nurturing domestic grassroots entrepreneurs, it was all too often a totally corrupted selling of state property to oligarchs who sell it to foreigners and unemployment skyrocketed and so on. One lesson was learned that the state is a bad owner of productive property, yes, but they are even worse at selling it well than running it well. Private property that grows from the grassroots is good, privatized property, property sold by the state is often pretty bad.

              And they got all the woke stuff pushed on them. And it had a very different impact. Look, I think the core thing the Libs in the West play with is guilt. Their target, already back in the Civil Rights era, was the kind of white middle-class guy who lived a comfortable life and it was possible to guilt-trip him over the “privileges” he has over e.g. blacks. I think the guilt-tripping mechanism was absolutely core in the liberal playbook.

              But this does not work at all in countries where people are poor and struggling. Telling a man who works 70 hours a week, mostly blue-collar, to provide a basic decent standard of living for the family will never buy that he is oppressing women. He will never buy he is somehow exploiting or oppressing ethnic minorities. He does not have that kind of surplus that could make him afford guilt. To put it this way, when and if victimary thinking arises, he, too, will very much feel like a victim.

              • BC says:

                Then another redpill came that when the Soviet system came crumbling down, the new quasi-Western way of life was not so good either. Capitalism was implemented in entirely wrong ways, instead of nurturing domestic grassroots entrepreneurs, it was all too often a totally corrupted selling of state property to oligarchs who sell it to foreigners and unemployment skyrocketed and so on. One lesson was learned that the state is a bad owner of productive property, yes, but they are even worse at selling it well than running it well. Private property that grows from the grassroots is good, privatized property, property sold by the state is often pretty bad.

                It wasn’t so much that as Russian was deindrustalized almost overnight by free trade. Almost all Russian factories where built by American engineers in the 1930s. They hadn’t been updated and no modern factories were built to replace them. So when Russian embraced free trade all the factories shut down because they couldn’t complete with western produced goods. Russia was then trading raw materials for finish products like every other third would country. This instantly made everyone much poorer because a nation’s wealth is what you can produce.

                Countries only industrialize behind a wall of tariffs because if you go the trading raw materials for finish good route, the price for local raw materials goes up too much to support native industry.

                • jim says:

                  Hong Kong and Singapore industrialized without a wall of tariffs.

                • > Almost all Russian factories where built by American engineers in the 1930s.

                  I will not deny they were backward but perhaps not this backward. The Lada was based on a Fiat 124 licence in 1966, they later improved (well, *changed* for sure, whether it was an improvement I do not know) the original engine, brakes, transmission and suspension. They sold 300K Ladas to the UK where they were the butt of jokes, but low-budget customers still bought them. Does that sound like it was made in 1930 level factories? Clearly it was worse than Western cars but as much worse as 1930 level factories would imply.

                  Going a bit more on in this direction: the 1966 or 1977 Lada was closer to Western cars than the 1990 Lada was. The 1966 Lada was a poor man’s version of the Fiat 124, but in 1990 when the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Tempra was introduced it was obviously far better than the Lada that did not improve much. And Italy is the shittiest Western carmaker, heh.

                  So maybe Gorbachev was right when he called the era from the mid-sixties the Era of Stagnation. The Soviets stayed on roughly 1965, not 1930 level technology while the West marched on.

                • “Hong Kong and Singapore industrialized without a wall of tariffs.”

                  Look, being a small trading valve between huge empires (China vs. British Empire, Malaysia vs. British Empire) does have its natural advantages. Skim a tiny percentage of the trade flowing through, invest into industry.

                • BC says:

                  So maybe Gorbachev was right when he called the era from the mid-sixties the Era of Stagnation. The Soviets stayed on roughly 1965, not 1930 level technology while the West marched on.

                  I’d never heard of the Lada before, but looking it on wikipeida sounds like the Italians engineers built the plant for the Russians.

                  The automaker AvtoVAZ was formed from a collaboration between Fiat and the Soviet Vneshtorg (Department of Foreign Trade), and based in the city of Tolyatti on the Volga river. Both sides discussed the proposal in Moscow, where Gianni Agnelli, the owner and nephew of the founder of Fiat, and Vittorio Valletta, the president of the company, had arrived from Italy. The first preliminary agreement was signed on 1 July 1965. On 4 May 1966, the Soviet minister of automotive industry Alexander Tarasov and Vittorio Valletta put their signatures on a protocol on the scientific and technical cooperation between Fiat and the Soviet ministry. Eventually, a general agreement between the two sides was signed in Moscow on 15 August 1966.[5]

                  The company began producing the VAZ-2101 in 1970, which was a more rugged version of the Fiat 124 sedan. The car was given heavier steel body panels and strengthened components, which improved reliability on the bumpy roads and in the harsh winters of the Soviet Union,[6][7] In Fiat’s documents the prototype of the car was named Fiat-124R, where ‘R’ stood for Russia.

                • Ex says:

                  Oh, Lada jokes, that brings back memories… my old familymembers used to tell a lot of those.

                  “Did you hear about the grandmother who bought a box of steel wool? She was going to knit a Lada.”
                  “Where’s the heater in a Lada? It’s in the glove compartment and is a jumprope.”
                  “What’s written in the Lada user’s manual? Timetables for train and bus.”
                  “What does LADA stand for? Lavet Av Dumme Aber.” (‘made by stupid apes’)
                  “How do you double the value of a Lada? Fill the gas tank.”
                  “How many people does it take to run a Lada factory? Two – one with scissors and one with a pot of glue.”

                  “A Lada is parked at the side of the road when a donkey comes by. The donkey says: Good morning, car. The Lada says: Good morning, donkey. The donkey is upset and says: Look, if I’m nice enough to call you a car, you should return the favor and call me a horse!”

                • Now that think of it, it actually sounds reasonable that 1930’s level factories can be stretched to make a poorer version of 1960’s products with a bit of retooling and suchlike, you aren’t supposed to replace a whole factory every 10 years, just improve it. And then they got increasingly unable to keep up.

              • Not Tom says:

                In Soviet type countries, if blue-pilled means being a Communist either by faith or opportunism that is a way to career, not getting killed, only those who have too radical faith get killed as troublemakers.

                Post-Stalin, the extreme radicals get killed. Pre-Stalin, everyone who is insufficiently pious gets killed.

                Observe the Democrat holiness spiral; the Iowa primaries, for example. The most vulnerable are on the soft left, not the hard right. The left always eats its own, and usually eats them first, not last.

                Blue-pilled is not the communist radicals. Not really; they have no principles at all. The people who get killed are the ones with stupid principles, the principles that you always need to follow the Queensbury rules, that democracy is really great and powerful women are a turn-on. They get killed. The Putins don’t get killed, they understand the communists better than the communists understand themselves, and either camouflage themselves effectively or just get the hell out of Dodge when it gets too hot and come back when there’s a huge power vacuum.

            • Bob says:

              Formerly communist. My mistake.

          • The Cominator says:

            In Russia and Eastern Europe largely because of Stalin.

            Stalin after 1937 for the most part adopted a policy of en masse killing all the communist true believers (and of course afterwords the mass murders lessened) even for the ideological positions the emphasis henceforth was on following orders not on Marxist or egalitarian belief.

            I’m not sure what happened with China exactly… Mao pursued the purity spiral with the Great Cultural Revolution but this failed…

          • Strannik says:

            No, because we don’t have the 1000 year history of Orthodox Christianity, so we wouldn’t be as ”based”.

            Nor would we survive. America is falling apart as it is for reasons that only slightly relate to economics, and everything to do with being a spiritual ”Hellscape”.

            It will go easier on Sodom and Gomorrah and the other Cities of the Plain than with us.

          • Strannik says:

            No, because we don’t have the 1000 year history of Orthodox Christianity, so we wouldn’t be as ”based”.

            Nor would we survive. America is falling apart as it is for reasons that only slightly relate to economics, and everything to do with being a spiritual ”Hellscape”.

            It will go easier on Sodom and Gomorrah and the other Cities of the Plain than with us.

            • Not Tom says:

              Cultural history can be erased – easily. Happens all the time. If Russians were unique in having recovered from communism, it would be because they are Russian, not because they are Orthodox Christian.

              But Russia isn’t unique. China’s state religion is about as far as you can get from Orthodox Christianity, yet they recovered. If America does not recover, it will not be due to religion, but due to demographics. Russia and China, in spite of their troubles with communism, did not invite nearly as much of the third world as America. Russia is still largely Russian, China is still largely Han, but America is not really American.

              Religious revivals are going to happen anyway during any period of mass casualties. Religion is fertility, and when civilization is dying off, the fertile win by default. A major collapse in America would lead to a huge shift toward conventional religions, mostly Christianity but also a rise in Islam and Orthodox Judaism. That part is inevitable. But whether this new religious group is capable of carrying on civilization depends not only on what religion they follow, but who they actually are. If they have an average IQ of 80, as in central/Latin America, not going to be much of a recovery. Average of 95-105, probably going to be a decent recovery regardless of precise religion.

              • Strannik says:

                Maybe I am biased and do not cotton much to materialistic explanations, but I lay the slow and painful recovery to Orthodoxy.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Russian Orthodoxy is an important part of Russian culture, and compared to many/most other denominations around today, it’s fantastic.

                  But you should be inherently suspicious of any theory that posits a single, narrow cause for any dramatic social change. Reality is rarely so simple. Omar lists several contributing factors below, and they were probably all in play.

          • Omar is just a Trump card now. says:

            Anatoli Karlin has blogposts on the “Soviet Freezer” as he calls it; the preservation of old attitudes on many subjects due to discussion being suppressed, and/or isolation from the decadent West and it’s Progress.

            The Moldbug explanation would be that the USSR and China were never occupied by the US and did not get the Progress Acceleration that happened in Europe.

            Something similar is true for Israel. The immigrants from the USSR and from Arab countries were both in the cultural freezer and demographically overwhelmed the older population of socialist Jews. Having to fight wars also prevents some of the leftward flight from reality, and lefties being outbred by religious Jews is helping in recent years. It’s not exactly the same in end result; Israel is still much further to the left than Russia on homosexuals and the WQ. I guess if Bibi survives his Mueller inquisition he will start purging the left and that would help.

            • Strannik says:

              I’ve noticed that people in Russia don’t run their mouth a whole lot anyways, for any reason, even in private. I once sat in a bank lobby full of people there for almost 30 minutes and didn’t hear anyone speak except when I was called to the tellers window and after. It was nice, really nice, not having to hear inane blathering all the time.

              But when they do talk about politics and similar things people in the West tend to avoid, wow, at first I was pretty shocked. really nice to be able to hear things that need to be said, too.

        • Bob says:

          If Russians are redpilled, why is their birthrate low? Are there more factors that affect it?

          • Strannik says:

            Glad you asked. In short, the CATHEDRAL wrote their Constitution after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and in their Constitution international agreements including the ”right” to an abortion and contraceptives, trump any proposed Russian national laws. Putin has been acting within those boundaries, and is not personally opposed to Abortion and Contraception. But he is carrying out a re-write of the Constitution that will truly make Russia sovereign.

            Since he also pushed through measures to economically help couples have more children, the birthrate has climbed to what is a genuinely astounding 1.7 children per couple from a low of less than 1.0.

            • Bob says:

              Interesting. Sounds like Russia’s all set to get things running if they can get away from the Cathedral’s tendrils. Good luck!

    • Not Tom says:

      Dude. Once again: reply to the parent post, and blockquote whom you’re replying to.

    • Oak says:

      The chad thread-starter:

      -Only replies to his own threads
      -Always on top
      -Literally no one knows who he’s replying to; doesn’t care
      -Creates chaos in every comment section he visits
      -Told repeatedly how to reply properly
      -Starts every thread with: ‘wanted to reply to x but no reply button’
      -Doesn’t know what blockquote is; too busy banging Russian wife

      • Nikolai says:

        Lmao

      • Viking says:

        Lol
        That’s a good thing no?

      • Strannik says:

        I had to laugh at that, lol…. I have a busy life indeed, an older guy like me has to make up for a lot of lost time 🙂

        • The Cominator says:

          I lol’d too dude…

          Also should add

          – Actual nonshill nazbol who genuinely supports Trump
          – Well adjusted Orthodox Christian patriarch with glorious beard…

          • Strannik says:

            A recovering Socialist is like a recovering Alcoholic, there will be relapses. What changes me inside is being a husband and a father, with responsibilities. Being an old reprobate only gets you so far. Orthodoxy and Monarchy, that gets me further.

  24. Jehu says:

    You know, an interesting experiment could be made of this. The US army has always had a parallel unofficial supply line going back further than I can remember. That line is packages from home. I understand that some special forces types also get allowances to procure stuff from Amazon and the like.
    What if we took a test company, perhaps even a regiment, and assigned them to a bunch of homeschool moms or military widows in a sort of, adopt a few soldiers program, and funneled a logistical allowance to said irregular contractors to procure what their adopted boys need. They could then on a weekly basis drop the loot off at the local Kohls, which is an Amazon returns point. They could communicate their needs by way of email/text/letters, and they could have food, ammunition, medical supplies, clothing etc all delivered to them.
    Near as I can tell, the military is pretty good at moving stuff from point A to B and insuring that Amazon can ship to them, but rotten at price efficiency or quality in procurement. It’d be interesting to see what, say, 2/3 of what the military customarily spends on logistical support per soldier would buy in the hands of homeschool moms.

    • jim says:

      > It’d be interesting to see what, say, 2/3 of what the military customarily spends on logistical support per soldier would buy in the hands of homeschool moms.

      Probably several campervans to store a horde of concubines.

      An army operating far from home needs many camp followers for each actual fighting man. If you skimp on camp followers, you end up with fewer fighting men than you think you have, because too many non warrior duties. Some people, in the end a remarkably large proportion of people, wind up doing non warrior duties full time, resulting in the stolen valor problem.

      The treatment of Florence Nightingale and Lord Cardigan shows stolen valor was intentional, but you also wind up with it happening unintentionally.

      • Jehu says:

        So if we assigned every fighting man a manservant, and perhaps one extra at the squad of 10 level, in addition to the outsourced logistics in terms of procurement from the US, would that provide the necessary level of camp follower support far from home? If so, how much would that cost relative to the status quo?

  25. jim says:

    Strannik:

    > > Wanted to reply to this but had no ‘reply’ function;

    Not Tom:

    > Once again: reply to the parent post, and blockquote whom you’re replying to

    Exactly so. When you cannot reply directly in the comment thread, start a new thread from the post, with an extensively blockquote from the thread comment you are replying to.

    Strannik:<blockquote>> > Wanted to reply to this but had no ‘reply’ function;</blockquote>
    Not Tom: <blockquote>> Once again: reply to the parent post, and blockquote whom you’re replying to</blockquote>

    Otherwise comments would creep to the right hand side of the page.

  26. jim says:

    Strannick:

    > Yes many people there, probably two-thirds, miss the Soviet Union and actually more than a few had better lives back then in a Socialist system than they do now.

    Do they now?

    How many people run on the platform of restoring Soviet socialism and how many votes do they get?

    It is down in the asterisks, and such votes as they do get are mainly young people who never experienced socialism, plus some old folks who lost power and status with the fall of communism.

    • Strannik says:

      You know as well as I do Jim that it’s not the number of votes that counts, it’s who the vote counters are, and that’s a fact anywhere. But there are more reasons why the Communists and Soviet types lose.

      What keeps these people from being a threat are not so much their votes, as that their votes are also divided among numerous different Communist and Soviet Nationalist parties, and so United Russia, Capitalist and Russian Patriotic, easily can count on a plurality of the vote anyway no matter what.

      But polls in Russia over the past 25 years have consistently shown that two-thirds of Russians would prefer a restoration to some degree of the Soviet Union. And these aren’t lazy layabout scumbags or old people who are nostalgic for the ”good old days” either. These are just regular working people, struggling to survive a system that left their country in ruins and a handful of people with everything that wasn’t nailed down, looted, monetized and sent into western banks, Oligarchs with homes in London and Spain, etc…

      • jim says:

        Not seeing a whole lot of nostalgia for those empty Soviet shops, long waiting lists, and crap consumer goods. No one who matters is running on a platform of restoring the Soviet economic order.

        The only Russian communist party that gets any votes is the CPRF, and it disowns the Soviet economic order. Its economic platform would look moderate to the American Democrats. Socialism gets more support at the polls in the USA than in Russia.

        Socialism only works till you run out of other people’s money. National Socialism eats the peasant’s seed corn and kills the peasant’s cows. Soviet Socialism eats the peasant’s seed corn and kills the peasant for being so wicked as to own cows.

        Bernie Sander’s supporters do not hate the universities for signing them up for massive debt and worthless degrees. Instead they hate the boomers for getting relatively cheap degrees that were actually worth something. Trotsky hated the peasants for having cows and land when he had pissed away the capital he needed to operate as an urban Jewish moneylender. Progressives hate farms, factories and oilwells.

        • Strannik says:

          Jim, They re-introduced profit making with the ”design agencies” and other euphemisms for a Corporation in the USSR back in the 1960’s. Russians know that most of what you’re discussing went on after that, and especially after the oil market went tits up in the 1970’s. By the time Gorbachev came along, all he was interested in doing was helping close up shop and facilitate looting everything that wasn’t nailed down.

          The KPRF explicitly follows a platform of Chinese style Communism, which is to say, not really Communism, either. The other smaller parties vary in their platforms but are more Socialist than the KPRF.

          As for the rest, I know that you believe that, suffice it to say on my part that Socialism for good or for ill doesn’t seem to last long, and that Capitalism appears to be from what i’ve seen, the natural default economic system for fallen mankind.

          • info says:

            @Strannik

            Sure capitalism is a system for fallen mankind. But that doesnt necessarily mean socialism is the economic system of non-fallen mankind either.

            If capitalism works best out of them all. It may actually work best absent the fall.

            • Strannik says:

              ”All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they shared with anyone who was in need. With one accord they continued to meet daily in the temple courts and to break bread from house to house, sharing their meals with gladness and sincerity of heart.”

              And Our Lord said Himself to the young Rich man;

              ”Jesus told him, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”

              • info says:

                @Strannik

                Note the absence of coercion and government control. And the assumption that all are working.

                The monasteries seem pretty good in realizing this.

                • jim says:

                  There seemed to be a whole lot of private coercion in that people dumped daughters they suspected of being likely to produce bastard children in nunneries, in that the state dumped whores in nunneries, and in that a lot of monks took up the monastic life because the alternative was likely to be the equivalent of vagrancy charges.

                  But yes, quasi private, and a great deal better than welfare, since the monasteries and nunneries not only fed people who might cause problems if they were hungry, but also gave them community, dignity, and meaningful work.

                • Strannik says:

                  To be fair, I’ve never seen a Socialist ideology where everyone wasn’t called upon to work; ”If a man will not work, neither let him eat”. Socialism=/= ”Welfarism”… But yes, the higher spiritual life of the monastery cannot be coerced, or under government control.

                • jim says:

                  Marxist theory is that labor is value (capital and the boss’s decisions being entirely useless and irrelevant) So if a Marxist takes Marxism seriously, as Mao did, he is apt to put the peasants to work – albeit the work is apt to be useless or destructive.

                  But envy and covetousness means that the secret stash theory just keeps bubbling up. It is more a subconscious attitude, not an explicit theory that he knows he believes.

                  They think that they believe that people should work, but actually they don’t believe it.

        • Anonymous Fake says:

          Bernie Bros legitimately hate capitalism for failing to show up when they were in school. Capitalism fails to distribute economic information about jobs and salaries, no matter how good it is at price signaling with goods, and over time we see labor ever more expensive and goods ever cheaper. And yet, people still have to work, and there are a finite number of jobs.

          With sexual revolution, capitalists become far less autistic and more of the pathological heterosexual type (like Trump, ironically), and they cease to create jobs for their own sake because giving jobs to a fellow man provides him with a means to support a family, entirely at odds for what incentives were set up for the capitalists to work harder. Gold, clothes, and ho’s.

          Russia has a unique position due to its brutally cold and dark climate. It has an organic alcohol problem due to winter associated depression, sometimes endemic and sometimes epidemic, that reduces the male/female ratio such that the horny capitalists don’t have to work so hard promoting poz to achieve their harem goals. This is usually a good and K-selected thing, but rapid technological change in the 20th century resulted in disproportionately high returns on utility for accepting sexual revolution so elite and lustful capitalists would grind (lol) harder. Ordinary proles just didn’t matter.

          A new Soviet mindset requires a positive, explicit social conservatism as a refined upgrade of the accidental, natural one that even Lenin and Trotsky couldn’t suppress, and their tricks are well known now. The economics comes later, but for now simply avoiding neoliberal capitalism is sufficient.

          • jim says:

            > Bernie Bros legitimately hate capitalism for failing to show up when they were in school. Capitalism fails to distribute economic information about jobs and salaries, no matter how good it is at price signaling with good

            Capitalism distributes information about jobs and salaries all the time. That is why job fairs and technology shows are always full of engineers.

            You want to know market prices, go to a market. Job markets exist largely to distribute economic information about jobs and salaries.

            Trouble is that schools fail to distribute information about jobs and salaries.

            The students were not lied to by capitalism. They were lied to by the Universities, who sold them degrees in finger painting and Wakandan science at stupendously high prices, to be paid for later.

            The Bernie Bros hate capitalism because capitalism creates wealth, and they do not, and they hate boomers for not getting as badly scammed by the universities as they were. They hate fracking because they see wealth coming out of the ground, and do not know why it is not coming out of the ground for them.

            > giving jobs to a fellow man provides him with a means to support a family, entirely at odds for what incentives were set up for the capitalists to work harder. Gold, clothes, and ho’s.

            If a man does not own a wife and children, he might as well hang out in his single mother’s basement and play pornographic video games.

            Back when capitalists were allowed to do so, and back when wives were socially required to honor and obey, capitalists showed a marked preference for hiring married men with children, because more reliable and harder working. The state forbade them to do this, because the Democratic Party State wants a society of atomized individuals who do not work and are dependent on the state.

            They still secretively and illegally show that preference, but interviewers are forbidden to ask. It is, however, a good idea to spontaneously tell.

            • Anonymous Fake says:

              “You want to know market prices, go to a market.”

              I have a better idea. Honor good students with good jobs by forcing employers to physically interact with the schools, in the exact same way the students are forced to be there. Common sense.

              Most students would be much more conservative much earlier in life if only they were given the right information sooner. The problem is a mental bloc still affecting mostly boomer conservatives who can’t see that capitalists aren’t their social conservative friends.

              Islam, for what it’s worth, can survive welfare states. Think about this.

              • jim says:

                > I have a better idea.

                You want to give power to the people who are screwing us over, and take power away from the people who are creating wealth, because you hate the people who are creating wealth, and love the people who burned you.

                Give the people who burned you more power, they will burn you worse.

                Socialism eats the peasant’s seed corn and kills the peasant’s cows. That is your “better idea”.

                “Good students” are apt to be bad employees, because increasingly college selects for and rewards bad personal characteristics. Increasingly, students are deemed “good” on characteristics that mean they do not deserve a job. If you want a scholarship to Harvard, tell them in your admission entry essay that you helped burn down a supermarket and that while hiding behind women, you threw a rock at a cop. When the priesthood expands beyond its proper role in this world priests hate warriors, and thus professors hate cops.

                My kids participated in fake activism organization so that they could put fake activism on their admission essays. The universities are getting wise to fake activism organizations, and now want some assault and damage to prove the organization is real.

              • Not Tom says:

                Honor good students with good jobs by forcing employers to physically interact with the schools

                Typical commie shill, thinking that jobs are merely goodies to be doled out to the “deserving”.

                Jobs exist because business owners need certain work to be performed. They cannot create make-work jobs, or else they don’t remain in business for long.

                Governments can launch massive public works projects, which are essentially make-work jobs, and this strategy was used to some success in older times. But our federal and state governments are no longer capable of executing these projects successfully, mainly because democracy and liberalism have ruined them.

                • jim says:

                  Capitalism is terribly unfair because the goodies go to those deplorable people who create value, instead of going to the most holy.🙃

                • Not Tom says:

                  I actually find the lack of advocacy for public works projects quite interesting, as these have always been the most effective way to transform the unemployed and unemployable into something at least marginally resembling employed or employable. We can think of them like socialized apprenticeship, a lot less efficient than the private kind but still better than being in undischargable debt and on the dole.

                  If communists actually cared about the poor students, they would demand that the government give them government jobs – and many liberals and old-timey progressives do demand that. But the modern communists and woke progressives don’t; instead, they demand that businesses be forced to hire individuals who not only aren’t productive but in many cases actually subtract value.

                  It’s clever, in a disturbing and midwitted sort of way. They get to hurt the productive and help their fellow entryists at the same time. But it’s further evidence of the pathetic hypocrisy, of the fact that communists have no real principles to speak of and only care about getting their people into power – just in case anyone here was still in doubt about that.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Obama kinda tried to do that by promising “shovel ready jobs” the problem is modern “shovel ready jobs” aren’t shovel ready at all.

                  Government infrastructure projects benefit a very government connected contractors and union members and are designed to costs as much as possible and go on forever.

                • jim says:

                  There are a pile of regulations concocted to stop makework government jobs from being “shovel ready” The government can only produce makework jobs that are Democratic Party Union ready.

                • @Not Tom

                  >I actually find the lack of advocacy for public works projects quite interesting, as these have always been the most effective way to transform the unemployed and unemployable into something at least marginally resembling employed or employable. We can think of them like socialized apprenticeship, a lot less efficient than the private kind but still better than being in undischargable debt and on the dole.

                  Orban tried this in Hungary, it is indeed better than all the other modern alternatives, but the 70IQ gypsies on public works resemble someone employed and employable only very, very marginally. Looks like they will stay state serfs for the foreseeble future.

                  The typical story is that the village council owns farmland bought from heirs who live in the city and don’t want to farm. They set the gypsies to dig potatoes on them as public works, pay them a below-minimal wage, then give them the potatoes to eat and all this makes them plain simply too tired to go stealing. So it brings some level of stability in a system that was previously characterized by crime and what the gypsies called “making living off my dick” i.e. the social welfare given for having lots of children.

                  But… you see I don’t know if the concept of “natural slave” made sense in Aristotle’s time but it definitely does now when factory work is about being an operator of high-tech equipment, the gap between people who can do that and these people keeps growing, meaning these people won’t ever be employable, won’t ever be able to do anything more than digging and because an excavator is better at that and it is unprofitable the state has to pay for that, pretty much forever. The road to serfdom indeed, except HBD version.

                • Anyway, the old saying that the Devil finds work for idle hands is absolutely true and when the government finds work for them the Devil can’t, it really does work as a crime-prevention measure. Crime is first and foremost caused by boredom, men who spend their days standing on street corners WILL find their entertainment like punching the polar bear and then taking his wallet as well.

                  As much as we hate that, as men we can understand that to some extent, can’t we? When your life is entirely empty, when you have energies in you wanting to burst out and do something, anything.

                  Any make-believe work if physically tiring gets rid of most of that energy and goes a long way to prevent crime.

                  I get the impression that Latin America treats the same problem with sports. Soccer is the way out from the ghettoes of Brazil, to fame and money, so a lot of ghetto kids play soccer all day hoping to improve and get noticed one day. Sort of a similar logic. That can be used too, because blacks are natural athletes in ways gypsies are not at all.

                • Jan Martense says:

                  If communists actually cared about the poor students, they would demand that the government give them government jobs – and many liberals and old-timey progressives do demand that. But the modern communists and woke progressives don’t; instead, they demand that businesses be forced to hire individuals who not only aren’t productive but in many cases actually subtract value.

                  Moldbug had a fantastic essay on precisely this topic: https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2013/03/sam-altman-is-not-blithering-idiot/
                  This gist of it is that the “IQ floor” for productive work continues to rise; that is, as technology gets better and better, machines successively replace jobs of increasing skill. These people are literally unemployable, as the wages required for their bare survival (or, worse, minimum wage) is higher than the cost of a machine.

                  This problem doesn’t just affect ghetto blacks and spoiled students who “don’t want to work,” but even, as time goes on, more and more jobs that were previously considered middle class. The solutions either involve 1) “removing” them (unethical), 2) welfare (what we currently have, and as Div. notes a massive crime risk) 3) make-work (we have this as well, its just currently much more subtle and worthless than building Pyramids) or 4) technological restriction.

                  I don’t really think there is a free-market solution to this. I’m torn on whether solution 3 or solution 4 is less distortionary and thus more preferable.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’m not a strong advocate of government make-work jobs, personally. Only observing that socialists, if they had any consistent principles, ought to be, yet clearly aren’t. Thus it’s not really about elevating the worker, only about destroying the shopkeeper and looting his shop.

                  Our frame is not their frame, I don’t care about elevating the worker – but they claim to care, and are unable to stay consistent even within their stated frame.

                • JanMartense says:

                  I don’t care about worker status in particular either. But are you really willing to let low-IQ people starve by not providing some kind of work? I don’t mean this sarcastically, I just can’t see myself wanting that. Maybe it means I’m ethical, or maybe just weak.

                  And to be clear, diversity quotas are just a stealthier version of low-IQ make-work. Directly hiring them to build pyramids by hand in the Nevada desert is politically nonviable, so the govt is forced to create fake jobs with deficit spending, then fill those jobs with the otherwise unemployable.

                • Not Tom says:

                  And to be clear, diversity quotas are just a stealthier version of low-IQ make-work.

                  Sort of. They’re not just stealthier, but also far more dysgenic. They freeze unlucky or untalented white men out of these jobs and give them to people who should not be working in this country (Indians, Mexicans, etc.) or people who should not be working at all (women). And that’s to say nothing of the faggots and assorted sexual degenerates filling up these positions.

                  If we could just admit what we are, this would be a whole lot simpler. If we ditched the whole diversity shit, sent all the immigrants back and sent all the women home, and told Google and Apple “at least 15% of your workforce must be in the -1SD IQ bracket, find a way to put these people to work, we don’t care if you lose money”, I’ll bet they could come up with some creative solutions that are way less awful than diversity programs.

                  They can’t make them all clean toilets, that’s demeaning to people in the 90-95 range, but maybe they can help maintain office equipment, keep documentation up to date, do in-house QA, all the things employees tend to wish their employers did a better job of anyway. The value is low, but it’s not negative. Walmart figured this out with their greeters, they really don’t need to hire any of those people but it’s sort of a tax they pay to the community.

                  If we could just be honest about the problem, maybe the private sector could actually figure out how to fix it. The problem, if we agree that it’s a problem, isn’t racism and sexism, it’s that low-skill/low-IQ people need meaningful work. Solutions that don’t honestly address the real problem are going to be terrible at solving it.

                • jim says:

                  > The problem, if we agree that it’s a problem, isn’t racism and sexism, it’s that low-skill/low-IQ people need meaningful work. Solutions that don’t honestly address the real problem are going to be terrible at solving it.

                  The monasteries did this job, but the hypocrisy damaged their effectiveness, though not as badly as putting women in engineering damages engineering. Stuffing whores in nunneries was not good idea. Greeters and tidy-up work in the private sector is a better solution, and the work is likely to be more meaningful, since actually needed and useful.

              • Mike in Boston says:

                @NotTom:

                If we ditched the whole diversity shit, sent all the immigrants back and sent all the women home, and told Google and Apple “at least 15% of your workforce must be in the -1SD IQ bracket, find a way to put these people to work, we don’t care if you lose money”, I’ll bet they could come up with some creative solutions that are way less awful than diversity programs.

                […]but maybe they can help maintain office equipment, keep documentation up to date, do in-house QA…

                This is such a good idea that even our current dysfunctional society has evolved something like it. If you spend some time working on a large program at one of the giant defense contractors, you may notice that:

                o Positions often require a security clearance, which in practice most staff obtain while in the military.
                o Even positions not requiring a security clearance do require U.S. citizenship.
                o The contractor’s multiplier is set so that its costs, including salaries and benefits, are covered.
                o There is a maximum salary for many positions, which is often less than the free-market rate for a position which is on paper comparable, consistent with it being a stretch for someone at -1SD to hold down that position in the free market.
                o Perhaps to partially compensate for the former, staffing levels are pretty high and work is very process-heavy. There is lots of documentation and QA.

                It makes sense for a country to have a jobs program. Building pyramids in the desert is passé, but defense-related work is not a bad second choice. There are plenty of black guys, former military and very organized, for whom these programs seem to be a great fit.

                Of course all flavors of “diversity”™ are sacrosanct in this arena as well. That is simply systemic.

                • Not Tom says:

                  I think this evolved partly because (I assume) defense contractors aren’t allowed to offshore. Most private-sector companies would love to farm all of this work out to Indian call centers and Chinese factories, and will generally do so as soon as they believe they can get away with it.

                  The market is more-or-less capable of solving a big part of the problem on its own, without any government micro-management, if the government does some macro-management in the form of trade restrictions, particularly as relates to labor – but there are probably still some gaps to fill if you want to get close to full employment.

                  I find the average black guys to be more competent than the imported/offshored street shitters, as long as they come from a decent family and community. For the worse-than-average, the solution for them is the infamous Jim Crow: eliminate the white (and mestizo) competition, maintain order, and force the talented tenth to take responsibility for the other 90%. Of course that seems to be a controversial if not taboo subject, even here.

            • RedBible says:

              If a man does not own a wife and children, he might as well hang out in his single mother’s basement and play pornographic video games.

              Interesting thought I had was, following that train of thought, it would seem that making sure that a man gets a wife and children is a good idea for society. Not that I’d approve of socializing marriage or the selling of daughters, but seems like your statement approves of men marring before fully securing the ability to provide.

              • RedBible says:

                (just realized that the way I wrote what I wrote, I need to clarify, it to read as instead:)
                …socializing marriage or socializing the selling of daughters…

              • jim says:

                Ideally, sex is hard to obtain except by marrying an obedient virgin wife, and marrying an obedient virgin wife is tough unless you are on track to the ability to provide, but as easy as falling off a log if you have secured the ability to provide.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Does that mean that ideally, brothels and prostitutes are vanishingly rare?

                • jim says:

                  We suppress the supply, not the demand.

                  Whoring is a career choice alternative to wifing. Girls just want to have fun.

        • The Cominator says:

          > “Capitalism distributes information about jobs and salaries all the time. That is why job fairs and technology shows are always full of engineers.”

          In 2004-2005 I know it was pretty impossible for a white guy to get hired as an engineer out of school even though the jobs picture WAS rosy going into school.

          Too many foreigners and too bad a tech downturn. Things never REALLY recovered until Trump either.

          • jim says:

            In such a terrible tech job market as 2004-2005, you need prior experience. College is not prior experience. No one wants a new graduate except to tick affirmative action boxes. Open source is prior experience.

        • A says:

          they hate boomers for not getting as badly scammed by the universities as they were

          I hate boomers for being cowards. It is a hatred of weakness. I have nothing but contempt for a generation who sided with the Cathedral against their own children in return for a few trinkets from China and a few extra houses.

      • The Cominator says:

        I think the Russians miss the Soviet Union as a respected world power (although Putin has sort of remade Russia one of those anyway, perhaps with more genuine military strength then the Soviet Union ever really had except at the end of WWII) they don’t miss the breadlines and lack of consumer anything. There might have been some very dark times in the 1990s when the Soviet economic order was missed but they wouldn’t miss it today.

  27. Anonymous Fake says:

    > “There are a pile of regulations concocted to stop makework government jobs from being “shovel ready” The government can only produce makework jobs that are Democratic Party Union ready.”

    European works of high infrastructure like the autobahn or high speed rail disagree. Private economies in the modern West, on the other hand, are mostly based on people suing each other, selling each other insurance, and real estate speculation. Sometimes even doing each other’s laundry and cooking. Producing things of value is for either governments or the colonies.

    • jim says:

      Have Europeans built any nice autobahn’s recently?

      Europeans have the same problem of soaring costs and reduced quality in the production of infrastructure as the American bicoastal megalopoli, and the closer to Harvard, the worse the problem.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Europeans haven’t built much of anything recently because they accepted the neoliberal poz and are in a demographic collapse. Rich horny billionaires motivated by lust to make more money eventually corrupt the culture and it simply takes too long for the masses to figure out that their initial prosperity creation is either spent or illusory, just numbers on bank accounts that don’t mean anything.

        A return to respect for religion, or at least nature, would fix Europe, but economic leftism wouldn’t hurt. Taxing the horny coked up capitalist who works 100 hours a week for a fatter bank account, at the expense of economic reality for the bottom 99%, would go a long way, even before any real infrastructure gets planned out.

        The problem with taxes, of course, is the fear of killing the goose that lays the golden eggs. The reality the right has to learn to accept here, is that *there are certain apple carts that deserve to be turned over*. All too often you find out there were no real apples in them, just fake apples for display, but better to learn this sooner than later.

        For what it’s worth, I live in a red state and anecdotally I have never seen the speed limit ever increased due to improvements in the quality of roads. Low taxes mean rich horny billionaires who pollute the culture, shoddy infrastructure, and low quality human capital that appreciates a tax rate designed for a marginal quality of life.

        But family demands I stand and fight where I am.

        • jim says:

          France and Sweden are already taxing capitalists to the wazoo. How is that working out for them?

          Notice what happened when Trump cut corporate taxes. The money immediately flowed through to people who work, in bonuses, increased hiring, and increased capital formation.

          If cultural decay was caused by horny capitalists, how come Human Resources is terrorizing them with bogus sexual harassment cases?

          • Anonymous Fake says:

            The lower-tier eunuch/drone/cuck man gets grilled by HR so the capitalist elite men have more women for themselves. The rules don’t apply to the boss.

            The need for wealth to trickle down instead of sitting in zero-velocity accounts for the elites, and creating negative utility for the everyone else and ultimately the entire set of the economy, is taken for granted to some extent. The right thinks lower taxes create a trickle down, while the left thinks high taxes and then government action throws the wealth down faster.

            You can already see the trick. The right and left waste too much time arguing tactics and the wealth goes nowhere. It’s only the social conservatives who see the source of the problem. Take away the incentives for being a degenerate, lustful capitalist, and you suddenly don’t need to patch a social problem with economic solutions.

            • jim says:

              Reflect on sex lives of Bezos and Zuckerberg. The rich are not getting pussy. Jeremy Meeks is getting pussy. The closer management gets to the terrifying power of Human Resources, to the holy inquisition, the less pussy they get.

              Hence contracting. The boss outsources human resources to get the threat further away.

              Progressivism and the holy priesthood is bad for everyone’s sex lives, but it is worse for capitalists.

              The priesthood hates merchants as it hates warriors, and under Obama, was crushing and destroying them.

              Complex societies are the result of males cooperating – and the male capacity to cooperate is the result of selection for collective action to hog the most women.

              Failure of the elite to reproduce reflects breakdown of cooperation within the elite. The state religion contains the social technology for cooperation within the elite, thus failure of the elite to reproduce reflects a dysfunctional state religion promoting a dysfunctional moral code, a moral code that prevents cooperation, an evil moral code.

            • R7 Rocket says:

              @Anonymous Fake

              “The need for wealth to trickle down instead of sitting in zero-velocity accounts for the elites, and creating negative utility for the everyone else”

              Oh how cute, the commie thinks rich people keep their wealth in Scrooge McDuck money bins.

              • jim says:

                Commies do not understand that though money does not produce money, a cow does produce cows, so naturally they think “capital” is a big pile of gold that fell from heaven and the evil capitalists rounded it up before anyone else could. Hence the tendency of commies to kill the peasant’s cows and attribute the ensuing milk and meat shortage to mysterious evil forces, then go on the hunt to find and kill those responsible for this mysterious and totally unexpected evil.

                The word “capital” comes from the word for “head”, as in count of cattle. A “capitalist” is a merchant who uses the market to apply potentially productive assets to their highest and best use.

                • jack boot says:

                  [*deleted*]

                • jim says:

                  Deleted for presupposing the commie definition of usury.

                  This blog uses the Christian definition of usury. I don’t allow our shibboleths to be given new meanings. If you want to talk about usury as defined by commies, acknowledge that you are using a definition with which Christians and reactionaries are unlikely to agree, acknowledge that we use words differently.

                  I explain usury here, here, and here.

  28. NH voter says:

    Long-time reader, semi-regular commenter, and registered New Hampshire voter here. Not planning to vote in next Tuesday’s primary, but was wondering if you guys had any suggestions. Should I vote to Bern it all down?

    • Anonymous Fake says:

      Bernie is the only non-establishment Democrat with a serious ground game. Trump lacked a ground game that could lend itself towards a new civil service, appointees etc. Organic, grassroots support in the most important labor markets (ie, not the internet trolls) is where reform is possible.

      • jim says:

        Which means Bernie could easily implement a socialist hellhole complete with gulags, because he has plenty of people to do it, while Trump has one hell of a problem building the wall or arresting criminals who use illegal means to attempt to overthrow him. Trump has, as he frequently complains, wound up appointing no end of enemies who worked against him and his objectives.

    • JanMartense says:

      What you should really do if you’re feeling gutsy is report “voting irregularities” to the Sanders campaign. Say you saw a suspicious looking man in a beanie and a Butt shirt fiddling with the machine.

  29. Theshadowedknight says:

    CNN is reporting that Vindman and Sondland are out. GE Trump is purging his enemies, at least the ones in the open.

    • BC says:

      More importantly the Democrats are talking about Trump being a dictator and is about to arrest people. The purges may indeed happen shortly.

      Deus Vault!

      • The Cominator says:

        Apparently HUnter Biden’s money has been suponead… since he was no doubt kicking up to higher up Democrats that is something.

  30. Pooch says:

    The one thing I do agree with is that the West did turn into a bunch of faggots when it stopped conquering. Too much peace causes faggotry.

  31. New and new critics of capitalism are cropping up in the comments here. And I have an idea. Let’s make a clear difference. We want Capitalism-With-Aristocracy, call it CWA. What was happening in the last X centuries is Capitalism-Without-Aristocracy, CWOA, plus socialism.

    CWOA means a system where the demand society presents to capitalists come from the masses, the mass marketplace, people who have no taste. Hence artists suffer, they have produce popular shit to make a living. The classic case of underground bands vs. sellouts. While people are far better at choosing for themselves on the mass marketplace than choosing for everybody else in democracy, the fact is still that CWOA cannot escape the problem that its demand-generator is the lowbrow lower-class person with all his failings. Not just taste, other things that were mentioned here like preferring carby food also in play.

    In CWOA, people of finer tastes or just more imagination than the low-class low-brow consumers have no recourse but to apply to the state, to demand a kind of socialism, to hope that the state will sponsor them producing the kind of things the masses have no interest in buying.

    While the CWA we would like to restore aristocrats mean an entirely different source of demand for capitalists. They act as sponsors for artists who can afford to make quality stuff and get paid for it, because the aristocrats compete for status showing off their artist pets to each other. If you look at all the masterpieces from the past we admire, from buildings to jewelry or beautiful swords, they were made by capitalists for the purchase of aristocrats (and kings and high priests). THIS is the reason the past looks so aesthetically glorious – this source of demand! In CWA anyone who has different, loftier, more tasteful or just more imaginative ideas than the masses can try to sell it to the aristocrats – the nature of the thing is that only one or a few clients suffice to make a living.

    To *some* extent it is happening, the Harvard-Washington class are sort of acting like aristocrats who are actually sponsoring abstract artists and get into all kinds of fad diets – they definitely mean a different, not mass-market source of demand for entrepreneurs. But they are simply bad aristocrats. Partially because they are priests, not aristocrats. Partially because Leftism does not simply destroy, it also tends to create sick, zombie parodies of the things they destroy.

    So I think at least some people who criticize capitalism from the right do so because capitalism without aristocrats tends to be dominated by the mass market hence the mass man. It is “too democratic”. But capitalism with aristocrats, with aristocrats creating and entirely different kind of demand for capitalists to fill is very different and we want that.

    • The Cominator says:

      “To *some* extent it is happening, the Harvard-Washington class are sort of acting like aristocrats”

      Real aristocracy has to be warrior in nature not priest in nature, there has to be a culture that at least one of the boys each generation will be a career officer or if long peace some kind of adventurer (we need space for this alone) and I mean as far as officers one who is potentially at least as a juniour officer exposed to enemy fire not a clerk.

      Modern art is degenerate CIA trash.

      • info says:

        In the past the Steppe served as the earth’s version of space. A high mobile and adventurous lifestyle.

        An environment that seems to have supplied elites like the Indo-European men who took over Western Europe and ruled places as far as India.

        And supplied the Elites that founded the Persian Empire.

        As well as elites of the middle east. Serving to revitalize civilization by their energy

    • jim says:

      I want a system resembling that of England from 1660 to 1800, which gave us industry, science, technology, empire, above replacement fertility, and eugenic fertility.

      • Pooch says:

        And why 1660-1800 England and not America 1776-1960.

        • jim says:

          Because 1660 was recovery from a holiness spiral, while 1776 was the start of one.

          Because 1663 was the Royal Society, and first appearance of Ayn Rand’s engineer CEO, using other people’s labor and other people’s capital to advance technology and make it widely available.

          Because Science and technology in 1776-1960 America was running on the social capital created in seventeenth century England.

          Because the time of democracy is ending, and 1660-1820 was power in the hands of Kings and aristocrats. We are now in a time that parallels the fall of the Roman Republic. To try to do 1776 again is to go against the normal cycles of history. To try to do 1660 again is to go with the flow. Democracy is generally short lived, and you wind up Caesar again.

          • Pooch says:

            Is there a difference between 1660-1800 England and the Roman Empire (Post republic)? Emperor seems more fitting then a king in this case if the only difference is their should never ever be a queen under any circumstance. Female rule is not red pilled. Also I remember you saying fathers had more authority over their family during 1660-1800 England.

            It would be wise to not completely ignore 1776 however. The lesson there to me is rule by a king does not scale indefinitely. At some point, one King’s kingdom ends and another begins if expansion is to be the ultimate goal.

            • Samuel Skinner says:

              The Roman Empire had difficulty solving the issue of civil wars.

              The lesson of the American Revolution is having your political factions sabotage the military leads to defeat and you need to not have political factions destroying your society.

            • Not Tom says:

              That’s the lesson you get from 1776? Not that a certain Whig monarch let holiness-spiraled New England Puritans take complete control of a new, mostly empty and immensely profitable frontier, and only made a ham-fisted attempt to intervene when it was already far too late?

              1776 didn’t just happen out of the blue. It could not have happened within England’s borders. It required a wide-open frontier and criminal neglect of the settler colonies.

              • Pooch says:

                What could he have done differently?

                • jim says:

                  King George III should have executed Lord Howe for treason and murder.

                  That would have ended the American rebellion in short order.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Doubt killing Lord Howe would have worked. He was the naval commander not the land commander (killing and it wasn’t so easy to blockade the whole American coast AND fight the French at the same time. Even if he was being deliberately ineffective with the blockade it probably wouldn’t have made much difference.

                  Killing Burgoyne and Cornwalis might have worked.

                • jim says:

                  Lord Howe supplied George Washington with gunpowder, and with his brother, General Willaim Howe, set his men up to die. The Howes commanded British forces on land and sea, and coordinated their actions to ensure defeat and the deaths of their men. Should have executed both of them for high treason.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Do you have a source on all this particularly the gunpowder claim… Burgoyne seems to have a far more unmixed record of failure than either Howe. Im not convinced they were traitors.

                  If there was a traitor id pin it on him 1st. For admiral Howe you also have to keep in mind that the admiralty’s prime objective was to destroy the French fleet the blockade was secondary to that.

                • Pooch says:

                  So it was the Puritans that influenced Thomas Jefferson’s hand to write “All men are created equal” and not the Enlightenment thinkers (Locke, etc)?

                • Jan Martense says:

                  So it was the Puritans that influenced Thomas Jefferson’s hand to write “All men are created equal” and not the Enlightenment thinkers (Locke, etc)?

                  The Puritans and the English “Enlightenment figures” were one and the same. Locke was a devout Puritan, both of his parents were Puritans, his father served as a Roundhead commander in the Civil War, and he tried to emulate his father’s Regicidal tendencies in the 1683 Rye House plot.

                  Yes, Jefferson some other founders were “Deists” rather than Puritans. But Deism is simply a further holiness-spiraled form of Calvinism. Piotr Gonesius, the first non-trinitarian religious leader after the Reformation in Europe, directly split off from Calvin.

                • alf says:

                  Locke was a devout Puritan, both of his parents were Puritans

                  Did not know that.

              • The Cominator says:

                George III hated the whigs other than (rightly) agreeing with them on the issue of Catholicism.

            • Just appoint a viceroy.

          • Pooch says:

            The Enlightenment smashed a giant hole into divine kingly rule. Simply going back to the Christianity of 1660 England does nothing to falsify John Locke and Voltaire. Whatever the new religion is, needs to obliterate “All men are created equal” as the enlightenment did to the system before it.

            • The Cominator says:

              Locke was a lunatic and Voltaire was a clown (who until the end did not pretend to be much more than a clown).

              Under my system people who say that all men are created equal would have a marked tendency to disappear in the middle of the night without a trace to never be heard from again with no information given on them (alla the Night and Fog system).

            • Bob says:

              Sounds like the job of a state priesthood, backing warriors. The current priesthood is why equality is believed and is the reason citing the FBI crime stats is censored. Maybe it’s a coup complete solution, but an official state priesthood has reality on its side.

            • Not Tom says:

              Have you ever read John Locke, not just the “good parts” in isolation but in its entirety, especially his debates with Tories?

              He doesn’t need to be “falsified”, he used exactly the same tactics that progressives use today: motte and bailey, moving the goalposts, stating opinions as accepted facts, etc. He didn’t have very good arguments, he was just a good rhetorician.

              And Voltaire – yeah, clown is exactly the right word.

            • alf says:

              We worship Gnon, which is about as close to true science worship as one can get.

          • Pooch says:

            Wasn’t 1660-1800 England parliamentary monarchy? Which means Whigs and Tories? How does recreating that system just not end up in democracy again? How do we know the advances in tech during that time weren’t running off the social capital of the centuries before it just like you say America was? Doesn’t pass the smell test. Why does Moldbug propose the creation of an antiversity instead of restoring the Stuart monarchy like you propose?

            • Not Tom says:

              How do we know the advances in tech during that time weren’t running off the social capital of the centuries before it just like you say America was?

              Since technology is always advancing, and our hypothesis is that technology is a secondary mover, ignore the first-order derivative and look at the second-order derivative. A proxy that Jim likes to use is road development. Easily-digestible historical data is scarce, but it exists. Note how road development was humming along until the 18th century, and then seemed to abruptly fall off.

              (Caveat: I’m not sure when that map was drawn, but scroll down to the “Later roads” section and it doesn’t seem like much has changed.)

              Since fertility is not always advancing, and our hypothesis is that it is the prime mover, look at the first-order derivative. According to World Atlas, TFR crashed from almost 5 down to 1.5 since 1800. What about before 1800? According to a paper titled The Demography of Victorian England and Wales, TFR was rising fairly steadily from 1550 to about 1675, peaking near 5, and then declined steadily aside from a very brief “baby boom” spike around 1725. The downtrend since 1775 is wholly uninterrupted.

              Even mortality, which almost always goes down over time due to medical advances, had taken a huge upward spike in the late 18th, and didn’t recover back to historical levels until around 1900. It’s not because of war, either; wars cause brief spikes in mortality, not sudden long-term reversals of the trend.

              All data sets converge on a slow but accelerating decline starting in the middle of the 18th century, give or take 30 years. And if that doesn’t pass your “smell test”, you’d better go have your nose checked out by a good physician.

              • Pooch says:

                What about American data? I’m going to go out on a limb and say you are a Brit.

                • Not Tom says:

                  No? The conversation was about England so I pulled up data on England. Now you want to change the subject and are blaming me for it?

                • Pooch says:

                  I do appreciate the data and it is convincing this was the peak of the British empire in a variety of metrics.

                  However, Jim’s claim is that for essentially the entirety of US history it was running off of 17th century English social capital. If that was the case, wouldn’t we see the exact same pattern of declining everything from basically the American Revolution onward?

              • ” Note how road development was humming along until the 18th century, and then seemed to abruptly fall off.”

                But how many roads does a country need? It is a classical marginal utility thing, you build the most important roads first and then the less important ones and at some point building and maintaining a road to some remote farm costs more than the benefit it brings, so you don’t.

                And for moving heavy stuff, first they dug canals, later on built railroads.

                How about shipping, expressed in tonnage, as a proxy?

                • Not Tom says:

                  I’m starting to see why shaman ragequit. Spend a half hour researching some question because it seems interesting and important to address what originally sounded like honest skepticism, and what do you get in response? Inanity – deflection, speculation, changing the subject, moving the goalposts, escalating demands for evidence that is harder and harder to obtain.

                  Move to a populated area some time and take a drive during rush hour. Do you think that America, or the UK, has enough roads to support a highly mobile population at a high level of productivity? If so, why are people literally building helicopter pads and risking death to escape the traffic?

                  But I am not going to engage further with people who respond this way to hard evidence. If you think it’s contradicted by some other, better evidence, go find it yourself. If you think the available evidence fits some larger pattern that makes it unsuitable to answer the question, prove it. This constant whataboutism just wastes everyone’s time.

                • alf says:

                  Lol welcome to the internet.

                  If it makes you feel any better I screenshotted the 1550-2000 English tfr. Data on Dutch tfr from before world war two is hard to come by.

                • jim says:

                  If you visit a poor country and a rich country, or look at it from Google Earth, richer country, more roads.

                  They max out within the city, but they do not max out in the countryside.

            • jim says:

              Anglicans kept getting non Anglican monarchs, who let hostile entryists into the Church.

              Holiness spiral ensued, resulting in the Whigs moving left, coming to resemble the puritans that Cromwell suppressed.

              The big struggle was “occasional conformity”

              These problems would not have happened had they just stuck to their guns and not let anyone hostile to the the state religion (occasional conformist) into parliament. (Or any other state or quasi state office.)

              • The Cominator says:

                OTOH I don’t want to get up every Sunday morning to listen to some phony in a robe and neither do you (that kind of mindless repetitive annoying conformity is for women). Banning occasional conformity would mean that people would indeed have to do this lest they be labeled dissenters and promptly would have nearly all men becoming dissenters and the whole system collapsing.

                There has to be a better way.

                • jim says:

                  The problem was never the insufficiently holy but the excessively holy.

                  The problem with “occasional conformists” was not that they were skipping church to drink and fornicate, but that they were skipping church to attend a hostile church.

                  We need to ask people “are you, or have you ever been, a member of …”

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes that is fair.

                • kawaii_kike says:

                  But a neoreactionary priest wouldn’t be a phony, every Sunday would basically be a different sermon from Jim.

              • Pooch says:

                So to be clear, you are advocating a constitutional parlimentary monarchy? Isn’t that in direction contradiction of Neoreaction’s goal of Absolute Monarchy?

                • jim says:

                  Nuts

                  Not at all what I am advocating.

                  Charles the Second was divine right.

                  William of Orange was an ambiguous and contested settlement that slowly got re-interpreted by entryists into constitutional monarchy. But divine right was still live when King George IV successfully asserted it, throwing whigs and whig historians into George Derangement syndrome that persists to this day.

                  The whole women-can-do no wrong program is in large part an attack on George IV that continues to this day.

      • Capitalism-with-aristocracy sounds like something that could produce science, with capitalists financing the kind of research that can be turned into products fairly quickly and aristocracts financing the one that cannot.

        A word of caution, though. One thing that makes it hard to “turn black the clock” to 1700 is, for example, I was looking into the history of health insurance, where this whole public vs. private, universal vs. not healthcare debate was coming from. And the surprising result I found that in say 1900 or so health care itself was so cheap – because it could do so little – that the insurance was primarily about covering the wage the worker is not earning while ill. Otherwise it was bed rest at home, with an occasional visit from a doc who when seeing the patient is poor was usually decent enough to charge little – the healthcare itself was not expensive at all. Today they want to do a computer tomograph for every minor thing. So the costs can go up easily.

        So I see potentially something similar in science. The cost of experiments keeps going up – it should, the normal progression of everything is that the low-hanging fruits are harvested and then one needs taller and taller ladders. So it might be hard for this reason to draw a parallel between science now and science then.

        Jim, was there such a thing as an expensive scientific experiment around 1700? Like, requiring hundreds of workers to build stuff? If yes, who paid for it?

        • jim says:

          Magellan’s voyage was an expensive scientific experiment, and the King paid for it. But the government did not build those ships or train those sailors.

          The private sector is paying for the development of Musk’s rockets, in that the private sector is paying for Starlink, but settling Mars is likely to be government funded.

        • The vast majority of modern health care is bed rest and cheap antibiotics, and no reason surgery should be more expensive than it is at the vet’s. The vet is a deregulated healthcare system, and it’s a bit pricey, but not absurdly out of people’s reach.

          They want to do scans and tests for every little thing because they are billing an insurance company for it. Using insurance for routine care is like using flood insurance to pay for a new rug when you spill a cup of coffee on it. If everybody did that, rug salesmen would jack up their prices. Insurance is a big part of the problem.

          • Not Tom says:

            They want to do scans and tests for every little thing because they are billing an insurance company for it.

            Also because if they miss anything that they could conceivably have tested for, even if literally none of the signs are pointing in that direction, they’re likely to get sued for astronomical amounts. Thought those headaches were stress- and sleep-related migraines, but turned out to be Autosomal Dominant Porencephaly Type I? Malpractice!

            Whenever something nominally private seems to be absurdly overpriced, you can bet your left nut that lawyers are involved.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              This is an overstated libertarian idea; doctors are pretty well insulated from being sued successfully because all they’re obligated to provide is the “standard of care”.

              If the standard of care is to scan in this case, scan (and bill); if it’s not then they won’t and aren’t legally liable (but of course a jury can do anything).

              The missing dimension is the racial anarcho-tyranny. When you’re dealing with whites, juries don’t give them money against the law; when you’re dealing with a black patient and have a black jury – ghetto lottery. This is minor compared to the rest of the racial anarcho-tyranny in medicine where whites get massively overcharged as a routine out of both racial animus as well as because the collection tools that medical providers have are asymmetrical and only work on productive citizens (if you have no assets, who cares about a judgement? if you have bad credit already, who cares about a hit to the credit rating). The insurance companies work to reinforce this by using their power not to push for transparent billing but to push for opaque billing that requires insurance company protection to deal with.

              • The Cominator says:

                Absolute nonsense, doctors get sued all the time are in most states required to carry ruinously expensive malpractice insurance and the lawyers generally wouldnt bother with them if they didnt have it.

                Ghetto lottery is real sure but even with whites if the patient is sympathetic and a sole provider for a family jury can award them big.

              • jim says:

                I have observed no end of utterly frivolous cases against doctors that result in someone, frequently black or on welfare, getting a big lottery win.

                Lawyers and judges hate doctors and like to harm them, because they are competitive priest group.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  Yes, ghetto lottery exists in all parts of the tort system because ultimately cases get decided by juries if they go far enough.

                  Doctors though, have some abisayya and have protections from lawsuit that don’t exist for others – you can’t sue a doctor without getting another doctor to testify against him and medical malpractice insurance includes payment for legal representation for the doctor all the way through trial – the insurance company can’t assess the case and their client to settle.

                  The point though, is that the libertarian line about malpractice being the threat that forces extra tests and extra costs is only partly true and obscures the major problem which is that the medical system as a whole is a giant wealth transfer from whites to progressive vote banks.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Bullshit the malpractice insurance company (in mass there was only ONE unless you worked for Mass General Harvard’s pet hospital) can make you settle.

                • Not Tom says:

                  Yeah, I have firsthand knowledge of how doctors can be ruined by frivolous lawsuits, even with the malpractice insurance they are all forced to carry.

                  Maybe it’s only mildly bad for the average GP or FP, but you should see how bad it is for surgeons. A surgeon can do everything right and still lose the patient. Because the payout of a suit can be so high (not to mention, emotions running hot), there’s a massive incentive for someone else in the system to support a malpractice claim for kickbacks. You’d think they’d suffer consequences for such a defection, and maybe they would, but they still get to keep their medical license – and if they get kicked out of the hospital or practice, then even more incentive to get into the malpractice racket.

                  If you wonder why surgeons get such exorbitant salaries, it’s not just because of their specialized skill (although that is certainly a big part of it), a lot of it is literally hazard pay.

                  It’s very bad. I’m not sure exactly where we “should” be on the line between “caveat emptor” and “it’s always the doctor’s fault”, but right now the pendulum has swung way too far toward the latter.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Questions off topic to the parent post. Would I and other non-elites be better off ruled by warriors instead of priests? If so, why? Yes, when the priestly class is in charge, there’s the possibility that things will end in a catastrophic holiness spiral that kills me and the other millions of non-elites. But when the warrior class is in charge, what’s to stop them from killing me and taking my stuff? Cooperating internally to do that kind of thing is how they ever get to be in charge in the first place. Whereas on the other hand, most of the time all priests do is nag me about what I should do and how I should think. Our current priesthood directs non-elites in evil ways, but a different priesthood could just direct non-elites in good ways instead.

    Is the idea that it is a sure thing that a holiness spiral will eventually happen when priests are in charge, even with a good priesthood?

    • jim says:

      > Would I and other non-elites be better off ruled by warriors instead of priests? If so, why?

      If priests have too much power, they are apt to get trapped in a holiness spiral, which generally winds up destroying their society and their people.

      Perhaps rule by sane priesthood is better than rule by sane warriors, but that is not what we have now. Since 1820 we have been moving ever lefter ever faster.

      Maybe the right religious order can stop priests from holiness spiraling, but the usual historical solution is that warriors thump the crazies.

      The biggest problem is that holiness spiralling on sex has resulted in a society with dysgenic fertility and below replacement fertility. People are not getting sex, and they are not getting grandchildren.