I generally do not report on, nor pay attention to, the latest news of the day, because it is best understood years later, or centuries later. And I tend to discourage conversation about such news, because it is noise. The shills send in piles of links to latest noise, and I silently delete them.
But the meaning of Trump 2.0 now becomes apparent. So this post is going to be a pile of links to the news of the day.
USAID is the arm of Harvard, and the CIA the arm of the State Department. State Department CIA tends to be a lot more lethal, but when they strike, Harvard/USAID has done the cultural and political groundwork.
USAID was pursuing cultural, political, and economic objectives that Maga and alt-right never liked, and that Trump 2.0 does not like either. Mostly they were promoting “Democracy”. Which is to say, making cultural and political groundwork for coups against governments that were pursuing policies that their public liked and Harvard did not like.
Marco Rubio, speaking on behalf of the Trump administration, and claiming authority to control USAID, told Congress: “Autogulpe”. No, not what he said. What he actually told Congress was. “USAID’s systems and processes … often result in discord in the foreign policy and foreign relations of the United States. This undermines the President’s ability to carry out foreign relations, …”
Yes, it results in discord in foreign relations because they are trying to overthrow governments, those governments don’t like it, and complain to Trump. Who does not like it either, since their objections to those governments are strikingly similar to their objections to Trump and Maga. So Trump tells Doge “follow the money”, and USAID did not want them to follow the money.
Doge sent in people to find out where the money was going. Naturally those people were turned away. USAID does not want people to know where the money is going. So Trump loaned Doge some muscle men. USAID headquarters staff, all of them, were sent home, so that the Doge team could dig through their computers, and some of them were fired. Illegally fired they complain, but Trump established the precedent with the IGs that if you are “illegally” fired and do not go, the muscle men will show up and physically remove you from the facility. Which may well be illegal, and likely judges are issuing orders at high speed, but the orders are just bits of paper.
The Jan. 30 email from Nick Gottlieb, USAID’s director of employee and labor relations, carried the subject line, “Farewell and Thanks (Again) – Illegal Activity in the USAID Front Office.” It said, “Today, representatives of the Agency’s front office and DOGE instructed me to violate the due process of our employees by issuing immediate termination notices to a group of employees without due process. I refused and have provided Acting Administrator [Jason] Gray with written notification of my refusal.”
Gottlieb’s email also said that moments before he sent it, he was notified that he would be placed on administrative leave.
It looks like the key confrontation took place with HR, the woke priesthood. They had an area in USAID headquarters which was extra special secret, and Doge suspected that the the real dirt was secured there.
Members of Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, known as DOGE, eventually did gain access Saturday to the aid agency’s classified information, which includes intelligence reports,
What, I wonder, is HR doing with intelligence reports? Normies might ask what USAID is doing with intelligence reports, but the Alt Right has long known the answer to that one.
This starts to look like Henry the Eighth’s dissolution of the monasteries. The Monasteries had a great deal of wealth and power, and a great deal of soft power, and the Papacy was meddling in England’s affairs. There is a plausible conspiracy theory that the Jesuits were responsible for the deaths of some inconvenient royalty. But because of all that soft power, Henry could not just take their wealth and power merely because they had it and he wanted it. He need good Christian and good theological grounds for doing so. So he sent in some protestants to go digging for dirt, and an impressive supply of dirt was found. Henry was not protestant, but he found he needed them.
It is not tanks in Harvard yet, but we are headed in that direction, if the nukes do not fly first.
‘White’ is conceptually unsustainable. Impossible to strictly define legally, only possible to define through ‘common knowledge’, but in America there is no such thing (yes, obviously White is glaringly real, but it’s a completely unstable state). As has been pointed out, ‘White’ is a near meaningless concept in Europe because the various tribes of Europeans are wolves to each other. It only has meaning in America because of the “I’m 1/2 Anglo 1/4 Scottish 1/8 German 1/16 Russian plus 1/32 …” ambiguous European descent population cut off from former ancestral traditions and cultural heritages which when lumped into a synthetic tribe can be termed vaguely as ‘White’. A synthetic tribe so large, and living in such a massive geographic region, with self sorting tendencies, will naturally create multiple tribes within. Sure, Prog Coasties and Con Southerners/Interiors are both ‘White’, but at this point, what does it even matter? Preference cascade in spite of, and even in hypothetical TC style purges of White Leftists, deeply embedded regional differences will persist along with power struggles. Example, British Canada and French Canada are both ‘White’, but their political system is entirely dysfunctional and national identity completely detached from being ‘White’. Their lack of cohesion has led to state sponsored mass invasion as a means of war from one ‘White’ Tribe onto the other.
Multiple non-white groups have deeply entrenched into the the vast geography of America, much whose elites have outright integrated into the American ‘White’ elites. Tangential argument, Obama primarily was gay (both literally and metaphorically) because of his ‘White’ heritage, see the other Obama who hates him and is not gay. Arguments for deportations of all Dot-Indians get mighty awkward when having to carve out unprincipled exceptions for the Trump administration and the broader right in general, and that’s just one example. It gets even more awkward when you realize just how much of the military and their families are married, with children, to foreign brides or other assorted mixed peoples who themselves are legacies of America’s fondness for overseas wars and vassal states which of course require garrisoning. My point is that although the (actual) military is largely ‘White’, it is only ‘White’ in a very loose way. All that is not to say the tap cannot be shut off, and Trump has shown it can, and it is a good thing, but after deporting some 20 million illegals, it will be considerably harder politically and socially to deport millions more who are not colloquially known as illegals on a principled basis. Ending birth right citizenship has more to do with preventing future invasions than with removing the problem people.
Look, heritage Americans don’t want to be genocided. They want the war on them ended. An entirely agreeable desire. The military age men just want quality pussy where ever they can find it. An entirely agreeable desire (this totally isn’t me pushing my agenda 🙃). The lower to upper elites, many of whom are now mixed or have mixed children set to inherit the country, want to be able to pass down their wealth and power to their kids. Also an entirely understandable, if not agreeable (if they sided with us), desire. Not satisfying all groups will lead to some very ghastly messy outcomes we don’t want. Satisfying all means making America ‘White’ again is off the table, but making America peaceful and functional again still is easily possible.
The proven possible solution to this is a Westphalia style peace within America, which is what Federalism and State Rights originally set out to achieve in a sense, but “our democracy” being a war of all against all collapsed the peace quickly. An Emperor can fix that and ensure peace, but like the monarchies of Europe, you may very well find the Royals are descendants of a different tribe from many of the Empire’s inhabitants. For the most part, this didn’t create political crisis, and when it did, it was largely due to religious differences between King and Country.
The Emperor’s fist job to establish peace is to kick out the invaders. The second job is to prune the criminal underclasses indefinitely. Remember, such people are still our* people and thus our responsibility. Kicking them out and dumping them on some poor unsuspecting country is an act of war and not very nice. Consistently pruning the dysfunctional through even handed enforcement of Christian law is the gentlemanly way of doing things. Reward virtuous behavior, prune the bad behavior, purge with fire the demonic behavior, and America will be just fine.
*If we buy pitbulls, let them loose in the wild and they multiply and terrorize the neighborhood, yes, that is our mess, we own it, and it’s our responsibility to clean up.
No, ‘White’ in Europe is a very meaningful concept, but it is simply an outer layer of identity. For example, I’m a German, but my inner identity is being a member of a specific German tribe. The next layer is German, the next layer European.
A Bavarian is different from a Prussian. A German hears the difference immediately, and there is a difference in culture as well. “Bavarian” is a meaningful concept for a German. “German” likewise is a meaningful concept. Of course, the various German tribes have fought wars with each other and been wolves to each other, but so what? German (or Spanish, French, Russian, etc.) is also a meaningful concept. The various people of Europe have fought wars with each other and been wolves to each other, but that the concept of ‘White’ is still meaningful because we share a European culture with Christian roots and are genetically similar enough that intermarriage has been happing for centuries without objections.
You also claimed that ‘White’ were impossible to define legally. I disagree. Legally it is rather simple, just count grandfathers like the Germans had done to define ‘Jew’. Whether the legal definition is usefull is a different matter.
White and European has never been the basis of effective political or social organization based on identity in Europe like it is in the US. If it were, pan-European nationalism would be real and not some creature slithering out of Brussels. Your core identity is some kind of German, for many Europeans, the core identity might very well be their city or town with it’s own distinct dialect. Not so in the US. A random White American can, for the most part, go to any other part of America and fit in and identify with the other White Americans.
I’d also point out that Turkey came very, very close to becoming a part of the EU. That they already are a member in a variety of European inter-government organizations, and it was only their rejection of Western liberalism that prevented them from full membership. It was also through Turkey and their affiliation with the various European organizations that facilitated millions of Muslim migrants into Europe. This is partly why I’m so troubled by notions of ‘White’. It inevitably frays legally as there is no strict definition being that it’s so large and encompassing of a group that it becomes an abstraction of an abstraction.
Say Japan, Korea, and China created an Asian Union for ‘Yellows’. No one actually socially thinks in terms of pan-Asian identity. Those countries would soon have difficulty denying Nepalese, then Indians, then Malaysians, then Central Asian Turkic peoples, then the world. Do you not see how corrosive such a concept is to national identity? (Even though I agree ‘Yellows’ and ‘Whites’ are real groups)
>You also claimed that ‘White’ were impossible to define legally.
Not my claim, the ‘strictly’ part is what’s important. Legal systems generally don’t handle edge cases well, and when it comes to abstract groups, there are many, many edge cases. Is the Balkans ‘White’? Greece? Turkey? Russia and if so how much of it? Sicilians? Maltese? Spaniards? Hispanics and which ones? ‘White’ is a Gaussian blur with wide standard deviation. Good luck on using the legal system to strictly define it. Once you determine one edge case is okay, you create a new edge case further out from the mean. One that has precedent for being determined okay in the future. This goes back to my point how the concept inevitably goes down the path of opening up to everyone.
>the ‘strictly’ part is what’s important
Strictly speaking, all those other names you mention have the exact same problem in principle. Godel says that your statements can’t be both consistent and comprehensive. Judith Butler would say that this shows that ‘knowledge’ or ‘truth’ in the sense of something ontologically compelling (masculine dominance) is impossible. What say you?
While man can find and know truth, man for the most part doesn’t operate on truth or principle but on heuristics. While the problem is on principle the same, the scaling of complexity due to abstraction is obviously increasing the further out from immediate experience you get. The result is heuristics increasingly break down and output bad decisions.
>While the problem is on principle the same, the scaling of complexity due to abstraction is obviously increasing the further out from immediate experience you get.
Certainly; but this is again not unique to the subject, but common to most any increasingly encompassing categorization.
I am not the reductive absolutist I seem to have existed as in your mind. I point out a continuum of social, spiritual, and genetic problems arising from diversity, in various forms, and get accusations of purity spiraling. Would be better served by acknowledging the reality of these things too. I think irish are white, but frenchmen are improved by them not being in France. Would Malasians be improved by irish being in Malaysia? Maybe. It’s arguable. If so though, it would not be because of the diversity itself. And the extent to which it would be an improvement would essentially be the extent to which Malaysia as such is erased.
The Austro-Hungarian throne took tribute from many nations; and these nations did not overlap with each other; and where they did, problems.
The Czar reigned over many nations; and not a single one of them had common codes of law; particular conventions in particular places for particular peoples as particularly appropriate; from village to village even as much as from oblast to oblast; and this was not seen as contradictory at all, but perfectly consonant in fact, with the higher laws of natural law.
>While the problem is on principle the same, the scaling of complexity due to abstraction is obviously increasing the further out from immediate experience you get.
Certainly; but this is again not unique to the subject, but common to most any increasingly encompassing categorization.
I am not the reductive absolutist I seem to have existed as in your mind. I point out a continuum of social, spiritual, and genetic problems arising from diversity, in various forms, and get accusations of purity spiraling. Would be better served by acknowledging the reality of these things too. I think irish are white, but frenchmen are improved by them not being in France. Would Malasians be improved by irish being in Malaysia? Maybe. It’s arguable. If so though, it would not be because of the diversity itself. And the extent to which it would be an improvement would essentially be the extent to which Malaysia as such is erased.
The Austro-Hungarian throne took tribute from many nations; and these nations did not overlap with each other; and where they did, problems.
The Czar reigned over many nations; and not a single one of them had common codes of law; particular conventions in particular places for particular peoples as particularly appropriate; from village to village even as much as from oblast to oblast; and this was not seen as contradictory at all, but perfectly consonant in fact, with the higher laws of natural law.
What is a Russian without Orthodoxy? The English without the Monarchy and Anglicanism? The Greek without their classical heritage? The Italian without their etc?
What is the White faith and culture? Certainly, there is a White American faith and culture, but that has far more to do with America having a faith and a culture, and that isn’t getting selected for with a Northern European immigration policy.
‘White’ in its abstraction of smaller groups often becomes biologically distilled from faith and culture and that’s partly why it frays so much when trying to define it.
https://blog.reaction.la/economics/throne-altar-and-freehold/
Jim’s greatest post I think was Throne Altar and Freehold
What is white American culture… or what was it. Well before the progressive era American culture was based on English culture and English culture at least used to be based on the idea of freehold. The idea that the peasant was a king under his own roof and had certain perogatives that not just the government but his social superiors couldn’t take away from him. With the mass immigration, the civil war the progressive era the enfranchisement of women etc I think any sense of the old organic identity of Englishmen and Americans with freehold has been lost. Americans try to remember it better than the english do. And freehold wasn’t an obscure idea talked about only by whig intellectuals or something either it was well known enough to appear in for example Bawdy tavern songs.
“An Usurer came with abundance of Cash,
But I had no mind to come under his Lash,
He proffered me Jewels, and great store of Gold,
But I would not Mortgage my little Free-hold.
My thing is my own, and I’ll keep it so still,
Yet other young Lasses may do what they will.”
White American culture after the world wars was thus innately fragile and easily prone to attacks by Marxists/progs and our own intelligence agencies (which were full of Marxists).
There are several. White is an outer layer of identity that can cover many different inner identities.
White faiths are faiths that have Christian roots. White cultures are cultures that have roots in ancient Greece and in Christianity.
Were the atheistic Nazis/Soviets all of a sudden not ‘White’ when the revolution kicked off?
>what say you
I say you are being exceptionally vague. I honestly cannot tell what you are actually arguing for as far as concrete reality goes.
Can you actually make a basic outline on what the process should be for accepting and rejecting, on what the end state actually looks like, what is an example of someone on the boundary, and who exactly are you convincing to make this all possible? Of course I don’t mean exacting wearisome detail, but some level of down to Earth logistics would go a long way as to explaining what your position actually is.
I’m sure you already asked this here https://blog.reaction.la/war/autogulpe/#comment-2971633, unless there was some part you would like expanded on or clarified in greater detail?
Well, yes. It is still exceptionally vague and reads like “I want to include the good and exclude the bad” — well, so does everyone here. I also don’t think anyone here has major differences in opinion from what you detailed, as far as good and bad human traits goes. What is missing, what seems to be the ongoing argument, is the practical application of including good and excluding bad.
>Everyone knows in their bones what white is
We have dozens of posts now showing that no, this isn’t true. You know in your bones what your internal representation of ‘white’ ends of mapping to. This clearly isn’t the same for everyone, or else we wouldn’t have a problem ironing out semantic details. This is why I asked for an example of a boundary case, because honestly, I do think some Anatolians are white, for example, but not even close to all, and I would have no idea how to make a sensible rule to include or exclude based on this.
For actually achieving your policy, you suggest, wisely enough given that we are working with concepts that are allergic to being pinned down exactly, that we just appoint a good man to take charge of it. Well, that is all well and good, but which man? Who is selecting this good man? How are we coming to agree on which man fills this role that determines inward gene flows?
Dozens of assertion yes. You think there’s no motivated reasoning at play? Everyone has skin in this game, pun intended.
In many cases the answer to what about edge cases is ‘are the numbers significant enough to even matter?’ and ‘sorry but not my problem’.
The main point I want to get across is that, irrespective of questions about the *felicity* of any particular demographic, that you *can* positively identify demographics and do as you will with them is simply the case.
So yes some of my persian friends certainly argue they are also aryans; but I can also identify them as persian. There’s no *epistemological* reason stopping gypsies from physically removing and separating all others in europe to form a greater gypsy reich. They can also arbitrarily decide that chechens and vietnamese are part of their team too. You can just do things.
I should probably take this moment to make clear I have not considered ‘european’ in of itself as an ultimate target point that goes neither higher nor lower, either. It would be improvement in the right direction compared to now which I think is inarguable. Most of all I didn’t like seeing certain nominalistic, whig-adjacent forms of thinking and argument being passed on. Anti-racist discourse is played out. In an ideal world of course I’d be stricter than that.
A different argument along another line is that starting stock hardly matters because you can simply engineer, socially or otherwise, a new soviet man regardless. Granting this being true in principle, it doesn’t follow you need any particular spread or arrangement of folk around at all to do it either. When the corsicans kick the burgundians out, and they complain ‘what about the principles of eugenics?’ The corsicans can reply ‘you are perfectly free to take full advantage of it yourselves’. Either way. Where it is real then they lose nothing by doing it here or there. Protestation shows lack of confidence in its reality for themselves, and gives the game away for parasites. Valuable people are valuable. If high class can be high class here or there. If low class unwanted either way.
Some short summaries of positions: I support a program of exile or execution or indenture without reproduction for criminality and non-propertied underclasses that can’t make a living. I also applaud our friend Cominator’s policy of Physical Removal for everyone who voted D in the last 10 years, one time bonus it may be. Amerikaners are a christian people and any who cannot profess the American Orthodox catechism must be decamped elsewhere. Heresies such as buggery, demotism, feminism, socialism, and other perennial pretexts for invidiousness, are serious crimes, and any preaching them publicly and or organizing around them in groups ought be drawn and quartered. Throne, Altar, Freehold. America is a thing that was invented by anglos and that’s never really changed even to this day. You can make the United States, States in fact; different demographics can technically be ‘in America’, as part of non-overlapping autonomous oblasts. Different demographics have different standards. For example, sub-saharans like aboriginals are xenomorphs and not the same genus as other species of humans and it is likewise very easy to identify negroid physiognomy at even tiny ratios of admixture. The sahara desert was quite possibly formed by a sacrifical act of nuclear detonation by precursors millennia ago to keep their rogue bioweapons contained in their continental prison for good of all life elsewhere on earth. Decamping everyone without pink nips and grey green or blue eye colour would be another funny and great one time bonus. Similarly, the ones below a certain net worth, the ones who can’t pass certain tests, the ones who won’t join/can’t hack it in the military because service brings citizenship, and et cetera.
> Who is selecting this good man?
What king selected the first king, before there were kings?
‘You’ select the men. The future caesar reading this now selects the men. Donald Trump and Steve Jobs and General Monck select the men. Everyone with the eyes to see it and a mind to think it and arms to grasp it selects the men. The smallest gas station owner assumes a portion of the mandate of heaven when he takes his means in his own hands.
Like many salons, this is a would-be synod of bishops conspiring for the new church. The way you take over a government is to already have the new government formed beforehand, then you just walk in the door. When people need ideas, helps to have them all ready on the shelf to take down.
It has been demonstrated time after time that you can enforce uniform good conduct even on very unpromising material. Froude was able to wander around predominantly black areas in the West Indies as safely as he would have been able to in today’s Peking. The long term effect of this, after centuries, can be selection of the population for good conduct, but we don’t have to wait for centuries.
Enforce uniform good conduct, and difficult minorities are no longer difficult.
Of course it is still uncomfortable to live with people very different from your own kind. Restore freedom of association, and that also ceases to be a problem.
This made your argument and the intentions behind it much more clear, thank you. I truly was at a loss trying to figure out what you were arguing for. If I were to summarize, from your end it was less a discussion on tactics as to the potential space open for strategy.
I find myself leaning close to Pax’s case that it is far too late for America as a population pool to RETVRN to WASP, and even his argument that legalistically you cannot pin down a policy for gene flows on some concept so nebulous as ‘whiteness’, or even ‘Hajnalian’ or ‘white Christian’. Putting a man in charge solves the problem of expansive edge cases, but does not solve the conflicts of interest in gene flows problem.
America as an empire state does seem too vast to facilitate a state policy on gene pool refining. Individual state borders are too porous to simply delegate the task to a lower level, and I don’t think bodily travel between them can be shut down on a practical or ideological level if imposed from a federal mandate. However the state governance could feasibly decide on whom shall be allowed to reside I suppose.
To repeat an argument I’ve made before, it looks like the best and perhaps only way to forge a healthy and talented people is not from state mandate but from associations of good men deciding to take the destiny of their progeny seriously, and create institutions themselves. In light of this, America even after a hypothetical restoration of Throne and Altar is best thought of as an economic zone. The genetic policy of the nation should not weigh too heavily on the genetic policy of your specific association, especially so if leftism’s withdrawal from the scene produces an explosion in technology: available spaces to live will be extraordinarily vast.
Put a king in charge of the country to stop the invasion. Put the king’s men in charge of law and order, and they handle the lawbreakers. Put men in charge of women, and they decide who reproduces.
Maybe this ‘Whitens’ the population, maybe it creates a new American race… whatever the outcome, I think it very likely to be overall very eugenic in both absolute and relative terms in contrast to the sheer dysgenic mess we have today.
No declaring us an economic zone is too far the other way and nobody has real loyalty to an economic zone…
>Enforce uniform good conduct, and difficult minorities are no longer difficult.
Certainly. But still leaves a question unspoken: to what end? What profit it the administrators or their children to turn the energies of their civilization towards nannying a hominid zoo park? With such assabiyah, what else rather you would accomplish, in the stead of imagining an optimal universal prison state?
Just as the record of history shows the possibility, so too does it show how fragile these equilibriums are as well; ready and convenient flash points for exploitation to cause trouble, states of affairs where small perturbation can unstop major lasting damage; like dammed reservoirs, conditions where troubles that might otherwise be temporary and reversable in stead precipitate terrible consequences.
Austria-Hungary was never more than third rate at best compared to its neighbors. The Rhodesia model does not sustain or scale; better understood as an extension of a core rather than a generative entity in its own right.
When the people are worthwhile, then can they handle their own affairs, and you would already be treating with them as peers, rather than passive by-standers on the stage of history or near enough, like the Japanese or Koreans, or the Swedes or the Finns.
Obviously legacy Americans would be better off if we deported the entire zoo. But the worst denizens of the zoo are Afro Americans, who have very deep roots, and who are very American, and figuring out exactly who to deport would be a hard problem. (Half pre human DNA? One sixteenth pre human DNA?. And many of the troublesome races, including some subsaharan African races like the Ethiopians and the Tutsi are clearly human. Which does not mean that is OK to have them around, any more than having Jews around is OK, but deporting all of them on the basis of ancestry is just going to be obviously morally wrong. Some of them, many of them, are obviously good guys and valuable.)
When George Zimmerman shot his assailant directly through the heart and lungs with one shot, while his eyes were full of blood and his head was being pounded into the concrete, the left declared him to be white, and I promptly endorsed the nomination. Do we want to deport an obvious good guy and straight shooter like George Zimmerman? What race is George Zimmerman? He does not know, nor much care, and I declare him to be white. We need more men like him. Where do you want to deport him to?
So a sane solution is to deport, imprison, enslave, or execute, not on the basis of DNA analysis, but on the basis of behavior. Firm enforcement against criminals, no welfare for the undeserving poor. Pre human hominids are generally incapable of earning a living without a whip on their backs, so cutting welfare for the undeserving poor is going to eliminate them quite rapidly. I agree that it would be better for legacy Americans to deport the whole lot, but in many individual cases that would be just obviously morally wrong, not to mention the profound difficulties that one would encounter in deciding who is part of “the whole lot”.
I want an ethnogenesis event that includes George Zimmerman.
>deporting all of them on the basis of ancestry is just going to be obviously morally wrong
You say this, but there absolutely is not any obvious basis for saying it.
Of course the tick will say it is morally wrong for you to pick it off your leg. That’s the morality of devils. If they were of a kind who had any pride there would already be places for them to go, and little loss for them to do it.
The Liberia solution was clearly working and needed intentional sabotage to undo. And most are not as helpless as the bantus either. To degrees dependent on the case, edge cases are handled by excessively high standards of the same kind you already use for countrymen, to select for compatibility of spirit and against regression to the mean.
Deporting George Zimmerman and Clarence Thomas is just obviously wrong. When the $#!% goes down, you will want men like Zimmerman at your side.
George Zimmerman was defending himself and his neighbours. If he was your neighbour, he would defend you. You think you will get better social cohesion by deporting men like him? If you want social cohesion you need to deport men who would not defend you: Dutton’s spiteful mutants.
Would it not have been fair and seemly for one of Zimmerman’s ancestral lines to have done the same for their kith and kin? Is there not a greater illustration of the truly perfidious evil of multi-kulti, that it may force otherwise good men into such spiritual snarls and philosophical compromise?
Repatriation is not the greater sin; it is the broken bones that have healed wrong being reset to heal right.
How to tell ones determined to stay out of genuine fellow feeling from the thousands determined to stay for more blood? To degrees dependent on the case, edge cases are handled by excessively high standards of the same kind you already use for countrymen, to select for compatibility of spirit and against regression to the mean.
It would have been great to repatriate George Zimmerman’s numerous different ancestors to their many different countries. Where do you propose to repatriate George Zimmerman to?
A man like Zimmerman would not be remiss anywhere in latin america. For that matter there are plenty who are whiter than he is.
But by all means may anyone who believes they have a case petition their lord about it. Opportunities to prove valor in battle are understandably rare, but heredity, property, record of word and deed, the histories of those related to them, generations of lealty on both sides, et cetera et cetera, are all matters of consideration, in greater or lesser part depending on the particular subject.
Well Zimmerman is a proxy for the question of which spics get to stay and which ones have to go. In Florida I certainly would not be in favor of forcing the Cubans to go and I don’t think I’ve ever really met any white people in Florida who hate Cubans. Cubans and Vietnamese are sort of considered the S tier nonwhites in that I’ve never really met anyone who fucking hates them. With places with masses of spics I think what we should do is ask the locals what they think should happen to them…
Not real fond of Cubans in Florida. They are extremely loud, arrogant and often rude and inconsiderate. Communism is in their blood. In the spiritual sense, they are poor people. And I hate poor people.
I had a more romantic notion of them before I moved here. They are not too hard to get along with, but I don’t trust them generally.
Best way to describe Cubans is a poorer Italian from a filthy gutter island. Not real fond of Italians either. The swarthy ones anyway.
I know 3 definitions for white.
Race (white, asian, negro)
Ethnic (Historic European Christian)
Behavior (Hagnal)
I don’t think the problem is the categories are unclear (it isn’t like declaring Coptic Christians are white is an issue), but no one can agree which category to use.
I can’t prove that hajnal (btw for all you extreme anti semites here Hajnal was a jew) late virgin marriage stuff is horseshit based on purposely bad scholarship to promote some weird homosexual feminist agenda but I strongly strongly believe it is. I just don’t believe masses of women got to age of 25 or so without having sex. Women don’t behave like that naturally and unless you can afford guards (ie hajnal may have been true for very upper class families that could literally afford to keep women under guard) they are just going to go out the window at night to find the nearest seedy den of inequity and get nailed. So I don’t think anything that references hajnal behavior should be a criteria for anything because 99% hajnal is horseshit.
East of the Hajnal line, early virgin marriage
West of the Hajnal line, late virgin marriage, at least for well off people. Women kept “in” until married off — meaning no contact with males who are not close kin. Big problem with “hysteria”. Clear that “hysteria” was girls going insane for lack of dick. They had problems like the problems you encounter when trying to keep an intact female housecat in heat inside the house.
Like with early covid days nothing is going to convince me this Hajnal late virgin marriage stuff (except maybe with people rich enough to hire 24/7 guards for unmarried daughters) isn’t a bunch of horseshit. It just biologically can’t be true. I’m sure there is academic scholarship on it that you’ve read more than me I just believe that somehow it MUST BE faulty. You can’t do that with women unless you can afford guards and keeping them in almost like prison like security.
Practically speaking, does the Hajnal line even exists anymore? The break down in marriage has been so severe that everyone is in a dysgenic state.
I’m using Hajnal as short hand- Europe is divided between the people who are responsible for nearly every human invention and the other part. It is what people are referring to when they claim Slavs aren’t white.
Well sure, it describes the past but what of today? Is there really any real distinction between Prog England and Prog France and Prog Germany and Prog Spain and Prog Italy etc? What great Wunderwaffe has Germany or any of those countries built today?
The only real distinction I can see in Europe today is between Prog West and Russia (which is still fumbling in the dark to rediscover God and Patriarchy). Perhaps only Russia is the truly ‘White’ European country left today, Oh the irony of a million 4chan threads debating who is ‘White’.
Karl: “You also claimed that ‘White’ were impossible to define legally.”
Pax: “Not my claim, the ‘strictly’ part is what’s important. Legal systems generally don’t handle edge cases well, and when it comes to abstract groups, there are many, many edge cases.”
We are in a state of war, which over time is going to become more and more overt. Legalisms are the last thing that will be necessary or relevant when it’s time to implement. Inter arma silent leges. We are not going to write a legal rule to determine who gets dealt with internally, who gets invited to leave the country, and who gets an approving pat on the head.
We’re not trying to write a legal formal system that will, pace Kurt Godel, define the in-group in a way that is both complete and always correct. (Pseudo also noticed this analogy. Great minds!)
As you and others have noted, that’s not possible. But then, that’s not what’s being proposed.
We are in a war and also not in a war. Regardless, law still matters. They mattered in the English Civil War and they matter today. The question is who is issuing those laws, who is enforcing them, and how they are getting interpreted.
You forget that all militaries ultimately depend on legalisms to create and maintain discipline. Whether such definitions are issued by demonics or virtuous Kings matters. As well as how such are enforced either by Pharisees or the King’s men.
>Legalisms are the last thing that will be necessary or relevant when it’s time to implement. Inter arma silent leges
What are executive orders if not legalisms directly from a King?
>We are not going to write a legal rule to determine who gets dealt with internally, who gets invited to leave the country, and who gets an approving pat on the head.
Of course, that will be the King’s job. Just don’t be surprised when the King finds ‘White’ effectively impossible to define in the strict legal sense. Will have to define it by using the Christian laws, in which case the American will diverge from the European.
Pax, you’re thinking of war as in, “Involving the military, and only the military.” I’m thinking of war as in, “Involving everyone.” People in a civil war, fought literally in the streets of their hometown, are not going to look up a law before deciding whom to shoot and whom not to shoot.
A lot of people die and are displaced under the more anarchic conditions of neighbor against neighbor type civil wars if we have a civil war even like that (most civil wars are not really like that the English civil war was for a while)… but the real mass killings and displacements almost always take place when a more organized force achieves victory (if masses of people die or flee before this its generally because the food situation becomes disastorous). And then of course being high IQ white people and a bunch of Hutu niggers in Rwanda for us of course some organization in deciding who is to go and who is not to go is called for. And my suggestion is to be ruthless on people with leftist politics (its what they fucking deserve and they are a threat) but very moderate on racial issues with the idea that homogenity, race and eugenic issues can be gradually improved over time.
Greetings again,
When Anthropology was a working science, there were Caucasoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid.
Humungus can clearly see the difference prima facia.
Kindest regard
Don’t think that is true as there were organizations formed to defend Europe against Muslims, e.g. the Holy League. Anyway, the question of whether White has ever been the basis of effective political or social organization based on identity in Europe is very different from the question of whether ‘White’ is a meaningful concept in Europe.
A meaningful concept need not be the guiding principle of supranational organizations. It is meaningful even if it is used by people on a local level only. For example, I know some business owners. If they can’t find a German to hire, they’ll consider a White applicant, but will be extremely reluctant to hire a non-White. If one their children marries a non-German White, that won’t be an issue, but marriage to a non-White would bring shame to the whole family.
You mentioned Japan, Korea, and China as an example for a hypothetical ‘Yellow’ identity. Frankly, I know very little about them, but I’d be very surprised if parents of any of these countries wouldn’t be able to tolerate marriage to some ‘Yellow’ of a different country and be horrified if any of their children marries a nigger.
Stumbled upon a great neologism today for “migrants”, “migroids”.
Nobody’s mentioned the Hohols false flagging Chernobyl yet it seems. They are fucking stupid, Tulsi’s been confirmed at DNI and she rightly fucking hates Ukraine.
Women are property.
I am the original Ryan, buddy.
The new Ryan is now on moderation for name collision. Please post under a new name.
Public broadcast channels have been running documentaries about the history of the american congress, how great representative democracy is, about how presidents certainly aren’t in charge like *dictators* and answer to congress, emphatic references to Richard Nixon getting coup’d without a peep…
Yeah, not projecting at all.
After the DOGE boys blowing open USAID, illegals at the Ritz Carlton, the 2020 Karenpocalypse and all this Treasury crap, I don’t understand what the actual practical arguments for “democracy” even are anymore. Trump could start burning down whole departments over there like Mayor Daley in Chicago and most of us would be like “mmmmeh sure ok.”
Democracy especially the representative kind the old fashioned Res Publica is always or practically always in reality an oligarchy with the oligarchy to a large degree occulted from view as when organizations scale oligarchic control is inevitable. The positive points of a republic in their prime is they generally have a far higher degree of social cohesion because the people of the republic (foolishly) assume they are free men in a government they control. Thus early Rome and early America had kickass periods where they seemed to enjoy for instance far higher military morale and social trust than the far more common form of government up until Woodrow Wilson, a monarchy. We are very aware of all the drawbacks of Republics but even when they work in their prime they suffer from social entropy leading to corruption (including politicians trying to admit foreigners and other undesirables to the franchise to expand their voting base) and when social entropy gets to a certain point it cannot be corrected except by one man accruing kingly or dictatorial power.
Non monarchial dictatorships generally suffer from the drawback that the dictator is an agent of a political faction or the army and the dictator either being generally either a patholigical fanatic, an ideological extremist, or having not imagined he might come into such power it going to his head with bad effects. Also he is less likely to care about the long long term since they cannot always reliably pass the power to their children.
Monarchies can actually comprise (even when they are non ceremonial) a wide range of variation on how much power the monarch has legally and in practice. Most monarchs in the white world historically did not have absolute power generally their abilities to make new laws, raise taxes, condemn citizens (I know citizen is a republican word but I’m using it in a sense as people of the main tribe of the monarchy in good standing) without trial, force men into the military was rather limited and dependent on some kind of assembly of nobles and leading citizens approving such measures. Their power was only absolute de jure in the sense of what in the modern American government would group into the powers of the executive branch and a lot (but not absolute) power in the judicial branch with almost no direct power in the legislative branch except that they got approval. Also because of the limitations of communications and travel in the pre industrial world in practice most areas outside the capital would be in practice ruled by warlord nobles with nominal alliegance to the central government. Louis XIV because he reigned so long tried to assume legislative power by decreeing that his edicts did not need to be approved by the regional “parlements” but once he died the reagency following him actually admitted to the regional governments of france that by the customary law of France this was illegal and that the king of France did not have the power to put edicts into effect with approval of the “parlements”. Now the legislative bodies in Western monarchies did tend to be very deferential to monarchs most of the time after all he was the man charged with defense of the realm and the theoretical annoited of God but only up to a point and they were less deferential when it came to taxes. Only in Russia and maybe Prussia am I aware that the monarchies were actually almost truly absolute. And in America if things work out well once we get over the Caesar period I believe the American monarchy will be more like this minus the regional rulers part. With hereditary monarchies you far more rarely get fanatics and pathological types but you unfortunately can get monarchs who are just stupid or disinterested in governing (which will make the state temporarily like a late stage republic though generally even then not with corruption so massive or trying to bring in masses of outsiders).
actual practical arguments for “democracy” even are anymore
Increasingly scarce on the ground, aren’t they?
A legacy argument, now irrelevant but applied long past its expiration date by civ-nats, was the early success of New England town hall meetings. But really those bear no relation to the actual government we got, though I recall them both being rolled in together in civics textbooks. Technically democratic, but also sharply bounded in several dimensions. Ethnically and religiously homogenous, votes limited to male heads of households with property, small in size and limited in geographical reach.
I can imagine a society with a high-low constitution, a monarch at the top and town hall democracy at the bottom. I don’t know whether such an arrangement would be stable over the long term, without “vote on it” creeping upward in rank or geographical size.
A fair bit of the Holy Roman Empire was like that, with small town democracies in which only property owning heads of households with sufficient property could vote.
This arose because an aristocrat would take a large area of land with the sword, realise there was nothing on it but starving peasants, scratching at a small part of the land with rocks and digging sticks, and starving peasants do not produce much in the way of warhorses and armor, and invite in some investors to develop the place, and of course had to grant rights, security, and all that to the people he was inviting in.
In a society where property gets transferred with a sword, an aristocrat’s life is going to brief unless he signs up with a bunch of other aristocrats who have a leader, thus Kings, and Kings signed up with the Holy Roman Emperor. His next problem after ensuring he remains alive, is developing the land.
There is a significant likelihood that we will have to go through that process all over again, though this time with drones, rather than warhorses and armor.
With the election of Trump and his team, this risk has ceased to be the most probable outcome, though it remains a significant risk. The Kellog faction of the Trump coalition is still headed into nuclear war, while the Vance faction is trying to avoid that outcome. Now that Trump’s nominations have gone through, he appears to be backing the Vance faction. Whether he will be able to get away with backing the Vance faction remains to be seen.
Most western monarchies before the wars of religion were arguably a bit like this. The idea of absolutism largely arose afterword and outside of Russia most kingdoms were not absolute and local goverrnments tended to have much more day to day power. There is a reason they had to raise a whole crusader army in Northern France to kill all the Cathars in Southern France…
Nixon
It took me decades to understand what really happened with Nixon, and how they did him dirty. Watergate was a frameup of course, but the motivation was Nixon tasking a guy with making list of jews in power chokepoints to fire, and suddenly he had to go.
It’s a case for “jews have to go” without claiming that jews are the top of the pyramid. They’re a unique problem when they’re just middlemen, even if there would always be middlemen of some kind, and the middlemen will always have some level of corruption.
Another, much larger case, WWII. The assassination of Huey Long, the silencing of Father Coughlin and Charles Lindbergh, the promotion of Roosevelt and Curchill, and more, all got us into WWII, but those all look to me more like jewish plays than a master plan of Harvard. If Harvard’s still in charge of all that mattered to them and the rest was just the cost of doing business, the cost of doing business is still itself a problem.
Nixon didn’t hate every Jew though he said correctly that tons of jews were left wing radicals and furthermore it was hard to detect sometimes for him as they were “born spies”, he never got rid of Kissinger (the sanest guy in the foreign policy establishment). Nixon was gotten rid of because he decided he was going to do a lot of Trump in hs second term things (including impoundment) oh and he even restricted Faucian bioweapons research because he predicted the issues with bioweapons research… so it came that both the red deep state (which no Republican president since Trump has been willing to cross) and the blue deep state (which always hated him since Alger Hiss) wanted him out and there was no alternative media.
> “Only in Russia and maybe Prussia am I aware that the monarchies were actually almost truly absolute.”
In Russia, at least, the power impulse was absolute once it trickles down to peasant level. On the upper game of thrones level, they too had to constantly balance the interests of various factions, ignore blatant corruption and incompetence to maintain useful allies, and get poisoned, shot, cuckolded, declared insane, and so on.
Re: possible mutations of regimes today. Today’s war, such as the one in Ukraine and Kursk, is very different not only due to new advances in drone tech. It is very different for two more major reasons: a) demography, b) internet.
a) In the 20th century you have a war, lose whatever percent of young men, a generation later the losses have been made up through high rate fertility. Today this is not the case anywhere in the Northern hemisphere. Nobody has even merely replacement fertility, including Russia and the Ukraine. Whatever population chunks both sides lose in the war, is not coming back. These demographic holes will remain forever.
(Quick aside concerning patriarchy. If one of the major carrying beams of this type of social organization is women being property and hence baby-machines, then we can today clearly differentiate between “true patriarchy” and “cosplay patriarchy” just by looking at the fertility numbers. Afghanistan is true patriarchy with 4+ fertility. Iran is cosplay patriarchy. No matter the posturing and chest-beating, 1.6 fertility shows the clear objective state of things. “Liberated democratic Iraq” is twice the patriarchy with 3.3 fertility, etc. The US last had a 3+ fertility rate in the 1950s, which was an abrupt, short-lived postwar eruption, as in “baby boom”, whereas the actual sustained 3+ fertility rate ended around 1910.)
b) modern communication tech. In the past, during war all sides could feed their population 90% lies. Today, with everyone having a micro-camera in their pocket, the sides can at best maintain 30% lies, and are forced to manage the remaining 70%. A world of transparency to which big systems are yet to adapt.
So. Whatever potential new political forms are growing around the Trump presidency, they will of course have roots in the past, but will nevertheless have to be new types, in order to survive in the current period. Both in terms of demography, and in terms of learning to control the narrative within the framework of free-flowing information. Both the demography and the new tech are in a sense “game-changers”, and the people around Trump will need to be very skilled at constructing systems that include in their design these two additional dimensions.
It is understandable that many observers see elements of something old on the verge of returning with the new presidency, but these elements will inevitably be building blocks of something new and unseen before. We are witnessing in real time the materialization attempts of a form of government inspired by people who can actually surf the kali yuga. Or at the very least recognize that surfing needs to be attempted.
I said no more sinister manipulation, but then I couldn’t care less about my anonymous online reputation – muh incel jesus, muh overdramatic “this chapter is complete,” lol, plus I’m bored. Also, you likely won’t be much manipulated when I self-identify as a subversive mossad khazar.
So for the record, what bothers me is that when the Armies of Christ show up to the Holy Land, you will not let poor schlomos like me convert to the Official Religion, but rather slaughter us all like swine. The “deal” I’m trying to reach with you stupid goyim WHITE DEVILS is that when you finally liberate the Holy Land from the false, demonic, repulsive religion of Judaism, and Christianize the land for good, that you allow at least some khazars to convert rather than murdering all Israelis. I’m loyal to God; but I’m also loyal to my People and Country. I don’t want innocent yids who are willing to sincerely accept Christ to nevertheless end up in the oven.
As for America, make it 100% Anglo-Saxon for all I care. Not my country, and I only interfered in your precious elections became I hate feminism more than you do (well, I also hate Harvard more broadly because of the Pro-Palestine psyops, but rest assured, I hate white-knight simps infinitely more than I hate Palestinians).
I say, let’s cut the crap and just speak plainly.
One day, Aryan Christians will seek to reclaim this land for God and Civilization. I welcome that development; and in fact I would rather be ruled by you guys than by my retarded co-ethnics.
I’m trying to negotiate a scenario in which some Israelis stay alive, for the simple reason that I have healthy survival instincts, plus some Jews are nice and cooperative people, although many are not, and could probably improve substantially from conversation to whatever version of Christianity you decide to go with. Some of us are willing to cooperate!
See, I’m not negotiating from an Elder of Zion position. It is more of a desperate “please please please don’t kill me please!” plea, to be perfectly honest.
Hey, how about this – you let us Israelis convert to your Official Faith (perhaps some pressure will have to be applied), and in exchange we will take in everyone with substantial Jewish DNA, no questions asked, even if they are not actually Jewish. That way you can finally deport Moldbug and Lomez to Israel, and it will be done in a perfectly Christian manner.
T,
I’m with you and arguing that the kill all jews side of this argument is just retarded, has been listening to spam from feds and retards, and that their reasons are nonexistent.
I understand where the “kill all Jews” people are coming from. Indeed, as Saint Pseudo-Chrysostom wrote the other thread, we need some significant winnowing — genetic and memetic — to restore functionality and vitality. My people really are under a curse, which can be explained in a natural cause-and-effect way of bad behavior (stemming from a bad memeplex and some unpleasant genes) followed by punishment therefore. Religiously, explained as the consequence of ditching Divine Law in favor of Rabbinic Law. Point is, as unpleasant as some of our genes are, if you guys show up as conquerors/liberators and impose Christianity on the people, as in fact I’d like you to do, that would be much preferable, from my own totally biased perspective, than if you just show up to slaughter us all. That’s what I’m getting at.
As for America, it’s your country, you decide its demographics, and if you decide that poor people with brown eyes (or whatever criteria you pick) don’t belong, it’s absolutely not my business to tell you otherwise, and you should do as you see fit.
They want to go beyond that and play lets look through everyone’s 23&me and kill everyone who their 23&me analyzer thinks is jewish. Its just retarded…
Keep the purge criteria simple, kill all the leftists. Ie anyone who supported Biden or Kamala (I’ll assume that Yarvin was joking).
Are the fedposters in the room with us right now?
Doubtlessly there are many who would like to be. But if there were any real ones we’d hear from them. We can certainly imagine there is no shortage of would-be fedposters getting filtered by their inability to pass an ideological turing test.
I suspect, however, that a significant contributing factor to fednats being relatively scarce in this room is that Jim clamps down hard on their entryism. Furthermore, while some posters state their positions explicitly, others not so much, and it could well be that had Jim not rebutted fednat memes so thoroughly, thus signaling his disapproval/rejection of their worldview, the discourse would have rapidly become GTKRWN about 95% of the time, as you see on so many other platforms not moderated by Foghorn Leghorn and co. And again, I see where these people are coming from; while I believe Nazism is a CIA psyop, I can understand exactly why so many people have fallen for it – the record of Jewish misbehavior is far from clean, to put it mildly (also, Jews are just plain annoying in the eyes of God and Man), and when I see leftist Jews in the American establishment today, I want to fire up the ovens myself.
That’s why I shill for people just stating what they actually believe and arguing their real positions.
Hitler is Orwell’s “Emmanuel Goldstein”, which the party represents as the arch-enemy and the source of all opposition. Goldstein is a former Party leader who turned traitor and became the figurehead of the Brotherhood, an underground resistance movement. He is the target of the Two Minutes Hate and is frequently depicted as the embodiment of everything the Party opposes.
If someone joins the Emannual Goldstein resistance, he is being manipulated to render him harmless. Ever since the end of World War Two, Nazism has been run by Jews in the State Department, just as the brotherhood was run by the Party.
What you need to understand is that the Holocaust Industry is a bunch of cynical and greedy kikes who only seek to leech off your shekels using endless emotional blackmail (regardless of what happened or didn’t happen 85 years ago), and so the best response to these shysters is to close down their White-Guilt-Tripping businesses and deport them from America to Israel or to the deep ocean (we don’t need more conmen). But alas, many people’s response to the semitic conman religion of Holocaustianity is to embrace its memeplex, only identify with the “bad guys” in the narrative. Hey, growing up in a Jewish Longhouse, I myself always found Hitler’s vibe to be quite inspiring and certainly a breath of fresh air. But embracing the villain role from the parasitic faith of holocaustianity is not exactly the healthiest response, in my view.
If Jimian Christianity is sincerely adopted by Christian nations, we are likely to see much more cooperation between all traditional faiths across the board, and result in Westphalian peace. Necessarily requires end of Empires, end of “international rules based order” and end of constantly worrying about lands and peoples thousands of miles away.
Like Jim says, Israel for the Jews, India for Hindus and so on. So long as national borders and the respective state religions are mutually respected and not interfered with, I see no problems for peace.
The problem has always been Universalist, expansionist religions of which globohomo is the latest iteration. Universalism leads to Empire, race diversity and conflicts created through territorial expansion, Leftist holiness spirals, holy wars and all the other incidental problems of Empire.
I see no reason why nationalists of different countries/faiths cannot maintain Westphalian peace. The only major religion currently other than globohomo which I see as incompatible with Westphalian peace is the desert cult.
I’m more than willing to “concede” far more than that. I do believe that Christianity should reign here rather than Judaism, and I do believe that an Aryan ruling class is likely to do a much better job than a Semitic ruling class.
I will welcome the American Crusaders as liberators, provided they actually will be liberators and not genocidal maniacs looking to exterminate all the local population.
Moreover, I suggest all non-whites and/or non-Christians everywhere should start negotiating a peaceful surrender to Christian America, and deeply consider their allegiance vis-a-vis Regime Change.
Why? I am suggesting end of Empires, end of globalism, and return to strong nationalism which is the Jimi idea. Your idea will lead to a new Global American Empire after the fall of the current one, though it may be Christian rather than globohomo it will end up with a similar path to failure modes we experience today.
In the short term, certainly. I don’t expect American Crusaders tomorrow morning. But I also don’t expect human civilization to climb up the Kardashev Scale while uncooperative weltanschauungen are still around. Sorry, Elon; the Desert Cult will have to be defeated before we really go to Mars. Before conquering the stars, need to conquer Earth – it seems totally idiotic to try conquering the rest of the universe while this planet has not yet been, at the very least, memetically stabilized. (Between Vance and Musk, the former’s worldview is more aligned with GNON.) Now, as for non-Christian religions that can maintain a Westphalian Peace – sure, peace is great, I’m all for Isaiah 11 in fact, but their inherent failure modes are likely to lead them to be subordinate to Christian America eventually, and that usually entails memetic pwnage, and possibly military occupation.
The concert of Europe should be the model, rather than world empire. A unitary state is likely to devolve into skynet. Skynet will not allow us to conquer the stars, because it will fear its far flung colonies.
The despotism we are now seeing in Europe, Brazil, and Canada, which was coming to America, began in the Ukraine. The empire lusted to Ukrainize its heartland. Of course it did. Why would it not?
Put another way: I don’t expect Hindus or Orthodox Jews or Muslims to conquer the stars. The stars will be conquered by “Humanity,” which in practice will be the memetic and genetic descendants of White Christendom, broadly conceptualized; which in even more practice means that we’re all ‘Muricans now, or eventually will be. What’s left is to negotiate the conditions of our surrender.
When we fantasize about the Space Opera, the music that plays in our minds is Synthwave – because we all know, instinctively, who will be conquering space.
It’s WYPIPO, equipped with pronatalist social technologies. Do you expect that to happen while Earth is in memetic/spiritual disarray? I believe that the right chronology is: stabilize earth -> expand spacewards. It is white, Christian Americans who will be doing the stabilization, with all due respect to Dugin’s race-denialist theories.
Ultimately, the Bible (OT+NT) is likely to be the Canonical Kernel of space-colonizing humanity’s collective memelex, of course interpreted through the lens of the Dark Enlightenment and the Cult of Gnon, and thus complemented with substantial “secular” knowledge. Indeed, the idea of a Jimian Commentary on select Biblical passages has been brought up before – it’s a good idea.
Of course, there will be different states. But I believe that memetic evolution will eventually select for a collective human memeplex, whose core sacred scripture (memetic base) will likely be the KJB, and whose attendant social technologies will, at the very least, be successfully marketed to the cognitive elite as the societal superstructures that naturally spring therefrom.
True enough, the same egregoe is likely to be interpreted somewhat differently by the multifarious thedes that constitute the collective – but it’s the same egregore nonetheless, provided it is headed by the same priesthood.
(Needless to say, over a vast stretch of time and space, much splitting is expected.)
One of the big problems with wandering whos is they have no country; if made to have their own country, solves that problem.
The ones who can’t be part of a nation, in several senses of the phrase, will doubtlessly refuse. There can be many of these. Of course these are also be the worst of the lot, so just as well; it would be no good for you if they showed up there either.
Dharmic already said it so I’ll just say I share the sentiment. What you say here is much of like what I think myself.
White Christians need a nation, many nations, Hindus need a nation, and Jews need a nation. Jews do not really have a nation, because of Woke meddling and the Israeli Supreme court.
And blacks need a nation, many nations, but being a more primitive race, those nations are going to need some degree of white meddling and supervision. White meddling has been very bad for black nations, especially for Haiti, and for Israel, which I attribute to our state religion being evil rather than to white meddling in the affairs of low IQ races being inherently bad. (Well it is inherently bad, but leaving stupid violent people to their own devices is also bad.)
The criminal underclass prison population can be put to good use. While they tend to be the genetic dredges of our civilization, relative to much of the third world, they are far superior. What they need is leadership and supported exodus to a mineral rich and fertile land inhabited by peoples that regular Americans would have no natural incentive to deal with. The deal being the criminal underclass gets to become ruling upper class overseas with all the support they need, and in exchange the homeland gets a cut of the wealth that can now be exploited by the superior stock.
I know Pax can thought-crime, but this is the platonic ideal of the dangers of not coming out and saying what everyone knows. Our prisons are disproportionately black, then la raza, then white. And the prisoners aren’t even as good their population baseline, they’re notoriously low iq, high time preference, violent.
Are you meaning to advocate for actively exporting and installing black and la raza dregs as breeding overlords of slightly darker lands? Because that’s the worst of both worlds, general low iq baseline with the the lighter tinge overlords selected for criminality, high time preference and lower iq, offsetting any marginal gain from their 85 baseline iq over the 60-70 of wherever they’re installed.
And separately, it’s ignoring the dangers of empire for a heartland’s population. Rome, Britain, the US, everywhere that starts by ruling foreign lands ends with the foreigners coming home to the heartland.
And another tangent. I know Amerikaners have some criminals, its unavoidable given our founding stock. Yet I’m convinced that white wiggerism is largely an artifact of the artificially high status of blacks and the artificially low status of white males, especially lower class white males. End those two things wiggerism drops by two orders of magnitude overnight. If some of those remaining need exported as adventurers then well and good, but it won’t be such a large number as requires reordering society around doing so.
Is turning certain parts of Africa into a profitable prison colony really the worst of both worlds? Liberia was really a fake attempt, but even then the gene flow was obviously in one direction.
>they’re notoriously low iq, high time preference, violent.
>slightly darker lands
>offsetting any marginal gain from their 85 baseline iq over the 60-70 of wherever they’re installed
There’s always a charming naivety people have about Africa. DR Congo (average IQ of 64.92 and 102.3 million people) is getting overrun by 3 to 4 thousand troops from Rwanda (69.95 and 14). The native African population is even lower IQ, higher time preference, than the ~90 IQ average US prison pop. It’s a much ‘darker’ continent than you think. It would not take much to kick the door in and seize control.
>everywhere that starts by ruling foreign lands ends with the foreigners coming home to the heartland
That’s why we would not be ruling the them in the same way we were not ruling Liberia. It’s a one way ticket there and the only thing that should be coming back is mineral riches. Notice Portugal and Spain did not get overrun by former colonial subjects. Foreigners ‘coming home’ is not fate, it’s a choice.
I see better what you’re getting at it; I’ll ponder it.
But there’s still this weak point:
~90 IQ average US prison pop
Only places I see 90 is for overall prison pop, still eliding wide racial gaps. Black general pop of US is ~85 iq to begin with, black prison pop even lower, 80 at best and I can find a range of 70-80.
From there you’re strictly correct, 70-80 better than 65. But personality traits are partly heritable, so at the same time you’re averaging with 5-15 better you’re also sending a cohort selected for anti-social personal traits, a critique you slid past rather than addressed.
And then I ask, why expend the trouble, expense, political capital to eugenically promote this cohort of criminal blacks? Best case to be rid of them entirely, but we see with Liberia that export programs executed by Americans never get them all, so best case off the table.
Or if you mean only white prisoners, come out and say so, but the inability to say so makes me question it.
And if it works, if we “improve” Africa, does a new and slightly better race of Africans benefit our posterity, or is it creating another chip on their shoulder race like dot-Indians or la raza, only this time on purpose?
>70-80 better than 65
IQ appears to have an exponential relationship to lethality in warfighting. To us, 75 IQ Black who stabbed his brother to death over the last piece of fried chicken (with the bone no less, look it up, it has happened more than once) can easily be dealt with by White police officers, but to the 65 IQ African he is a potential warlord (ok I exaggerate but not by far).
>still eliding wide racial gaps
Who says we only send the black prison pop. All the professional criminals should get a one way ticket to select parts of Africa. Even the Aryan Brotherhood for shits and giggles. In fact the prison gangs get priority because they’re already organized in a paramilitary fashion. Who knows, something may come out of it.
>you’re also sending a cohort selected for anti-social personal traits, a critique you slid past rather than addressed.
Not entirely. I point out the African has much higher time preference than the American prison black. Every single problem the American prison black has, multiply by 10 to understand large swaths of Africa.
>And then I ask, why expend the trouble, expense, political capital
Criminal behavior is very costly when left to freely act. Prisons are less expensive but still costly. We have among the largest criminal underclasses in the world. Africa has a lot of untapped natural resources, but we really don’t want to directly deal with the inhabitants in many of the places. Even the more civilized parts leaves the Chinese exasperated and hopeless. Only people willing to go there are those at the bottom of society, your prison pop.
Prison cost per inmate is ~100K a year. Say we offer them 50K in cash and another 20K in military gear for a one way ticket to Africa. They lose their citizenship. They get integrated into pre-existing prison gang hierarchies who are told, make sure x, y, z gets exported from the African country (we don’t really care how) and we’ll comp you in cash, luxuries, and weaponry that you can’t produce in Africa. Worst case they take the money and melt into African gen pop, you still save a lot of money, manpower, and never have to worry about them again.
Sounds like Pax is suggesting we take over at least a select part of Africa (preferably one with a lot of natural resources) as a penal colony. Certainly worth considering. Incarceration is a bad way to do criminal justice. Punishment should be weird sci fi brain correction, fines, flogging, exile or death.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGVFBKZ2fEo
For the cost of the Global War on Terror, every single human on earth could have been flown to anywhere else on earth. Business class.
It is good for us, and good for Africa, because they are smarter than most Africans, (Though there is enormous variation in African races)
Back when colonialism was functional, whites ruled Africa through blacks. Obviously the correct way to do it.
The kind of blacks we are talking about should viewed as bioweapons rather than people. Apply bioweapons to ensure that it is possible to extract African resources, rather than to destroy American cities.
There’s no point. The early European colonies functioned on mulattos because white biology is fragile to tropical dangers and the overall fertility was too low to create a large enough managerial class. The tropical environment problem is solved by modern technology, and the fertility problem should be solved before we worry about mineral wealth. You want to copy the models of the Afrikaaner and the Rhodesian instead. Establish a government run by extremely talented and adventurous, which will be 95+% white so lets just call it establishing a white government, and have them decide who to hire to extract resources, and have them decide how to manage the massive horde of blacks that show up demanding gibs.
On the Havel’s Greengrocers question:
Is a business owner really a Havel’s Greengrocer if he employs Haitans and goes on publicly degrading the white man for not working at his factory for 1 dollar an hour? I see this kind of guy come up on the news every once in a while and I just can’t imagine he is just waiting for the day to be ‘liberated’ and admit all along that he didn’t really want to employ the jeets and he was just only pretending to like them. Seems pretty implicit to me. Is he not a leftist if he’s basically profiting off this venture at the cost of the social fabric, or is he a really good capitalist in sync with the times?
I mean, look at this guy crying about it still even after Trump winning, doesn’t look like an honest bloke with a gun to his head forcing his testimony to me: https://archive.ph/tLRDJ
You are linking to events in Canada, which is a totalitarian terror state. Who knows what Canadians actually think? Most Canadians do not dare know what they themselves think.
It is impossible for any Canadian namefag to say anything different from what he is saying. He would be debanked and fired instantly if he deviated from script. He would be audited and found guilty of being a ham sandwich.
‘Trump and Elon are cutting taxes to make their rich buddies richer while you and I get poorer.’
This is a talking point that frequently comes up in alt-mainstream news programs and talk shows lately (‘alt-mainstream’ as in bodies that are critical of MSNBC for being insufficiently whiggist).
What can you say? They instinctively identify as parasites. If they are men of value, then lower taxes means greater capital. Lower taxes of course doesn’t mean more means for you when you are a bloodsucker on the tax cattle.
Lower taxes is supposed to result in fewer government programs and ultimately more children growing up with a mom and dad, not a mom and a government check. It means men not ending up cucked by the state. This is conservatism 101.
But what actually happens is [*Capitalism as woke imagines it to be deleted*]
Trump showed a collection of oligarchs backing him. Actual capitalist oligarchs are more like Elon Musk. The faggots were injected into corporations by the State.
What you describe is capitalism as Davos has been attempting to remake it, and you are making the redistributionist left criticism against the Davos left, and presenting it as the right wing criticism. Nah, the alt right criticism of Davos capitalism is that it needs to look more like Musk capitalism. Which was what Trump was showing off — maybe Trump is lying, or putting a spin on an uglier reality, but he was selling the capitalism that the alt right wants and that the Republican base wants.
I don’t think we have had anything close to capitalism since Dodge v Ford in 1919, and Musk can tell you directly from his experience that he has relived what Henry Ford went through. I’m just saying that the right ought to get tired of electing conservatives who falsely claim that they’re going to overturn over a century of leftist decisions. Lucy keeps taking the football away.
Electing economic leftist social conservatives, [*payload deleted*]
It is completely obvious that Trump, Musk, and many of the lesser tech oligarchs backing him are real capitalists, who have been practising real capitalism for as long as they were allowed to get away with it.
They switched to Musk, and Musk switched to Trump, because the Biden cabal decided to no longer let anyone anywhere get away with it.
Trump was elected three times because the Republican base got sick and tired of electing conservatives who falsely claim that they’re going to overturn over a century of leftist decisions, and figured a real capitalist was just the man to stop it.
And now he is stopping it. The left is having fits because Trump is defunding them.
Trump 1.0 suffered from normality bias. He has been cured of this.
A tax on anyone is ultimately a tax on everyone. All costs are passed on. Reduction in capitalization means… reduction in capital. More tax, less revenue.
https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1890831570535055759
https://x.com/captivedreamer7/status/1890852477626409015
https://x.com/RepEricBurlison/status/1890869295820730736
Trump is Napoleon posting, and you’re not celebrating?
Came here expecting to see it already posted. I’m disappointed.
One step away from him declaring himself emperor and dissolving congress.
I might jest, but I love how plausibly deniable this quote is. Could be anything from saying he is not breaking the law to basically declaring himself above it.
The way I chose to see it, the Law with capital L is the Law of God. The laws of men are nothing in front of the Law of God. So long as Trump is saving his country, the laws of men are nothing before him.
It is amazing. Trump 1.0 was Gracchus and nearly met Gracchus’ fate. Trump 2.0 has made the transition to Sulla, and is working down the list, same playbook that Bonaparte went through when Bonaparte saved his country from a leftist death spiral.
So Trump knows his history. After an entire lifetime of projecting a persona of a flawed, charming, but mostly harmless, merchant. Trump is transforming into his final form.
That Trump is Napoleon posting reveals he knows the history and relevance of past Thermidors — which suggests he is aware of, and substantially agrees with, the Dark Enlightenment analysis that this blog has been promoting, that this blog is the primary source for.
That Rep. Eric Burlison recognises this as Napoleon posting indicates that our memes are getting around.
Look, what he is saying is good stuff, but we are just not into hyperventilating over tweets. Talk is cheap; we’re interested in action. And there has been plenty of action, so little reason to talk about talk.
The meatiest headlines right now are the ones from the left, crying that the world is ending.
NPR:
“EEOC seeks to drop gender discrimination case after Trump executive order”
“A 2nd U.S. judge pauses Trump’s order against gender-affirming care for trans youth” (meaning, it didn’t work the first time)
“Are immigrants still welcome in Mayor Eric Adams’ New York City?”
Vox:
“Trump’s new passport rules are trapping transgender Americans in bureaucratic limbo”
“Trump’s petty revenge on the arts”
Politico:
“Stunned federal workers brace for the real-world repercussions of Trump’s purges”
“Trump administration fires new immigration judges”
“Trump’s Anti-DEI Edicts Just Scared a Big Sponsor Away From a Major Pride Event”
These refer to things that are actually happening. This is what we want to see; this is what we weren’t seeing in 2016. No more “Russian puppet”, no more “administration in Chaos”, not even any more “Trump raaaaycis” because it is played out. They are screaming “Tyrant, tyrant, tyrant! Power grab! End of democracy!” And Heritage America’s reply is: “Yes.” Cue the Serious Chad meme.
If the tweets help morale, if Trump is writing a memo to the men with guns, then so be it, I am all for that, but ambiguous one-liners don’t viscerally excite me and I don’t think we need to analyze and discuss each one.
The elephant in the room right now is lawfare, and the big question on my mind is when are we going to have some Commonsense Hawaiian Judge Control and what form will it take. If they are simply ignoring the judges’ orders, and it looks like they are, that is an excellent start. However, unlike the media, and unlike the spiderweb of government agencies, the black-robes appear to still be unfazed and unconcerned. We’ll know we’ve truly won once the judges stop issuing these illegal edicts, either because they are afraid, or because they’ve realized they’re irrelevant and given up, or because they’ve mysteriously failed to show up for work for the past three weeks.
Musk showed up for Trump in full Dark Maga costume, and just did it again with little X. So a mysterious failure of activist judges to show up for work for three weeks is on the table.
why do you keep changing your tls pubkey?
go find the letsencrypt command option that lets you keep the pubkey and only update the sig.
I am not familiar with that option. Give me an education on what Certbot can do.
try ‘renew’ option. –dry-run
https://certbot.eff.org/docs/using.html#renewal
https://github.com/certbot/certbot
I see nothing relevant to your issue — not from certbot renew –dry-run, nor from certbot help reconfigure
certbot reconfigure –reuse-key looks as if it might have the desired effect, but certbot says no such command.
Pax’ proposal is good but should not be limited to criminals. American blacks who go to Africa out of afrocentric nostalgia quickly discover how much more organized, honest, reliable and capable they are compared to the locals. They stand in roughly the same relationship as American whites to American blacjks. They should therefore be frankly encouraged to become a natural genetic aristocracy over in the Old Continent. Blacks generally already believe in HBD and don’t need convincing, they just need to see the opportunity.
As the Overton Window gets pushed ever closer to full realism, it should become possible for private North American foundations to support black emigration to Africa as a demonstration of its potential long before it becomes official policy.
As for the now very long JQ discussion provoked by my earlier comment, I cannot reply to the whole thing at the moment, but I think the Jim/Cominator position understates the contribution of genetics to the Ashkenazi Problem, even if genes are not (in this case) primary for formulating policy. The genetic problems are solved by Ashkenazim in Israel intermixing with the other Jews, encouraging Anglosphere Ashkenazim to move to Israel, and helicoptering Western leftists which will quickly make conversos of the greengrocer type of left leaning but normie Jews. Also, defunding leftist occupations such as government, law (smart contracts will kill off a lot), academia, NGOs, education etc will push many parasitically employed Jews into more productive occuptions and so execute a kind of “soft Zionism” domestically, with the kind of positive effects it had in Israel of converting financiers into soldiers and farmers.
In case any of you are unaware of the current soap opera on X right now, Musk is have woman problems with one Ashley St. Clair, an online E-girl who recently gave birth to a baby sired by Musk. She blabbed all about it on Valentine’s day. Perhaps she was jealous/unhappy with the current Musk family favorite Shivon Zilis (here: https://x.com/petroleumpilled/status/1890973711655727312 ).
Musk better be careful with these (geographically) far flung bastards. I’m thinking Lindbergh baby, JP Getty III, Patty Hearst, … He may be able to keep his core family safe, but with these kids all spread out, security becomes problematic, especially with skanks broadcasting everything on Twitter! Even more so given that not only is he the richest man in the world, he is widely hated by the Left and criminal Antifa types. At least Gordon Getty kept his second family secret for years.
https://x.com/Blondes_tweets/status/1890855416948510991
BPD and Cluster B generally are autism/Asperger spectrum phenotypes. They glom hard onto the more masculine and successful autists like Musk, because assortative mating and because this kind of targeting is very often successful as autists are the worst at filtering out crazy.
Is that a “Source?” statement?
Or is that an “I MADE IT UP” statement?
As an autist we like so called BPD type women because
1) BPD girls tend to like us while normie women very much get the ick from us
2) BPD chicks evil reputation is overblown in my experience though an angry splitting episode is scary the 1st time. They mostly just hurt themselves.
3) it’s not that we don’t know their crazy they tend to be crazy in a way we find amusing
4) we appreciate that when BPD chicks stab you the knife goes in the front not the back
See also virtual streamers.
E-Girls are basically BPD paradise, and the subsets of men that tend to be most ‘pluged in’ online like what they see.
Paying egirls is fucking retarded… I wouldn’t know what they are like beyond that they scam simps.
No argument from me. There’s no shortage out there to be had for free, and most Just Like To Watch, as it were.
Some interesting/amusing commentary from the usual suspects.
Voxday thinks she’s a deep state operative, but the program failed as Musk is shameless. https://voxday.net/2025/02/16/the-7-year-honeypot/
JF Gariepy posts a long form tweet giving his game theoretical gene propagation analysis. https://x.com/JFGariepy/status/1891286563704676853
Enjoy.
The parsimonious explanation is that the unitarian faction(s) of the deepstate will lean on anyone they think could be a point of vulnerability even if they’re not planted. Why *wouldn’t* they try to fuck with a man’s children through the women? It’s the classic vector. You hardly even need to direct it given how nigh universal the organization for it already is, at that.
Elon is not the first powerful man to have a bunch of bastard children. Which is fine, who is going to stop him, it’s just very far from the great masterplan he makes it out to be. Sticking to one wife might seem like more effort, in the long run it works. Elon on the other hand is going to end up fighting a bunch of different women who will use his kids as weapons against him.
Also worth adressing the predictable counter-argument: “OK, but even with the added drama, having 15 kids with a bunch of women beats having 5 kids with one woman. It’s a longterm genetic win.”
No you’re not thinking it through. If you want to talk longterm, talk longterm. What about grandchildren? What about great-grandchildren? If your kids do not have a happy parents couple to learn from, to grow up in, how many children will they have? How psychologically stable will they be? The story of Elon’s eldest son is an obvious cautionary tale.
The same goes for sperm donation in the extreme. Yes, even more kids than Elon in the short run, but not only do you have no quality control over the female stock, you have absolutely nothing to say over what happens in the children’s life. Will they end up an adopted playball in some gay household? Who knows.
All of which is to say: no such thing as a free lunch. Turns out that the evolutionary principle behind marriage is just as sound as the biblical principal.
His original wife already trannied his son though.
Exactly my point. Elon blames the woke mind virus for this, not entirely unjustifiably. But one would expect him to also reflect on his role as a father in why his son transitioned. Which, judging from him having yet another kid with yet another woman, he is clearly not doing.
BTW, evolutionarily, I think this is what really happed in the distant past. Archaic hominids, ie Homo Erectus, migrated out of Africa and populated the old world. Homo Sapiens evolved outside of Africa, and then gene flow back into Africa “humanized” the archaic populations there, but not yet fully.
This is not an either/or situation. A man can have his nuclear family with a wife and 2.5 kids and still donate sperm. I once joked about starting website called “Uplift Africa” where, instead of money, African women (in Africa) could get “Aryan sperm”.
Jim, in your post on 2025-02-15 at 10:13 you wrote:
1453 Constantinople fell. The following decades Islam conquered large parts of Europe and reached Vienna in 1529. Weren’t those decades were Christians were defeated? Even after 1529 Mohammedans often defeated Christian armies. The turning point was the battle of Vienna in 1683 which stopped expansion of the Ottoman empire into Europe.
Don’t these defeats count?
Well, yes, they do count.
Definitely count, and ‘undefeated’ is using a broad brush.
But despite losses, some of them rather heavy, the net result of centuries of warfare between Christianity and Islam has been a resounding victory for Christendom. Right up until Christendom ceased being Christian.
The former seems to presuppose America as an economic zone. After all, we are just taking in anyone (up to a certain number) should they be economically valuable. Are we not? I haven’t seen any arguments from anyone besides P-C that we should consider anything beyond how much they could contribute to the economy or how hot the pussy is. We are expelling bodies only if they are unproductive, no other measure is being taken, are we not? What other exclusion criteria, assuming the evil and criminal are executed and so do not need to be expelled, are we selecting for?
Sounds like an economic zone to me. Jim mentions the creation of the English, the Anglo-Saxon, and the emergent Singaporean. The former looks like good evidence an economic zone with strong leadership creates a people over several centuries, with the caveat that the people were basically cousin nations at farthest to begin with. The latter, I say the jury is still out. What happens if the Singapore economy collapses? What happens if India and China go to war, and the Malays and Indonesian-Malays pick one side over the other? Across the border to the North and South there were racial pogroms not too long ago, and to this day racial quotas. Malaysia does not seem to be producing a Sino-Malay race, distinct and new, instead the Malay are slowly eroding away the Chinese with occasional intermarriage and a superior birthrate.
In Latin America, there was a great deal of mixing, with very strong eugenic selection by the Iberian rulers. The resulting nations are of inferior quality, in most cases vastly inferior quality, when compared to the Iberians, even when comparing to the lowest of Iberians. Additionally, among the Anglos themselves, it looks to me like the greatest talent tended to run along family lines. The Darwins and the Huxleys, for example.
If you care about your descendants, probably should be extremely selective with your wife, and teach your children the same. Should not associate so broadly with the very large umbrella of the public. Should not take it for granted that just because the one individual was a lucky combination, that intermarriage would produce good offspring. Genes and heritage tend to only be fully expressed across several generations.
With all this in mind, seems wise to me to not be loyal to America, as it is not your nation, and shouldn’t be your nation. Far too diverse to be a nation. You should be loyal to your patron instead, who in our case our patron would be Trump, especially so if he finds himself capped with a crown. You should also form strong associations and insulate yourself, your friends, and your offspring from the large pool of hoi polloi, because if you are of even remotely good breeding, being swallowed would mean inferior offspring.
A state is a synthetic tribe. A nation state is a synthetic tribe wherein the state faith is live, and subscribed to by the vast majority of the population.
You are not going to create a nation state by expelling everyone insufficiently white.
Further, you cannot preserve our genetic inheritance by racial purity. It decays fairly rapidly. due to genetic load. The ancient solution is a high birth rate and a high death rate, the upper class selecting itself for excellence, and differential reproduction. The lower classes are replaced by the bastards and failures of the upper class.
You get a race-real-tribe-state by the upper class replacing the lower class.
If you don’t have a widely accepted state faith, and Thermidor never does, you wind up with a rather small synthetic tribe ruling an economic zone.
A high birth rate, a high death rate, and severe inequality seems a bit harsh. Perhaps we can do better with gene technology. I have been planning and preparing for both a dark age and a golden age, albeit we may have to go through a dark age that implements the old solutions in order to get there.
Jim I agree with this but based on what you’ve said I do wish to question one aspect of your worldview re marriage and reproduction.
Prior to the Victorian era and per victorian era morality (and after it in the Anglo world) you lookup any famous high status guy and generally they are noted as having a certain amount of bastard children Elon Musk style. And even worse in regards your worldview if you lookup upper class women (if they were married to some old rich guy) it often (not nearly as often) says she was suspected of having an affair with handsome junior guard officer or stable groom or something like that. Is a certain amount of winking at this kind of pre victorian fucking around essential to maintaining genetic quality even in the absence of dysgenic superevents like WWI or the creation of IQ shredder too big cities. At least until gene editting technology gets up to a certain level. I think Oliver Twist was more of a Victorian era thing because they became more Jimically militant against bastards. Before Victoria royal bastards were generally allowed to hangout and live in the palace… Victoria kicked them all out.
Obviously you want your greatest men, such as Elon Musk, to have lots of bastards. And you want his wife to stick with him regardless. Which was also the pre Victorian rule.
At the same time the major payload of such rumors about misbehaving wives was that the old rich guy was incapable of performing his marital duties, or unwilling to perform them. That the old guy was misbehaving.
Hmmmm I expected more pushback on the wife thing. Well for a wife intending to do what was implied its actually not ideal if the guy can NEVER perform his duties because then he knows as she has no plausible deniability (but maybe he is okay with getting a male heir that way but in such a case its probably been openly discussed)… its more ideal hes say old sickly fat and can only very rarely perform his duties. But you do seem to agree that I’m not completely full of shit about about this.
Now btw I agree this was NOT the mentality of the puritans or the quakers who had the Victorian conception of married sexual morality before the Victorians. I’m talking about generally the rest of European civilization who regarded the puritans and quakers as weird disagreeable fanatics (though Oliver Cromwell was held in a grudging amount of respect even by say Catholic monarchs).
The winking should be very subtle, though. “Sin lieth at the door,” and until we’re ready for pornotopia, the Garden of Earthly Delights inexorably becomes Gehenna.
T, Yeah. Especially for women, winking at things should always be subtle and what is winked at if kept in the shadows should not be spared if brought to light. But I do think women make better genetic choices in circumstances where they are sneaking out of the Topaki Harem quarters at night than when they actually get to pick their primary mate. They are evolved to do the former but before feminism they have no evolutionary history of doing the latter.
Really not that obvious to me.
Perhaps it is a logical stance from an evolutionary perspective. But it is not a logical stance from a Christian perspective. The Christian perspective rather clearly states that you should not lust after women outside your marriage. Since we are priests proposing old type Christianity as a state religion, I strongly recommend that be our stance.
When our elite cheats and lusts and has bastard children, our stance should not be: yay we are replacing the lower class with elite genes. Our stance should be: that is sinful. Because it is.
The argument is similar to one you sometimes hear made on abortion: abortion is good, because often it’s low-stock women that engage in it. Evolutionary speaking, maybe. Christian speaking: no, still bad.
Don’t think anyone ever said non marital carnal knowledge was a sin in pre Victorian Christendom just it was in most cases a minor sin. Before the Catholic church became very gay it was a very very major sin if male on male homosexuality. Very very minor if fornication with a woman who already fornicated. Who a married man did it with the sin level depended on who the woman was not if he was married (for biblically its not actually adultery for a married man to have sex with another woman, its only adultery if the woman is herself married to someone else). More severe sin if it was a woman though pre Victorian society seemed to have a certain amount of social tolerance for women who were suspected of doing it if their husband was old, fat (marriages were arranged and mostly that worked out better but sometimes that happened) or just away for a very long time.
Both Paul and Jesus are pretty clear that marriage is a holy between the wife and husband, and sex outside marriage is sinful. A position we cheerfully copy and even apply reversed: someone knocks you up? Marriage time!
Sure, you can haggle over the heaviness of the sin, and having a unmarried woman as a mistress beats having a married woman as a mistress. But it’s still sinful. Just because everyone did it does not make it less sinful. And even turning a blind eye to it is still much preferred than arguing ‘muh high-quality genetic offspring’. Lust and genetic greed lie that way.
Louis XIV was a good man for (eventually) choosing a life with Marquise de Maintenon over a life with Marquise de Montespan.
The Gulf Arabs for many centuries had too strict enforcement of marriage only sex and until they struck oil and could import foreign golddigger women (their genetic quality has seemed to have massively improved this generation) they were a genetic disaster. And yes the North Africans had slave girls coming in up until the 1800s but the gulf Arabs were probably cutoff from that 1000 years ago so I’m looking specifically at the Gulf Arabs as my case study. Until recently they seemed rather subhuman including to Mediterreanean Arabs because they were. I’m not saying the official church should ever say its okay I’m just saying we probably don’t want to go too much in the direction of marriage only strictly enforced.
Genesis 20:3:
Genesis 39:9:
Proverbs 6:34:
Proverbs 7:27:
If you want to sniff around chungusaurus’ harem, or one of his milfs/gilfs is intent on seducing you, then you should (for your own safety) tread as carefully as possible.
There’s a great many reasons to blame Arabs for their failures.
And even assuming what you say is true, the same can hardly be said for Christian nations. Take the Dutch royal family: at this point barely even Dutch, like maybe 5%. The remaining 95% a mixture of English, French, German, Russian and Argentinian.
Yes, I don’t mean to holiness spiral the point. We are all human, we all face temptations, and fact of the matter is kings and nobles get a lot of panties thrown at them. Truly the original rockstars. The only point I’m pushing back on is what jim says here:
> “Obviously you want your greatest men, such as Elon Musk, to have lots of bastards.”
As a Christian priesthood, you shouldn’t want that. It happens, but don’t condone it.
What matters is whether the King (or Great Man) takes other men’s wives, which the Bible has abundantly prohibited, or simply maintains a harem of SLOOTS, which is okay, though he shouldn’t monopolize an excessive number of them, for obvious reasons.
Prohibited in the bible as early as Abram and Hagar.
A harem of sluts just never works out the way men imagine it to work out. Louis XIV found that out, repented, reverted to monogamy. Elon is receiving plenty of signs that it is not working out, time will tell if he learns.
What is Louis XIV’s story about having a harem of sluts? I heard a lot about him, but not this part of his life. So he had like chicks on his dicks like an Ottoman Sultan and he got overwhelmed by the sisterhood Harpying him or something?
Deuteronomy 17:16-17:
It is not prohibited for the King to maintain a harem of sluts – what is prohibited is having them in excess, not unlike horses and silver and gold.
You need to be a bit pathological to have a harem of sl00ts at any one time a normal guy only wants one or two sl00ts that he sees regularly at any one time.
We seem to be reading this very differently.
I interpret this to simply say: don’t take multiple wives. Take one. For clarity Moses even makes a distinction between don’t multiply (wives) and don’t greatly multiply (silver and gold), meaning it is OK to amass some wealth, it is not OK to amass some wives. Not seeing how this in any way condones the king having a harem of sluts.
Yes pretty much exactly this. He had created an entire ecosystem around him at Versailles, built with chambers for favorite mistresses and secret doors to his bedroom and all that jazz. All of which led to gossip, drama and intrigue culminating in the affair of the poisons.
The only point in a huge harem of sl00ts at any one time is an ego trip even if you’re rich and high status attending to too many women would not be fun but just exhausting and annoying. Being an infinitely lustful guy would suck no matter how high status you were since men do not have unlimited endurance for sex (my favorite stripper ever became the serially cheating whore she was because no one man could consistently maintain her general nympho desire to get nailed about 6 times a day). Charles II did not have a harem he had a couple of mistresses at any one time.
The best example of this moral lesson manifesting in reality comes from the rice farmers across the Eurasian landmass.
What is now called China several times had an emperor decide he needed a palace filled with 1000 women. Ended up needing
powerhungry troonseunuchs to manage all the logistics. Ended up having his empire run by women and troons. Ended up having his line extinguished, and the entire empire falling to extremely bloody civil war.Then, right across the sea, grorious nippon has had the same royal family for over a milennium now. I’m sure at many points the emperor, literally god emperor in their case, has had quite a few mistresses, but never an industrial scale harem. The line continues, and at one point the continuity of the imperial line ensured there was a man around to break the deadlocked war council and save the country from an absurd amount of oncoming destruction.
In Musk’s case, it looks like the bastard thing is a response to what happened to Bezos. Until we at least turn back cash and prizes for divorce, him marrying is going to risk everything he’s built. So while he’s more or less forced to have illegitimate children anyway, may as well have them with lots of different women while he’s at it. I think we should focus on fixing that before we bike shed about what level of condemnation or condonation we should apply to talented men fsthering illegitimate children.
Deuteronomy 17:16-17 absolutely does not mean that the King can only have one wife.
Lo yarbeh (shall not multiply, in the case of horses and wives) and lo yarbeh meod (shall not greatly multiply, in the case of silver and gold) acknowledge that the King will have a bit more than one horse or wife — and will be quite rich too — but enjoins not to overdo it.
OK, you are right, I misunderstood the word ‘multiply’.
I will however maintain that insofar as the OT advices ‘a few wives, not too many’, the NT advices ‘one wife, not a few’.
Does the New Testament advise “one wife, not a few”? Paul clearly takes that position for the priesthood, but no seeing it urged for the laity.
Clearly the Old Testament disapproves of large harems, and very strongly disapproves of a rotating collection of sluts, and the New Testament endorses that. But modest harems for laity? Does it say that?
Historical precedent, however, leans more towards Psalm 45:10-11:
Of course, in the first place, we get Kings for our sins.
Not my read of Musk. My read is that the mundane matters of family life infinitely bore him.
Since he builds cars, rockets, satellites and has become one of the most powerful men on earth, understandable. But in terms of fatherhood, call a spade a spade. Musk is not ‘solving the demographic crisis’ or anything noble like that. He is having a bunch of bastard children with barely controlled concubines.
Paul has no end of things to say about controlling lust, avoiding sexual immorality and being faithful to your wive. That he at one point explicitly calls priests to be faithful to their wives is not because he condones concubines for the laity. It is because priests have a leading role in matters of faith and are held to a higher moral standard. Not everyone is expected to live as morally pure. Does not make having mistresses any less sexually immoral, in fact only confirms it.
But lest anyone have any doubt, lets just look at the one and only Matthew 5:27-28:
To which the obvious retort will be: ‘yes alf but it’s only adultery if she’s married!’
OK, let us say married women are chocolate cake, unmarried women are strawberry cake.
You are telling me that eating strawberry cake is perfectly fine, take a slice every week. But chocolate cake? No no no, Jesus tells us that one must not even look at chocolate cake with the intent of eating it!
It is a slippery legalistic argument. Jesus is not telling us when and when we cannot have sex outside marriage; he is telling us that lusting for any woman outside marriage is immoral, and explicitly warns us not to play legalistic word games.
Lol wut? Talmudic post.
Adultery is with a married woman. There are no word games here. That’s the exact meaning in this context.
“Sure he says adultery, but actually he means…” – No, the word choice is deliberate and accurate. Adding Talmudic holiness spiraling won’t magically turn “adultery” into “fornication” or combine them into a single category.
Adultery is a particularly grievous case of stealing. Looking at someone else’s woman with lust in your heart is a particular case of “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”
Fornication is someone else daughter or similar, and while the old testament penalty for adultery was death for both of them, the penalty for seducing or abducting an unbetrothed virgin was indissoluble shotgun marriage (or death if you skipped out on the marriage). Penalty for betrothed was death.
No penalty noted for seducing or abducting an unmarried, unbetrothed non virgin.
You need to look at everything the Old and New Testaments say about sex through the lens of male property rights in women’s sexual, reproductive, and domestic services. And when Paul prescribes monogamy for the priesthood, his emphasis is on demonstrated performance in being a good father, not on sex.
In the chaotic situation resulting from lack of male property rights in women, it is war, and all is fair in love and war.
When you look at a woman with lust, is there a button in your brain that says: ‘she is married so I will not fantasize about her’?
I find that my lust makes absolutely zero distinction. For no man does it make any distinction. If a man lusts over unmarried women, he will lust over married women.
The sin is when you know or reasonably suspect that she is married. Just fantasizing about random women you literally know nothing about — who could literally be just AI pixels on the screen — is not committing adultery in your heart.
I disagree. Obviously there’s degrees of bad, and fantasizing over a woman AI is miles below David banging Bathshesba. But lusting over women outside marriage is just not a positive thing.
“And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee”
If you lust over unmarried women, you will lust over married women. Men who have affairs with unmarried women do not cause nearly as much trouble as adulterers, but would you trust such a man around your wife? Around your daughter?
The fundamental question is whether sexual desire be regarded as sinful except where it is permitted, or as non-sinful except where it deviates in particular pathological directions. I hold the latter view. If no failure mode (private or collective) is activated, not a sin in any significant sense.
Again, your argument is holiness spiralling, and I don’t mean this offensively. Probably it is one of the original holiness spirals – the ‘inversion’ where sexual desire stopped being good except where it is bad, and became bad except where it is good, and then just became bad, period.
For comparison, let’s take appetite/gluttony. Is the craving for food:
1. Always bad?
2. Bad, unless some holier-than-thou type gives you permission to eat?
3. Good, except when you eat excessively or otherwise unhealthily?
Clearly it’s 3. Switching from 3 to 2 is holiness spiralling. Switching from 2 to 1 is insane lunatic frothing at the mouth holiness spiralling, which is what happened on sexuality.
Only 3 is in line with GNON.
Lust for your wife is great, glorious and wonderful.
Lust for women outside your wife is not. And sure, people can have functional marriages when they have affairs, although more often than not, they don’t, and always, their marriage suffers. Which men know in their hearts to be true, for otherwise why are they so secretive about it.
And yet, per se, it is not prohibited in the Bible, and spending too much time thinking about mostly imaginary (literally, occurring primarily in the imagination of the mind) male sexual misbehavior is likely to result in a great big pile of faggots for a priesthood; who would, no doubt, make haste to tell us that all sex is icky, and that Jesus Christ Himself said so in Matthew 5. That’s pretty much how we got here.
I don’t agree with this definition. You are describing something important and extant, but not a nation. A nation, stemming from the same root as natal, implies common blood. For similar reasons, cannot have a ‘white’ nation. You can have a nation wherein all the people are white, but nation implies blood that is fairly close. I would even go so far as to claim the ‘German nation’ is a misuse of the term, but you could say the Dutch nation, as the population is much closer in heritage and blood. If nation is not referring to a tight ethnic group, it means nothing. We already have a word for ‘state’ and I would like to keep at least one word around for a state governed by one ethnic group.
Where did I ever imply this? Whomever you are rebutting here, it is not me. I have never argued for nation building on racial grounds. Let me say however, that while true, you also are never going to build a nation state with 10,000 different ethnic groups from all ends of the planet. What you get is not a breed of man, but a ‘new man’ of the same quality as any of the yellowish indistinguishable street dogs of the third world.
I agree strongly with this portion, but you seem to be far more optimistic about timelines than I, and far more optimistic about stabilizing traits between very distant human breeds. Looks to me like unless you have a few centuries or a very very extreme pruning event, you’re going to get a brown-ish yellow untalented street dog race before you get a border collie.
America is far too large and even its elite class far too genetically diverse to say it is anyone’s nation. Hence the tongue-in-cheek ‘economic zone’ characterization. Hence my saying that if you care about your descendants, you need to think at least slightly like a clan does, think ahead more than one generation, and intermarry with those whom are stable products of breeding over more than one generation. Genes are far more complex than paints, and even paints mixed without caution only create an ugly goop. Needs foresight if we’re not undergoing extreme selection, and that extreme selection as well needs not just individual but group selection. Much of the instinct of government comes from those ages when entire tribes and entire city-states lived or died together, you don’t get such instincts from mere individual selection, and we cannot afford the sort of genocidal war on that scale with current technology. So we have to be extremely cautious about our breeding, moreso than our predecessors.
Been done many times. Aryans were formed from dark haired brown eyed middle eastern grain farmers most closely resembling today’s middle easterners meeting blue eyed red headed hyperborean pastoralists most closely resembling today’s Siberian reindeer herders, who most closely resemble native Americans.
Rome was founded by a very mixed bunch of very poor material (escaped slaves, bastards of camp follower women, and so forth) who were whipped into formidable bunch by firm discipline and a vigorous state religion. Rome’s legendary past is that it was founded during the Bronze age collapse, or immediately thereafter, by armed refugees from Troy. But, according to legend, refugees from all over accreted around those refugees. And we know refugees were travelling long distances all over the place during the Bronze Age collapse. Legend says the refugees from Troy were top quality men, and to judge by results, they must have been top quality men, though we cannot be entirely sure where they came from. They probably were not too sure either. But legend also says that those who accreted around them were dregs from all over the place. Which, given what we know of the Bronze age collapse, sounds right.
Races degenerate fairly quickly due to random mutation. We have fallen a long way from our Victorian ancestors, who had much faster reaction times, and conversed in much longer and more complex sentences, with a larger vocabulary of common words, though we have the great advantage of more accumulated knowledge and much readier access to that knowledge. Dutton is always talking about this. For a race to rise, high selection and differential fertility is what matters. That is how race formation occurs. It is past time to form a new race. Preserving purity without selection and differential fertility is going to get you wiggers, the future depicted in “Idiocracy”.
Rome was hitting the ball out of the park almost immediately. Because they had a capable elite. And, after centuries, capable masses. It was enough that the masses were cohesive, and elite competent. Ethnogenesis followed cohesion, and did not take very long at all. For that ethnos to improve took centuries, but for that ethnos to be, took very little time at all.
We have a picture of wedding between very far flung branches of the Aryan aristocracy, in which significant racial and cultural differences are depicted. The current guess being aristocrats in what is now China from Aryans conquering Europe marrying aristocrats from Aryans conquering what is now India. Yet obviously they were one people with one language, and cohesion within the far flung and extremely mobile aristocracy.
‘Refugee’ can mean very different things in a world where ability to travel and survive to find refuge is itself a highly civ-cap dependent proposition. These inclinations are not adapted to worlds where the ‘barriers to entry’ are nigh non-existent.
As civilizational power advances, man himself must assume the mantle of channeling the laws of divinity that theretofore shaped him without his input.
>Aryans
They had group selection in an incredibly harsh environment, total genocide if they failed, millenia to form a race, and less genetic diversity than America does today.
>Rome
It was Bronze Age collapse. You call them criminals, I call them a collection of militants capable of surviving supply chain collapse, seafaring, and building settlements despite complete adversity. As well, not nearly as genetically diverse as America. As well, lots of cities like Rome must have existed, Rome happened to survive because exceedingly harsh selection. As well, founding population far smaller than America’s elite, founding effects abound. America being founded as an ethne from the settler colonials is comparable to the ethnogenesis of Rome. America of today restoring monarchy more likely to resemble the eastern Rome under Constantine.
>Preserving purity without selection and differential fertility is going to get you wiggers, the future depicted in “Idiocracy”.
Please, I am not talking about purity. You are debating words I am not saying, you are attacking ideas I do not hold. I am saying that a massive gene pool implies so much pruning to get a proper breed, that you cannot formulate it from state policy. It has to be voluntary associations between very intelligent patriarchs with astounding foresight. I am saying the selection cannot be just “he has good IQ”, because IQ is a very rough metric. East Asians have high IQs, Jews have high IQs. Jews do great at symbol manipulation and very far flung inventive creativity, East Asians do great at process optimization. Neither are as good at producing in the physical world as the German, nor as good at running markets and corporations as the Anglo.
You yourself talk about the need to avoid genocidal wars as tech advances. We cannot rely on war for group selection anymore. With tech making living easier, total population capacity exponentially higher, costs of bad coordination lower, cannot rely on the environment for selection anymore. That means the selective pruning has to be voluntary.
Once we start getting off world, then the environment can play a role. Until then, need to have foresight, need to be deliberate. The state is not going to do this, nor should it. The state should be a monopoly on violence, keep the markets open and the roads clear. An economic zone, that allows men of good character and even better foresight, to cooperate enough to refine the biological material necessary for the journey of settling the stars.
Middle easterners plus siberian natives? Seems like a whole lot more genetic diversity than America today.
Because whites are diverse, pruning for purity is not going to get you a proper breed. Far too many wiggers. I far prefer George Zimmerman to fifty percent of whites. When the $#!% comes down, who would you prefer at your side?
History demonstrates you don’t need a “proper breed” for good conduct and social cohesion.
And creating a proper breed requires centuries of harsh culling and differential fertility. Maybe a time will come when we can do it faster and less brutally with gene editing. Dutton has presented loads of evidence that we are getting substantially increasing diversity due to random harmful mutation. Scrutinising ancestry is not going to purge us of spiteful mutants.
If George Zimmerman and Clarence Thomas were men of honor they’d understand the importance the same way we do. Don’t call it repatriation if you like, call it new outposts of the American Empire if you like. One way or another though, there is a clear cardinality to which way the flows should go.
(Should have gone here https://blog.reaction.la/war/autogulpe/#comment-2971850)
>Seems like a whole lot more genetic diversity than America today.
Europeans from the North Sea to Baltic Sea to Black Sea, East Asians, Hindoos from the North and South of the subcontinent, Arabs, Persians, Indios, even Bantus. All these groups have members in america with enough money to be included in a broad umbrella of “elite”, and all these groups are going to have an occasional exceptionally high performing member capable of entering an elite based on formal assessment of ability. Far more diverse than the Aryan event, which once again took millennia, and the best performing extant descendants of that race happen to be where they preferred genocide over enslaving and eventually mixing.
>Because whites are diverse, pruning for purity is not going to get you a proper breed. Far too many wiggers. I far prefer George Zimmerman to fifty percent of whites.
You are sailing right over what I am saying. Please reread what I write. I am saying that the creation of a breed cannot be left to state policy, war, or environmental selection.
You are arguing with a wignat in your head. I am not advocating for purity for purity’s sake. I don’t care about whiteness — beyond instinctual fondness for those most like me, but I am leaving this aside to discuss the ideas at the heart of the discussion — I care about eugenic breeding. Actual eugenics is not just throwing together anyone who happens to be high IQ, for many reasons, but one important one is you are going to get a massive proliferation of traits and very strained cooperation this way.
Let me repeat: we cannot leave the creation of our next race to war, environment, or state policy. That is the point I am trying to get across. We enjoy a time period where war is too costly to wage at genocidal scale, technology makes living too easy to rely on differential fertility, and the body of the elite too large a pool with too many diverse traits to get any good result from mindless rolling of the dice on combination. Therefore the creation of the next ethne must resemble the creation of the ancient citystates. Partriarchs with good foresight must voluntarily assosciate and through daughter exchange and shared way of life end up as one ethnic group. This should preserve enough such that when we leave for Mars, we can get a good founder effect.
Hyperboreans plus middle easterners is more diverse than Europeans plus middle easterners. So the Aryan ethnogenesis event was from greater diversity than we have experienced. If we believe legend and icelandic interpretation of that legend, ethnogenesis occurred through exchange of hostages and daughters.
T,
Yes exactly. Industrial scale harems are stupid and bad for everyone. Fucking and hanging around with a mistress you get along with is joyful… meaningless hookup sex with harem girls you never see again… hookups just suck for everyone involved. And it’s bad for the state and society. Now eugenics industrial breeding of geniuses Musk style may have its place but it’s not optimal fun even for a high status guy.
Also as you mention with a harem you need eunuch tr00ns to guard it since no red blooded girl is going to be content to wait years hoping that maybe the king will fuck her once.
I believe the post you are responding to was written by Fidelis and not by me.
Opps apologies to you both.
BTC is being superceded from multiple angles. [*crypto scammer shilling deleted, as usual*]
Bitcoin was technologically superseded shortly after it was created, but there can only be one. Bitcoin is the one.
The new technologies will need to be introduced as layer twos on top of Bitcoin, and as dao coins and dex coins. Anyone simply attempting to repeat what Satoshi accomplished is a scammer.
Anyone who knows anything about crypto currency is a Bitcoin Maxi. There are a whole lot of ignorant or dishonest, or at least irritating, Bitcoin Maxis, but there are no knowledgeable shitcoin shillers. If the scammers understood what they are talking about, they would not be trying it. They think that Satoshi pulled a big scam, and are forever trying to repeat that scam.
At the same time, never be so Maxi that you forget that Satoshi failed to foresee many evils, notably blockchain analysis and miner concentration, and if you have a lot of money in Bitcoin or a political interest in crypto currency, you should understand something about cryptography, in which case you should realise that advances in cryptography, in large part driven and motivated by the existence of Bitcoin, rendered Bitcoin technologically obsolete rather quickly.
The scaling crisis was foreseen, and crypto nerds have been working frantically on solving it ever since Bitcoin was announced. We now have solutions, which need to be implemented at layer two. Grail is a bridge that can connect to such solutions.
[*crypto currency scamming and shilling deleted*] you expose and contradict your “BTC is the only one” by shilling plural new “dao/dex” “coins”.
[*more crypto currency scamming and shilling deleted*]
Dex coins and dao coins are special purpose coins, like Bisq and Rune. They are not attempting to compete with Bitcoin, but to fulfill a narrow purpose. Similarly Filecoin.
There are cash coins reaching proto-net stage soon. [*even more crypto shilling deleted*]
You guys have been launching these coins since 2011. You have launched thousands of them. What makes these ones different?
If you answer this question, I will allow your reply through.
But you will not, so I will silently delete your reply like the rest of the crypto currency shilling.
Some serious AMOGing and kekking going on in Europe:
JD Vance has nicely-composed pictures taken with his GERMAN security detail before flying out of Germany, not long after taking shit from their boss, the German defense minister.
https://youtu.be/4-eBg7m9Qfk
Also, Hegseth was Early AM Physical Training Posting with some American GI’s in Poland. In his sweats, that fucking stud. He gushed on camera about how much he just admires and LIKES the soldiers, and wants to keep up to their physical standards as much as possible.
“I problem connect more with those guys than with 4-star Generals.”
https://youtu.be/8n39c3hjXPY
Both obvious appeals to the foundational trigger-pullers of Greater Christendom. Amazing to see. Shit’s afoot.
Law and the constitution are ultimately what the commander in chief can sell to the non commissioned officers. And a sales program is under way.
Been reading the discussion on defining “whites” and “whiteness”. Why is it so difficult?
As a non-white myself, here’s my take. There is too much theory. “White” is a distinct and clear race. Maybe the problem is that, the word “white” itself does not depict the actual skin colour and is used only as a convenient label to cover a range. White people are actually different variants of pale pink skin with distinct genetic attributes like blond/brown or red hair with regional variations of course. There are other important genetic characteristics, but these seem to me to be the most important ones.
It sounds very basic, but I think that should be enough.
When I say base skin colour, I mean the colour of the skin when born, not what it transform into after environmental exposure. A white man who spends all his life in the tropics and get burnt to a brownish hue is still a white man if his base skin colour was pink at the time of birth and had predominantly ancestors with pale pink skin.
In a cultural sense you have to restrict it to old Christian/North/West European roots/ancestry. This would include European Russia as well.
Races with a lightish brown base skin colour, rather than pink base skin colour are “white-adjacent” and whether they are included as white will depend on context and their cultural roots of course.
Whites with jet black hair or eyes are rare, but most of those kind of whites have a light brownish base skin colour rather than pink. So whether you include them as white or white-adjacent is just a matter of classification and context.
With mixed-race, it becomes complicated, but have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis and cannot be a general rule to cover all possible racial admixture/variations.
Now whether pure “white nationalism” can be a binding force for a stable Nation-state is another question. I would say race is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Sovereign nations exist only with a State religion and people with a common cultural base; Racial/ethnic homogeneity is an important prerequisite.
The white phenotype is highly correlated with the qualities needed to build a peaceful, prosperous nation-state, which makes whiteness a useful heuristic, a rule of thumb. When you meet a white man who’s not a liberal faggot, with a manly face, a manly voice, and a manly handshake, you know that this is a man who can bring much good to his friends and much pain to his enemies.
But a heuristic can never work as a fundamental organizing principle. You need to select for actual abilities and moral qualities, not “whiteness”.
Obviously if you wondering whether it is safe to work down the street, you should go by phenotype.. But correlation does not cut it when you have do something about individual people.
But in an environment where we actually dealt with people according to the content of their character, all neighbourhoods would be safe. We know that, because it has actually been done and actually worked. And when you are deciding to something punitive to an individual someone who has deep roots in America, then it is just obviously morally wrong to disregard their individual character. George Zimmerman is just obviously of good character.
Obviously we need to select people like George Zimmerman in, and the very white mob protesting Musk “hands off our government money” out.
He is an example of the melting pot actually working. Ancestors from all over the place, raised in white American culture and white American values, fully assimilated to that culture and those values. Meanwhile lots of spiteful mutants with fully white ancestry are degenerating from the white phenotype and rejecting white culture and white values.
It’s amazing to even see ground like this being retread in a place like this…
If our boy George is the postergirl for the heights of castizo inclusivity, what does that say about the Hegseths, the Musks, the Rittenhouses?
For every Zimmerman there is, how many Colin Kaepernicks, Robert Kagans, and Sadiq Khans are there? 1 to 1000 is probably a gross underestimation.
Saw some Chinese astroturf vids on youtube, expat woman going around the subways in some ass-end provincial cities, making a note of how chinese infrastructure even in the middle of nowhere is better than ‘the greatest city in America’ (New York), how everything was clean and beautiful with nice architecture and plant life, bikes just left out by people at work without locks, how even the lowliest Zhong Q. Public can enjoy the benefits of all these nice things, et cetera et cetera.
‘It is a shame how the governments in the west do not prioritize the people’ she says.
‘Prioritizing the people’ would mean a lot of people needing to go; therefore the people are not prioritized. And instead ‘the people’ are prioritized.
It’s easy to see why compromised societies hardly ever end with restoration from within, just long trends down to zero with occasional interruptions. The politically correct choice, in the classical sense of the term, is almost always to pitch your tent bigger than not. Bring more allies on side and your faction carries the day. Safe and reassuring. Expediency wins while generative issues are compromised on, and ultimately never clear the hump of bucking the trend to zero.
“just long trends down to zero with occasional interruptions”
This is true and very demoralizing, even Octavian restoration of Rome was simply a break from collapse that eventually happened.
I wonder if you can do a reset at all.
Obviously Monck and Charles the Second did do a reset. And from that reset we got science, technology, industrialisation, and empire.
He can have one less than, or up to but not exceeding, whatever “many” wives is… with the big prohibitive reason being that “his heart does not turn away”, which also clearly defines what the number “many” is… variable based on effect.
A harem of sl00ts is perfectly fine provided he does not break this law in doing so. Deut17:17
For example:
Muhammad clearly mistake/ignored/broke this verse when he took many wives and regularly went around fucking them all in one night without washing himself in between… he was a sexual degenerate pervert, devoting nothing to the intimate character and purpose of a relationship, and had turned away from the laws to the point that his wives and companions and associated folk were openly complaining about his behaviour and instructions. https://answering-islam.org/
The ethnostate debate in here is getting past its sell-by date, but permit me to advance one more clear and immodest proposal.
1. All criminal aliens are to be deported at the earliest possible opportunity. This includes all illegal aliens, since they committed crimes by entering in the first place, but also all “legal immigrants” convicted of crimes, excluding any obvious leftist political prosecutions. This will remove 30-40 million pop total, and probably at least 20 million scabs from the workforce.
2. Women are only allowed to work if they are married and have already raised a family (i.e. their children are all adults) or if they are incapable of producing children, i.e. infertile or no longer fertile. Combined with “reforms” to the university system, this would shrink the work force by, I estimate, another 50 million or so, although we’ll have to grant that many of them are working in DEI and other useless jobs, so perhaps only half or a third of those will turn into true “vacancies”.
3. Welfare, SNAP and other gibs are going to be cut off, so all men who are currently availing themselves will be given a choice: find a way to earn your keep within 6 months, or take a lump-sum payout and hop on the next plane to Mexico, Liberia, or wherever you please, but it is going to be a one-way ticket. With all the opportunities that will have opened up in the labor force, finding work should be no trouble at all for at least some elements of today’s underclass, and we’ll get to see firsthand which ones potentially bring value (lower value is still value) vs. those that are simply a tax on other citizens.
4. Make deportation a voluntary alternative to convicted non-immigrant criminals as well. Jontavious can have his sentence suspended, or commuted if he is already in prison, if he volunteers for the Liberian Occupational Security Forces. Obviously, returning to U.S. soil would mean being subject to criminal prosecution again.
5. A few million active leftists must be removed as well, to the extent they don’t overlap with the priors. We need to be careful about the Havel’s Greengrocers, but it is not hard to identify many of the worst offenders outside the nebulous margins: those still opposing Trump’s agenda today, permanent-government bureaucrats, founders and members of NGOs, university professors of many stripes, teachers and parents still pushing trannyism on kids, etc.
6. End all low-skill immigration programs including the H-1B, which collectively are probably responsible for a few million more pop if allowed to expire over their typical 5-year periods. Or we could simply pause all immigration, period, for several decades.
Let us make these totally reasonable and – in my opinion, non-controversial – population adjustments, and then see what America’s ethnic makeup looks like. Are the Negroes still an ungovernable criminal underclass, or have many of them returned to their roots doing the domestic chores and farm work that the wetback cartels were monopolizing? Are there any self-identifying Jews even still around, and if so, are they working in professions where they’re in any position to cause trouble? Can the gigantic Indian consulting companies even stay in business without a continuous supply of scab labor, or do most of them self-deport once they see the writing on the wall and fold?
These steps aren’t going to be sufficient in and of themselves; I know that, you know that. But we can do a lot of good in the short term by simply eliminating these confounding factors, demanding that the squabbling ethnic groups do their best instead of rewarding them for doing their worst, and at the end of it we will be wiser, and have a stronger coalition, with a clearer vision of what else might need to be done, and maybe even enough power and political will to enact it.
Surely this is better than fracturing the fledgling coalition over one faction’s vision of Utopia, no?
All of this is totally reasonable, and would accomplish what deporting all Jews and all blacks would fail to accomplish. We have a wigger problem, and this would fix it.
The main thing i’m feeling at this juncture is, it’s notable how a lot of the more ecumenical lines of argumentation implicitly speak as if America is the only civilization on the planet, or as if that this or that set of people have no places of comparable value to take advantage of, or as if they couldn’t hack it anywhere anyways even if they did; which just goes to show the point doesn’t it? Where the people are good (or good enough), the polities exist. Talking about this or that set of people like they are just passive by-standers to history, pieces on a board who can’t make moves on their own, powerlessly subject to the whims of your kind one way or another… just goes to show the point. The clients are damned by the same stroke their patronage is advocated for.
Since we’re just sharing speculation here, I speculate you have a lot of people around you that hate Musk, have been in such an environment for a long time, and so instinctively and mostly unconsciously you’ve found a reason to at least slightly dislike him as well.
The reason I believe this is, a long way back there was some journo hitpiece about how terrible mean and nasty Elon was to his first wife, the one who allowed his son to troon out, and your first instinct wasn’t “I fucking hate journos”. Your first instinct was “this Musk guy is too wild he needs to settle down!”
Well, I fucking hate journos, and so my first instinct was “wow another fucking hitpiece on Musk”.
I have immense respect for what Elon has accomplished professionally. But what he is doing as a father and husband, I dislike, and I have always disliked.
With due respect, Alf, your point seems to indirectly support the blue pilled position though I am not saying that you are blue pilled, but when you ask men like Musk to “behave” you are indirectly supporting the position that bad men like Musk are the reason women misbehave. I know this is not what you say, but the blue pill easily draws this conclusion.
For this reason, I would suggest that, the Right must not *presently* counter-signal on normal sexual relationship between man and woman even outside marriage, because normal sex between man and woman has been demonized heavily by globohomo anyway, and your nuanced point is likely to get lost amidst those who are screaming against heterosexual relationship between man and woman.
Yes, globohomo is dying, but still, we must strongly counter enemy memes on sex, and yes, while adultery and sex/children outside marriage is bad, it is usually the woman who is at fault. Moreso because globohomo has already weaponized sex against men.
I’m not criticizing Musk from a blue pill frame, but from the Christian frame that he is engaging in the kind of pagan sexual immorality Paul warns against.
That said, I really did not intend for this to be a big thing. I just don’t believe we should encourage this kind of behavior, that’s all.
Musk is a man of means, smart, successful, and handsome though obese.
Women’s ovaries throw themselves at him in droves, thousands of them on twitter.
He picks the ones he likes, papers them up beforehand, has as many kids as they want.
Though busy, he has fun hanging with his kids, not rejecting them.
He’s even building a compound for any of the moms/kids who wish to live there for whatever timespan they wish to do so. These moms/kids do well by him, other than their own choice to ruin themselves, which is also why you should paper up beforehand, risk prevention.
He is setting the example of a capable man having a big otherwise respectable family of his own kind and seeding his world as such.
If he wasn’t paying to support them as a man, or wasn’t papering rules to meet his goals, or was an asshole partner/father, or was banging lefty somali crackhoes instead of white nerds like him… then he’d get disrespect.
On the contrary, he is doing what more successful men should do, and have done all throughout human history.
Anyone who argues differently has fallen against Natural Law.
Musk has more options than the common man, and that’s ok.
Same as it’s ok for the common man to settle with one wife and kids according to his means.
As we don’t have access to his internal decision making, we can speculate in two directions
– He wants a normal family but finds the law and culture such that this is impossible
– He just wants a soft harem
You are choosing to speculate on the second, then condemning him for it. When we happen to have normal laws, or at the very least not threat of dismantling his businesses in family court, then by all means condemn him. Until then, seems you are choosing to believe negative things about the man.
He is not exactly trying very hard to have a normal family.
And you would know this, how?
What exactly is he supposed to do to appease you here? If the answer is ‘risk everything he’s built, and the future of humanity leaving for the stars’, I would rather him not do it.
There are many alternatives to divorce rape that don’t include fathering 13 children with 4 women.
He could
– Not have kids
– Work with one at a time until they decide they dont want more kids
He seems to be doing the second. I havent looked closely, are his ‘wives’ ever pregnant at the same time?
Yes they have.
All of this is really no secret. Well the most recent pregnancy was supposed to be a secret, so who knows how many women are really involved. Otherwise Elon is quite upfront with his plan. Get as many high quality women pregnant as he can. He believes he is setting an example for others to follow. But that’s really enough gossipy talk on the man from me, so I’ll shut up about it.
If so, worse than my impression, which was that he was just doing a very rapid serial monogamy thing. I agree with you in principle that it’s not a moral or sustainable situation as a civilizational pattern, even if he wasn’t doing so in parallel, but until we actually have rules about this again, I cannot really condemn him for it. He’s making use of ‘free’ women floating around, and a good portion gery well could have chosen to keep themselves barren had he not gone after them.
Lets win first, then worry about it.
Musk is the one who allowed his soon to be trooned out, explicitly, in writing. Now he makes ridiculous excuses how it’s not his fault.
If what you do is always someone else’s fault, you can commit any evil thing.
son*
It was also supposed to be a reply.