Bitcoin is currently around US$120 000. It very briefly went through that psychological barrier, fell back to US$112 000, and will soon go decisively past US$120 000
Historically, Bitcoin followed a pattern of wild peaks and long depressing falls, but has now decisively broken from that pattern, because everyone wised up. The idiots stopped piling in on the peak, and the wise started buying on the dip.
We now have a lot of lettuce hands, people who when they think they see a wild peak, bolt. With the result that the wild peaks they think they see do not happen, Bitcoin rises slowly and steadily without wild peaks.
in 2014 Bitcoin hit a peak of a $1000, which was completely unjustifiable given the state of crypto currency tech at the time, the abysmal state of actual usage, and the inability to make transactions in reasonable time, but was a justifiable bet on its future prospects.
But this was a wild blow off peak caused by too many idiots with no comprehension or knowledge of crypto currency piling in.
It then fell steadily to the $250, with everyone proclaiming Bitcoin as pet rocks and Tulips. But now it was back on its long term growth path, and the saying “Buy on the dip” came to be widely said, and widely believed, which made each subsequent dip less severe, until now we no longer have severe dips.
It then proceeded to rise slowly and steadily to $2000 in 2017, whereupon we got another wild blow off peak to eleven thousand caused by the ignorant idiots piling in.
At this time, Bitcoin hit its much predicted scaling limit. Fees surged from $0.40 to over $50 and confirmation times spiked, with the result that payment processors were apt to lose your bitcoin, and bitcoin adoption dramatically reversed. Bitcoin was unusable as money, and use as money was the whole idea. The value of Bitcoin is based on the expectation that it will eventually replace fiat — but obvious what we had could not be used to replace fiat.
In 2018, however the level two currencies, liquid and lightning, were introduced to get us past the scaling limit. Bitcoin fell back to its long term growth path, $3 500, and resumed its steady path of growth, based on the expectation that it would replace fiat.
High and fluctuating transaction costs and frequent slow transactions remained a serious though steadily diminishing problem for a long, long time, but the growth of the level twos has fixed that problem, and now transaction times are low, and and transaction fees are around twenty cents per transaction.
Roughly at this time the current enormous horde of crypto currency scammers and shills appeared, promoting their innumerable knocks off the one true crypto currency, Bitcoin.
We now have something like ten thousand scam crypto currencies. Plus the non scam currencies Litecoin, Monero, and ZCash. ZCash recently changed its name, presumably reflecting its latest adoption of bleeding edge tech — I cannot keep track. It still ahead of its time. The latest tech looks insanely great — much as starship looks insanely great on paper, and will be insanely great once Musk fixes explosions on the launch pad and rapid unscheduled disassembly during re-entry. Right now, however, my bet is on Nova and Poseidon over the ristretto-25519 curve, which compared to what Zcash has adopted is less bleeding edge. Ristretto-25519 snarks are large and relatively costly to verify, but if you are using Nova, you only need one snark per block, and all the rest is Nova folds. So it can do what ZCash hopes to do, with technology that is slightly less bleeding edge.
Then in 2021 we got another blow off peak to $60 000, but this time considerably less wild. It then fell to $20 000, perhaps in part because the scaling limit problem did not yet seem solved, but hey, the solutions had only been running for a couple of years, and needed time for adoption.
And since then, Bitcoin has been steadily on its long term growth path, without crazy peaks or frightening crashes.
With the introduction of the Grail Bridge, I expect to see level two Bitcoins running on blockchains with more advanced technology, running on snark based blockchains.
Ideally we want lightning over snark based level twos.
I’ve been shilling Monero for a few years now
https://x.com/tuxpizza/status/1954224730606797146
Monero will very shortly be rendered technologically obsolete by snark based currencies.
But those new snarky things will be currencies one can “port” his existing BTC to, right?
Yes, they will have their own base native currency, in which one can do things like options and futures on the colored coins, and the colored coins will have a cryptographically enforced relationship to level one coins on other chains.
And, repeating, snark chains can potentially scale without limit, to millions of transactions per second. Fast transactions on a snark chain are more difficult. Level one transactions on a very large snark chain doing a very large number of transactions are likely to be rather slow, however I have seen a proposal for lightning on a snark chain that would provide instant transactions without lightning’s liquidity problems. I have not evaluated this proposal but the basic idea is that if the receiver lacks incoming liquidity, what he gets is an instant irreversible commitment to use the incoming money to create a channel.
If the transaction was in level two bitcoin, then lightning on the snark chain is level three bitcoin.
One of the remaining issues comes down to acceptance at the local store. Until Safeway lets me tap/slide my snark card it still does not seem to function as currency. You “Jim” are the 42 second response to lord Satoshi? If you are…
A solution to the problem of slow transactions been known. Lightning was envisaged a long time ago. Lightning has a lot of problems. A better lightning has been envisaged, but the real solution is level three lightning — a better lightning over a better level two bitcoin, operating on a better blockchain.
You are going to respond with a list of the well known problems of lightning, and I am going to delete your list for failure to pass the moderation policy. I know, I know, but we can do better, both in privacy and convenience, especially on top of a level two coin designed to enable us to do better.
If you do pass the shill test in the moderation policy, then I will be happy to discuss the grave and great problems of the existing lightning implementation.
A lot of FUD the past month with Monero being 51% attacked, any insight into that drama?
Jim when you talk about the Grail Bridge you’re not thinking of bitcoinos and their presale? That’s the only thing that rings a bell for me with that phrase. They sponsor podcasts and stuff but never really took it seriously.
And when you talk about placing your bets you mean with regard to the crypto you’re developing personally right, not in a speculative sense of buying projects that use Poseidon?
I have a different take on bitcoin price action, I don’t think it has much to do with tech and adoption. Maybe I’ll push back on that later but for now what are the promising L2’s?
This is an implementation of a 2018 proposal for locking level two colored coins on a snark chain to an existing chain.
Snark chains potentially have infinite scaling. If you don’t understand the cryptography, and most people don’t because the cryptography is really hard, it is all ooga booga noise, drowned out by thunderous noise from shills of scammers.
Do you think cipher disks are still useful for manual encryption?
Yes: Veracrypt. The rest are controlled by our enemies. Microsoft is particularly notorious for incorporating NSA backdoors.
To our “anarchist” White Bread (and Joo Joo Nazis), Jewish subversion is real, but answer this. Who dismantled the West’s Christian State Religion and opened the flood doors to subversion in the first place?
Maybe this video while help you figure out the answer.
https://youtu.be/tMgVWKNNjfE?t=930
To other commenters, I’ve stumbled upon the YouTube channel ‘Wyatt Stagg’. It’s pretty quality analysis of subversion without getting trapped in Joo Joo hysteria. His video’ Michael Jackson: American Golem’ is horrifyingly concise on how extensively demonic the man was. I did not grow up watching or listening to media, so much of the pre-woke rot was not familiar to me. I recommend watching the video if anyone wasn’t familiar with the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udRycb_Uulo
Clearpill (maybe a Whitepill):
Demonic subversion hidden behind illusions are the most dangerous because it’s threats masses don’t see and know about which are the most dangerous.
When the mask came of in the woke 2000s and early 2020s, the demonic nature of the left was laid bare for everyone to easily see
The threat detection of all virtuous men ignited, and they have rallied to the good, the true, and the beautiful. Cthulhu is drifting aimlessly, for it has forgotten how to put the mask back on after freely swimming left for so long.
The most dangerous phase is over. The time to capitalize on it is here and it is. The only risk is that this period of grace isn’t fully capitalized upon.
It’s a Diocletian moment. This sucker is going down, because the fembot liberals run everything. Women are the demiurge. Everything good, true and righteous that men created to build the west is being taken down systematically by women pursuing their own interests at the expense of everyone and everything else.
Men don’t fight back because men don’t compete with women, don’t want to compete with women, and are almost certainly genetically-predisposed to be unable to compete with women (the simp gene).
Patriarchy will return once big daddy gov goes does what they all eventually do, and women realize patriarchy’s not such a bad deal, since men will still be paying and dying for them as usual.
Patriarchy will likely be back in the West (if ever that happens) after non-Western civilizations bring it back in response to the latter’s own fertility crises. The simp gene, like genes in general, is not equally distributed worldwide; I’m waiting for the slant-eyes to wake up, and in China it looks like the ruling elite is now beginning to wake up about at least some aspects of Feminism.
Or maybe simping will prove to be the Great Filter.
Women aren’t going to “realize” that because women aren’t wired that way. They are solipsistic; everything is personal. The world is a truncated hierarchy of power and status as defined by preselection and gina tingles.
A woman may realize that her distinctly patriarchal marriage makes her happy and is therefore a good deal for her, and by extension all other women (such is female logic). But this is merely a private realization, not a major vector of social transmission.
All women already instinctively know that they desire the pimp hand, but biology doesn’t permit them to acknowledge it consciously or openly, because that would be giving away the game, and giving away the game would reduce their chances of attracting the best possible mate. They are compelled by nature to live this personal contradiction and therefore we cannot rely on them to pull us out of the same contradiction at civilization scale.
The part about the simp gene was closer to the mark. Patriarchy will return when either a critical mass of men stop simping due to social unrest, or when population shifts breed out the simp gene pool, or when anti-simping is forcibly imposed on them from above. Although “simping” here should really be “white knighting”. Simping is pretty cringe, but it doesn’t become widely destructive until it escalates into WK.
Simping is really nuts when you think about it. The analogous strategy executed by women to Simping works really well—a woman doing it can often compete as an 8 for the guys that 10s usually get. But Simping as a man is actively punished by women and it’s reasonably obvious that it is. So why the hell do men do it? Seems like they should eventually get it through their head—this isn’t working. I guess it’s the power of pervasive propaganda plus projection.
Projection is a natural error. Women are so different it is hard to get one’s head around them. And when pervasive state propaganda supports natural inclination to vice and error, well, easy way to slide.
Plus, it is a pervasive shit test. Women are always soliciting simping, and always one does not want to have shit test drama, so one fails the shit test, which of course results in double and triple the shit test drama.
Patriarchy will return when big rich gov/welfare state collapses and women decide that personal survival depends on it, at which point they will get with the program. Read Blackstone – that was a better deal for females than males, as always. Women choose and support patriarchy if and only if that is the best option for them personally, and that time is coming again soon. We all know it.
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2025/08/03/the-peasants-guide-to-collapse/
Women don’t “choose” patriarchy. Women aren’t rational economic actors. They don’t “decide on” any of this. It’s not how their brains are wired, and even if it were, the physical power disparity between the sexes would make it completely moot.
What part of this was unclear in the last reply? You are just repeating yourself now, and apparently pushing the purple-pilled/semi-hostile accelerationist meme that we can rely on women to fix themselves if circumstances merely get bad enough. Reality is that there is no natural bottom, except Sodom and Gomorrah or the Seven Kill Stele. Women must have the choice taken away from them for civilization to flourish again.
Indeed, patriarchy is not something a woman can choose, because it is an escape from freedom of choice that imprisons them in Prisoner’s Dilemma. What women can do to escape from being unowned is behave in ways that in the ancestral environment were likely to get them abducted or sold in the slave market.
I was hanging out in a somewhat dangerous place, with a crew of locals to keep me safe. And we went to a bar, where my presence was somewhat cramping their style, for they were attempting to talk in English for my benefit. To my surprise, a crew of white women came into the bar, late twenties, early thirties, so I wandered over to their group, and asked them what they were doing in this place.
Well they were going on a do gooder mission to deliver goodies to poor people who did not have them. And they were going to go from this disquietingly dangerous place to an extremely dangerous place, a Muslim area where the writ of the central government did not run. A place where the locals did not have goodies largely because local merchants would be robbed if they attempted move goods around, so it was hard for the locals to sell their excellent stuff to the outside world, and hard to buy tech stuff from the outside world.
I commented that I would never go there, because I would probably be kidnapped and held to ransom. Their eyes glittered and their cheeks flushed.
Jim, explain to me something with regards to this in the case of Yookay allowing islamic coverture. If women like being property, why do women desperately flee Mohammad’s grasp (after letting themselves get caught initially) when they are being treated like kaffir whores. Shouldn’t they settle down into it or is the Paki simply not man enough to handle Yookay women despite all the squid ink wasted online saying how big and threatening they are?
They don’t. This is one hundred percent propaganda. Observe white converts to Islam. The overwhelming majority are white single women, late twenties to early thirties. The reverse flow is almost nonexistent. The converts to Christianity are majority single males. The converts to Islam are overwhelmingly single women.
When women leave Mohammedanism, it is always converged Islam. Dad sent them to whore school. When women convert to Islam, it is always unconverged Islam.
I don’t think women flee anything like coverture (some do of course), I do think younger hotter women genuinely dislike having strict Islamic dress rules ala Afghanistan and pre MBS Saudi Arabia (my understanding is that the rules in Saudi have been greatly relaxed) while fatter uglier and older women rather like them.
Yes, putting women in sacks is something women really do not like. Coverture encouraged them to dress up, and attend parentally controlled events all dressed up.
I just find it very strange that the framing of it all is under ‘British government covered up pakistan rape gangs’. The Yookay Gov *did* cover it up (but they cover up pretty much everything involving pakis), and they haven’t done anything about it, and everyone uses this as a pressure point attack on Yookay (even Elon Musk). What’s the point of framing it as if innocent angels were taken by the evil crescent if the girls went into it voluntarily? Is it just cognitive dissonance that no one can call it a spade?
They did not go into in voluntarily. But what they did do was engage in extraordinarily risky behaviour with predictable results, and then display a strange reluctance to flee a really bad situation, while being strangely unhelpful to would be rescuers.
The exact same point as framing it as if innocent angels were taken by Jeffrey Epstein and forced against their will to bang powerful men.
Hence my point above about simps being annoying and disgusting, but white knights being truly evil and destructive.
You see? The WQ really is the final boss.
Eveyone knows that Mohammad is sexy because he steals, rapes and gets away with it. Everyone knows that’s why Becky sneaks out at mightnight to get dicked by him. Everyone knows all of this, and they’re scared absolutely shitless, down the marrow of their bones, to say it.
The real “speaking truth to power” is expressing “paki rape gangs” as a WOMEN problem. “The Problem” is that women and girls — female gorillas at loin level — keep throwing themselves at these animals, and the state keeps anyone from doing anything about it. What we need is a frame that accepts the paki’s as given, and points its fingers at the girls and women instead.
“It was on the tip of everyone’s tongue. Tyler and I just gave it a name.”
Banger.
Michael Jackson was clearly a bit mentally ill and probably being a child star was raped by faggots a lot as a kid and sure used to push a proto gay race communism agenda. Madonna was more willingly and consciously demonic. That being said at least they both made good music which I can’t say about say about Taylor Swift or really anyone making music today (why the fuck is she still popular I’ve yet to hear one catchy song from her its been over a decade).
Jackson and Madonna belong to the last generation that wrote at least some of their hits by themselves. Today’s stars are all in the Brezhnevist Soviet “VIA” (vocal instrumental ensemble) tradition, with everything being written by someone else.
Taylor Swift can’t sing. Her voice is lackluster (unlike her looks), and her lyrics (written by some “pro”) sound like a 5th grader girl writing down her insights about life in a diary. All of today’s Top 50 is either depressingly derivative, or repulsive (I see Post Malone on the screen I instinctively reach for my metaphorical holster)or simply lifeless and sloppy.
It makes sense why so many youngsters listen to K-Pop. It may also be derivative, but at least it’s made with a real passion for the craft, the best songs designed like an old-timey Swiss watch, instead of just throwing together some boring beats and sloppy bleats.
Miley Cyrus has talent, vocal-wise, but when you compare her version of ‘Jolene’ to the original by Dolly Parton, you can clearly hear the difference between a talented voice that bears audible traces of a multitude of gangsta cocks and high potency bongs, and a voice that at most has the traces of a bit of booze and some old-timey non-violent blowjobs.
The last glimmer of authentic and non-warped talent in western pop music was probably somewhere circa 2005 – 08.
And, of course, even banal vintage hits like ‘Smooth Operator’ or ‘Rhiannon’ sound like Beethoven or Sibelius, compared to today’s assembly-line slop. Such are the times.
> Michael Jackson was clearly a bit mentally ill and probably being a child star was raped by faggots a lot as a kid
Macaulay Culkin, with his “joke band” called The Pizza Underground. When someone guarantees him his safety in a convincing way, this dude will surely have tales to share. For now he’s only on record being adamant that Jacko was basically the only decent guy in the whole scene.
Despite it not being all that bad of an album, I still bear a grudge against Thriller given how much the media shoved it down our throats constantly in the early 80s. It was the camel’s nose in the tent with rap following hot on its heels. How they howled and hollered that MTV was too white, and the white(ish) musicians began to trip over each other to support sub-Saharan causes, not least of which was muh Apartheid.
There was a lot of fake and gay going on in the 80s, and poor Michael was the poster child for it. I prefer to remember him for his album Off the Wall:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUDvEcNU2l0
Hey Bellum Imperialis – how are you doing.
>To our “anarchist” White Bread (and Joo Joo Nazis), Jewish subversion is real, but answer this.
Sorry, this place is an echo chamber not a serious forum for discussion. As soon as I start telling too much of the truth I will be deleted. And anyway I never spoke of your (beloved) joos in terms of subversion.
But OK, I watched the video. First, I remember that inception movie as retarded hollywood garbage. The only “message” I get from it now is that the bad guy is japanese, so the movie is anti-japanese, jew hollyood garbage – and meaningless beyond that. Second, the interpretation the guy makes of the movie is rambling nonsense as far as I’m concerned. Lastly he ends whining about “liberalism” “subverting” “western civilization”, which of course I regard as the non plus ultra of nonsense.
No one gets deleted for telling what they think is the truth. You get deleted for unresponsive repetition. After you have told the same “truth” too many times without responding to other people’s critical discussion of your “truth”, then you will be deleted.
You are claiming “censorship” as an excuse for not responding to critical discussion. It is the other way around. If you don’t respond to critical discussion, and just say the same thing over and over again, you get deleted for spamming.
Obviously liberalism is subverting western civilisation. How can you deny that liberalism is a murder suicide pact after seeing this?
The friendly mask has fallen off, revealing a murder suicide pact. Evil destructive and self destructive conduct is valorized, resulting in self destruction. They want to knock over our applecarts so that they can snatch up some apples.
The liberal project is to liberate us from the bonds of history, race, culture, family, and morality. If each man is liberated from the bonds of history, race, culture, family, and morality, each man perishes alone.
You keep repeating that, and I keep saying it’s a misrepresentation. If I keep repeating myself, it would be grounds for deletion. So you can have the last word. Because this is…an echo chamber.
Nah, I am going to let you have the last endless repetition, since giving myself the last word would be even more repetition. So if deleted, you are guaranteed to have the last word unless other commenters chime in. My last word will merely be something like “You said this before. Too many times.”
If it is an echo chamber, it is because anyone who disagrees has their script, which script was written by someone who has no idea what other people are saying here. I am happy to have debate — if it is debate, and not a script from which you are unable to deviate, and therefore unable to make relevant response to those who dispute your script.
Your line is that you cannot make relevant response because it is going to be censored. If that was the case, nothing you posted would have been seen in the first place.
You are defending liberalism as obviously correct. Seem obviously malicious, destructive, self destructive, hateful and self hating. The mask has fallen off. Since not obvious that liberalism is correct, especially now after everything that has gone down, needs explanation and justification.
From the beginning, liberalism wanted to liberate us from history, culture, tribe, race, family, and morality. Now we know what liberation from history, culture, tribe, race, family, and morality looks like.
So, I invite you to explain what you presuppose as obvious.
>Your line is that you cannot make relevant response because it is going to be censored. If that was the case, nothing you posted would have been seen in the first place.
I already acknowledged that you have allowed me to make relevant responses, but, you also tend to ignore the responses hence the repetition. I’ve also seen that in some cases if things
>From the beginning, liberalism wanted to liberate us from history, culture, tribe, race, family, and morality.
Liberalism is a moral system based on natural rights. It doesn’t liberate you from morality at all. Likewise a free society requires a liberal culture – so it can’t liberate you from culture. Race and morality are unrelated as far as liberalism goes, but that doesn’t “liberate” you from race – what would “liberation” from race even mean.
Yes liberalism sides with individuals against groups. I don’t want to be ruled by the socialist mob, I don’t know about you. And I don’t want to be ruled by the conservative mob either. Or the technocratic mob – take a look at the Lewis quote I posted.
Sorry, left a sentence unfinished above. Meant to type this
“I’ve also seen that in some cases if things get too out of hand you accuse people of being dishonest or unresponsive, which might be true, or just an excuse for deletion. “
The natural rights of the individual. Which means, among other things, that marriage has no rights, that family has no rights. Which means that men don’t get sex, women don’t get love, and no one gets grandchildren. Marriage 1.0 is inherently illiberal. Marriage is illiberal. Family is illiberal.
And it is based on the universal rights of the individual. But some people are less fit than others to exercise some rights, and some people are natural slaves. Which means that your universal human rights tend to get redefined downwards to the lowest common denonimator, the rights of a slave. If you allow plains apes the equal right to keep and bear arms, you have a problem. If tribes and faiths have rights, the millet system, easier to accommodate differences.
If straights and gays are equally entitled to universal human rights, and state should make no distinction between worshippers of Christ and worshippers of Satan, then what is wrong with this picture:
Obviously liberalism is subverting western civilisation. How can you deny that liberalism is a murder suicide pact after seeing this?
If individual human rights, what is wrong with drag queen story hour?
And I am repeating myself, wasting space and boring our audience. This is an indication that you are not responding. “A system of individual rights” sound great. It sounds like pink unicorns farting rainbows. But here we are. We have a system of individual rights and it is grotesquely and brutally oppressive. Similar to the rules based international order where Harvard, the New York times, and US State Department make up the rules as they go along.
So stop just replying “pink unicorns farting rainbows”. when we are being swarmed by rats, cockroaches, spiders, leeches, and tics.
If universal human rights are so great, where are the missing grandchildren and what is wrong with drag queen story hour?
“universal individual human rights” is code for war on history, race, culture, civilisation, and family. It is an attack on the substrate of our existence. We can only be free within a framework that meets our spiritual needs.
And I continue to repeat myself, because I don’t see you responding:
The liberal project is to liberate us from the bonds of history, race, culture, family, and morality. If each man is liberated from the bonds of history, race, culture, family, and morality, each man perishes alone.
Your reply seems to be “No that is not the liberal project”. Well. Just look. Are you telling us that is not the liberal project? If that is what you are telling us, say it out loud.
Obviously the family has a property right in members of the family. And the family is represented by the man of the family, which is not quite the same thing as the man of the family having an individual property right in members of the family, though it comes mighty close. A corporation has a property right in its factory, and this property right is exercised by its CEO, but he does not personally and individually own the factory, and similarly the man of the family does not personally and individually own the members of this family. “Individual rights” denies the property rights of collective entities in people, but without those property rights of collective entities in ourselves, each man is alone, helpless, and then devoured.
The liberal project was always to knock over the applecarts of the privileged so that liberals could grab some apples. But now we are out of applecarts, and out of apples.
Individual rights in physical property are the bedrock of our society, history culture, and civilisation. But individuals have to interact with other individuals, and then the concept of individual rights gets weaponized to destroy interactions that some people don’t like. And they really really don’t like the way men interact with women. I was watching Matty Bites you tube channel (not because it is watcheable, it is estrogen drenched and full of progressive delusion, but for insights into why women keep voting for people who hate them, and insights into female sexual nature and female sexual delusion)
Matty writes romance comics, and is terribly troubled that “problematic” romance comics are so popular. And her viewers, who are undoubtedly all female except for me, tell her to keep on reading a webtoon that she dismissed as problematic.
So she reviews it:
The story she reviews is that the male love interest kills protagonist’s entire family, except for the protagonist, whom he marries, under circumstances where it is made clear that she marries him, or dies. He then has sex with her, but tells her he hates her, and acts like he hates her. The protagonist decides that not being killed was the wrong choice, and keeps trying to commit suicide, and the male love interest keeps trying to keep her alive and starts to display obvious concern for the protagonists welfare and psychological state — starts to cherish her. And pretty soon our reviewer totally has the hots for the male love interest, and is explaining to herself and her audience why he was totally right to kill the protagonist’s entire family for good progressive reasons and really kind to to marry her at gunpoint for good progressive reasons, and has forgotten that the webtoon was problematic. No, the reason for the protagonist’s suffering is her own insufficiently progressive character flaws, not her husband’s cold mistreatment.
Women think they want this individual human rights nonsense, but it is obvious that it makes them unhappy. The problem is that women just don’t like consensual sex. Hence most of the successful comics in the market Matty wants to sell to are “problematic”, even though she is all fired up to write stories that are properly progressive.
>> Liberalism is a moral system based on natural rights.
>The natural rights of the individual
So now you admit liberalism is a moral system, something you denied in your previous post. And yes rights have to be individual rights. We exist as individuals and act as individuals, hence individual rights.
And the question is, what kind of discussion can one have with somebody who contradicts himself like you just did.
>The problem is that women just don’t like consensual sex.
Women prefer rough sex and want to be treated as fuck toys. That said, men and women can form families on a voluntary basis. And frankly human reproduction is something that operates at a base instinctual level. It doesn’t need to be planned by conservative social engineers and it isn’t affected by invidivudal rights.
Anyway have fun making up bullshit about what liberalism is.
You are now on moderation for being unresponsive. Sacrificing children to Satan is also a moral system.
And so is a murder suicide pact.
The problem is that this moral system is grotequely and shockingly immoral.
I have been arguing that Liberalism is a murder suicide pact, and you will not even acknowledge the argument I have been making. You write as if I never said what I said, so I said it again.
If I just keep on saying it again and again, this debate is going to lose me audience. So, you are on moderation for unresponsiveness and arguing from false consensus. You presuppose that I agree with, that we agree with, that everyone agrees with, things that I have vehemently disagreed with over and over and over again.
Repeating my disagreement is a waste of space that is boring everyone.
I asked you to explain why satanist drag queen hour is not liberalism and individual universal natural rights.
You will not respond, so I will answer my own much repeated question. Obviously it is liberalism and universal individual natural rights, the slight of hand that makes natural rights into unnatural rights being “universal” and “individual”. Natural Rights cannot be universal, for some men are natural slaves, and some vitally important rights cannot be individual, so this slight of hand is a depraved and malicious attack on natural rights vital to our existence, among them an attack on the rights of family, represented by the husband and father, which attack prevents sex, family, and reproduction.
Since you are now on moderation, you will doubtless complain I am unfairly giving myself the last word. No I am not. If you respond to any of the points I have made, it is going through, and will probably lead to you being white listed. You are on moderation not for saying stuff I don’t like, but for not saying stuff, leading to endless repetition that drives away the audience.
I ask you gotcha questions, and you ignore them — which would be OK if you had responded relevantly, rather than by explicitly denying that I made the point that I have made far too many times already: “so you admit that …” And supposedly I admitted the opposite of what I have been saying over and over and over again. And I just go on saying it over and over again because you ignore what I have been saying over and over again.
Because you are unresponsive and repetitious, this debate will go on forever and bore everyone.
The appropriate response to a gotcha question is to address the question by explaining what is wrong with it. For example you could have argued that the family courts, drag queen story hour, child protective services, and all that, are not liberalism. Well, they are certainly not natural rights, but that is because natural rights are not universal and not individual. the family courts, drag queen story hour, child protective services, and all that, are indeed “universal” and “individual” natural rights, being attacks by state power on the family made in the name of the individual.
> For example you could have argued that the family courts, drag queen story hour, child protective services, and all that, are not liberalism.
You have already pretended in the past that things like DEI are liberalism and I have already denied it, so no point in keep knocking down your straw men.
> Well, they are certainly not natural rights, but that is because natural rights are not universal and not individual.
Sure. Because your own theory of natural rights says so. And, you can “enforce” your theory by censoring anybody who disagrees with your baseless theory.
Anyway, Jim, I know you are an intelectual fraud, you know you are an intelectual fraud, so this little game is over.
You can deny it, because you are a shameless blatant repetitious liar, but I presented compelling evidence and argument that DEI and all that is liberalism, that failure of the state to castrate children who can be induced by the state to agree to it is an unprincipled exception to liberalism and always was, that classic liberalism is just liberalism with more unprincipled exceptions than postmodern liberalism.
In this forum you are not permitted to merely deny your interlocutor’s argument, you have to present a counter argument, or people just keep repeating the same arguments they have already made over and over and over and over until you and I lose my audience.
I have already repeated my argument far too many times, and you have repeated your denial far too many times. You have to make an argument, or I am just going to put you on the ignore list and never see anything from this email address ever again.
Briefly summarising my argument yet again: Natural groups have natural rights also, rights over individuals, and “individual rights” are used by liberals to smash other people’s applecarts by weaponizing the state’s protection of individual rights, such as the right of children to have their dangly bits chopped off or chemically destroyed, and then the liberals get to snatch up some of the apples rolling around.
No, you just asserted it. [*this is the last time you are going to ignore my argument, and the last time I am going to repeat my argument. I have repeated it far too many times already, and everyone must be getting bored to the back teeth*]
Repeating my argument for the final time, though doubtless everyone is sick of it:
If individual and universal natural rights, then no collective rights and no customary rights.
If no natural collective rights, then no families, no faiths (except liberalism), no tribes, no nations.
Because no faiths except the one state faith of liberalism, the totalitarian propensities we saw in the twenty first century.
Because no families, the family courts, child protective services, drag queen story hour, and all that.
As I repeatedly asked asked, and you repeatedly failed to answer, if universal rights, including drag queens, and the state should not distinguish between satan worship and Christianity, then what is wrong with a Satanist trannie conducting a satanist drag queen story hour. Come on. Tell us how a liberal state can discriminate against drag queen story hour and satanist drag queen story hour without being illiberal. Tell us. I asked before, and now I ask again.
If no customary rights, then a whole lot applecarts can be smashed. Lots of apples rolling around. The US constitution starts developing “umbras” and “penumbras”.
If individual rights, then the state must protect the right of teachers to engage in high pressure salesmanship to persuade children to volunteer to have their dangly bits cut off or chemically poisoned, and the right of children to agree to have them cut off.
What is a family but the right of children to be cared for by their parents, and the right of parents to command and discipline children? And thus the duties of parents and children. So families are illiberal.
What is a marriage but the right of the husband to obedience, sex, and children, and the right of a wife to care, guidance, supervision, and children. And thus the duties of wife and husband. So marriage is illiberal.
A family has a collective right over the individuals that compose it, and the corresponding duties are severely unequal. So illiberal.
White bread was, it turned out, an obviously shill. So, I reviewed his comments to see what he was shlling:
The wagon he was pulling behind “hail fellow right winger, you are not right wing enough, Trump is not right wing enough, I hate Jews and women more than you do” is that the only thinkable or imaginable positions are some form of leftism, of which classical liberalism is the least left, and if you disagree with classical liberalism, you must be supporting something lefter, such as communism. None of his responses or comments noticed that most of us here are reactionaries, and that reaction is not a somewhat less left form of leftism — this is the classic shill tacting of drowning out an enemy position with posts that ignore the existence of the enemy position, rather than arguing against it.
So who is it that wants to push the right towards accepting classical liberalism — complete with trannies and gay marriage, like the remarkably well funded rightism of “Based Camo”
Well, obviously Thermidor. But wait. If he is Thermidor, then what is it with all the pro Putin comments? Well, much the same as the Joo Joo Joo comments. Just as he hates the Joos but is strangely unable to notice any powerful evil Joos doing evil things, he was pro Putin with a strange and complete lack of awareness of any reasons for being pro Putin.
Similarly, absolute no awareness that the war was lost, which one would think rather relevant to discussion of Trump/Putin negotiations. The war was lost in 2014. In retrospect, it is clear that Thermidor had no expectation that Ukrainians could win, they merely intended to feed every Ukrainian male into the meat grinder in order to attrit Russia somewhat, and they would finish the job with soft power, after a bit of hard power softened Russia up, and then resume looting Russia like the 1990s all over again.
Obviously the shill test needs adjustment to block Thermidorian shills. I have no past experience with Thermidorian shills. Always before the JooJooJoo shills were arguing that capitalism is Jewish, Christianity is Jewish, Trump is a Jew, Musk is a Jew.
And here comes the idiotic and shameless word-lawyering, right on cue. You know full well that there is a difference between “making claims about morality” and “being morally good/righteous”. You only pretend not to know so that you can shift the focus from the substance of the debate to picking apart words and definitions, and hope that no one notices what you did, or how you just comically failed the WQ test.
>Women think they want this individual human rights nonsense, but it is obvious that it makes them unhappy.
Not according to this poll.
“Some of the world’s happiest countries, such as Iceland, Finland, Sweden and Norway, are also the most gender-equal,”
“The index, which is evaluated via a Gallup World Poll, asks people in more than 150 countries to rate their happiness on a scale of 1 to 10 via questions addressing everything from freedom to making life choices…”
“Studies from the University of Eastern Finland show Finnish women experience greater life satisfaction and a stronger sense of meaningfulness than men…”
https://www.smh.com.au/traveller/inspiration/want-to-know-the-secret-of-the-world-s-happiest-country-ask-its-women-20250813-p5mmpk.html
A major tenet of Game is that women’s own statements about their attraction patterns are not reliable.
Cf. Daddy Scarebucks above:
“All women already instinctively know that they desire the pimp hand, but biology doesn’t permit them to acknowledge it consciously or openly, because that would be giving away the game”
“what kind of discussion can one have with somebody who contradicts himself like you just did.”
If you think there’s no point in discussion then leave.
Concerning happiness and measuring it. Sociological polling does work in many fields, when carried out properly and in good faith, and does not in others, or rather it does, but as propaganda, not as an instrument to measure reality.
Asking people “are you happy”, especially certain specific groups, is like asking people “are you the reincarnation of Napoleon”. If in a given city twenty or thirty people answer “yes, I am the reincarnated Napoleon”, this will not mean that you have discovered twenty or thirty reincarnated Napoleons, and to argue that you have, is obvious bad faith.
“Happiness” (in the everyday secular sense) can be measured scientifically either directly in laboratory settings, or through secondary data. The laboratory settings will show certain hormonal levels, muscle relaxation, bioelectrical changes, and brain wave changes. A lack of a chronic fight or flight reflex pattern in the body’s functioning. Calm and well-functioning adrenal glands, etc. Secondary sociological data, if honest, will add variables like antidepressant use, alcohol abuse, recreational drug abuse, porn addiction levels, and so on.
Thus, when someone needs on a daily basis a handful of antidepressants and a bottle of gin to dull the desire to kill themselves this very instant, and they answer “yes I am happy”, you have not discovered a happy person. You have discovered someone who does anything they can to dull their perception of life because it is torture to them.
Likewise, if someone is constantly maintaining a manic phase through stimulants and hypersexual freaking, and they say “I am happy”, you have also not discovered a person who is happy, but rather someone who is drowning out their daily agony through constant overstimulation.
Thirdly, if someone is constantly barraged from all sides, since childhood, with aggressive messaging “you are happy, you are happy, you are happy”, and when asked they automatically repeat this message back at you, you have found a person who could be truly happy, but much more likely is simply a person who has been successfully brainwashed and conditioned.
Frequently, of course, you discover people who are all three at once: dulling themselves during the day with antidepressants, going into manic mode at night with speed, booze, and sex/porn, and under constant conditioning about how happy they are.
Hence, if a specific population cluster declares “we are happy”, and the secondary sociological characteristics show behavior patterns that *do not* include constant drugging and freaking, and are not the targets of constant conditioning, then there is a high chance that they are telling the truth.
If, however, the population cluster that says “we are happy” has high prevalence of drug abuse, frequent alcohol benders, regular episodes of hypersexual mania, and are the victims of constant conditioning, then what you have discovered is rather people who are one completely broken down, but programmed to parrot “I am happy, I am happy”, even as they gulp down their third xanax with their second bottle of wine.
Add to this certain biological imperatives (being part of a stable family, having children, not killing your unborn children, owning a home, being in good health, having some century-old matrix to help them not lose themselves etc), then these are additional, human nature – based metrics to see if these people are “happy” or actually happy.
When trannies, for example, say that they do not regret their transition, and that they are very happy, but need Xanax, MDMA, poppers, opioids, a gallon of whiskey, echo chambers, and five hour gooning sessions just to keep from hanging themselves, are atomized individuals who feel existential dread every second they do not maintain constant sensory overload, this would be an obvious case of people who are deeply and utterly unhappy, yet constantly claim that they are.
As we can see even just by the crude single-variable antidepressant rate use in Europe — https://www.euronews.com/health/2023/09/09/europes-mental-health-crisis-in-data-which-country-uses-the-most-antidepressants — most if not all countries that tend to say “we are the happiest” are in fact saying “we are the most chemically lobotomized”.
>Some of the world’s happiest countries, such as Iceland, Finland, Sweden and Norway,
Highest quality of life, maybe. Happiest? Lol. Have you ever met a Scandinavian, much less a Finn? These ratings don’t ever even try to measure happiness directly. They look at a bunch of measures that they assume should make people happy: GDP, leisure hours, safety, education, etc. If you think there’s a 1% chance the average Finn is happier than the average Italian, or even the average Filipino, you’re out of your mind.
“Individual human rights”. Huh.
To my right is a local newspaper with a picture of an anti-National Guard protest in Washington DC. Because of course.
At the front of the crowd some Karenesque “public servant” walfare cases carry a professionally-crafted banner that says “FREE DC”.
And that’s very interesting to me. Free for whom? Free to do what?
I for one identify with the poor sap having to smell piss on the bus, or paying for makeup and shampoo that I WATCH meth heads carry out of the drugstore. So if that National Guard were there to catch these people and beat them with rubber hoses, I would feel much more “free”.
This “human rights” stuff always ends up as anarcho-tyranny. The “freedom” always ends up with the 70-IQ crackhead nigger Karen clients with 95 “arrests” who rule the city like omnicient princes anyway.
“FREE DC”. I wish a nigga WOULD.
A revealing and clarifying moment.
Wonderful comment, great summary of the general uselessness of outright asking people if they are happy. Never trusted that kind of research.
It’s like asking people if they think they are smarter than the average person – surprise surprise, 80% of people think themselves smarter than average.
It’s like asking people to rate how technologically advanced their nation is – surprise surprise, plenty of backward countries will rate themselves like Wakanda, revealing not technological prowess but ethnonarcissism.
IQ is tested by IQ tests such as puzzle solving, tech is tested by examining tech levels such as most amount of recent visits to space. Not by asking people’s opinions on them. And for happiness, same thing.
I don’t believe they asked. The results of the report were clearly predetermined: The more democratic socialist the country, the happier they must be, and should they say otherwise they must be wreckers and kulaks.
Nothing from official sources can be believed. Official sources are still singing the same old song on Covid and the Ukraine war.
The World Happines Report blatantly lies.
For instance, looking at the 2025 report on page 34, we are shown the worldwide ‘Trends in Benevolence’. Sub Saharan Africa in particular drew my attention, in which the authors claim that there was a chance of 70% that a local would help a stranger. Which is absolutely ludicrous, unless what is meant is that the locals would help you get rid of everything valuable you have.
In the infamous travel report, ‘Josephine and Frederik drive through Congo’, the protagonists’ car gets stuck on the shitty roads several times, and they have to dig it out. Each time, locals come and watch them. Each time, instead of helping, they just watch and ask for money, and it is obvious that should the protagonists walk away from the car for even a moment, the locals would have stolen everything inside it. Perhaps these locals have neglected to read the World Happiness Report? 🙃
Very memorable report and well worth reading. (Though it was also an insanely risky trip when you zoom out and think about it.) The helpful Belgian monks hanging out in the middle of nowhere gave it an Apocalypse Now vibe.
I know I’m getting a Toyota Landcruiser if I ever somehow get into this scenario.
https://forum.expeditionportal.com/threads/democratic-republic-of-congo-lubumbashi-to-kinshasa.50799/
FUNDED? Do you really think so? Anyone else?
Maybe funded without their knowledge, or “funded” just at the motivational level by boosting their channel on YouTube to gas up their ambitions, sell more of their books and get them invited to more Thiel Orbiter parties?
They do come off as limp-wristed and genetically successful BAP’s. They’ll talk about all kinds of things EXCEPT the WQ and Infinigger. They’ll say that Israel is cool, but also that “racism is bad mmkay”.
I mean I shouldn’t be so naive. Grow up, Bix. Anything kinda-sorta online-popular is somebody’s op somehow.
(Oh and by the way: Steven Molyneux is back.)
They mention that someone donated $500 000
Obviously not funded by the usual suspects. They are genuine rightists. I am not complaining. Except when a shill shows up on my blog.
St. Efan is back on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/@stefanmolyneuxx
Search does not autocomplete his name, but it did take me to his channel. Noice.
Speaking of Youtube, saw a recent pro-ICE video by Razorfist that not only is still up but also monetized. Strange days, indeed.
Based camp aren’t feds they are just convert progressives with a lot of lingering enlightenment views unfortunately and the guy is not naturally all that masculine. Feds exhibit at least one of the following behaviors
1) Urging to commit ill advised criminal acts of some kind
2) Urging divide and conquer all the time (mostly what Nick Fuentes and his idiot followers do)
3) Mostly telling the truth and not causing trouble but using the credibility to urge something disastorous at key moments (its hard to tell the difference between this and just being wrong).
Obviously based camp are not feds. They are good guys. But their big issue is the fertility crisis. They tell the truth about the Red Pill, they recognise that prisoner’s dilemma is obstructing reproduction, but somehow are unable to draw the obvious conclusion: That the state, society, Church, and family has to shut down female defection. That miss average has to be forcibly restrained from fucking mister one in thirty.
That’s literally the Shillish phrase for “I am a shill”.
No one but a shill ever makes this protest. Ever. If a normal person, who is not a shill, finds himself persistently outside the overton of window of some community and therefore of low status within that community, he either (a) conforms, (b) leaves or (c) limits his participation, usually to an observational role (lurking).
There are only two groups of people who refuse to quiet down after repeated reprimands, and instead seek to forcefully impose their own communication standards by way of incessant whining (carefully worded to sound prideful and indignant, but shameful whining in reality): Shills, and Karens. And you obviously aren’t a Karen.
“But muh Twitter” – yeah, I’m aware of the apparent irony here, but the difference is that Twitter advertised itself as an absolute free speech zone and then started censoring in a classic bait and switch, whereas Jim’s blog is obviously moderated and has never claimed to be otherwise.
Free speech is impossible except on a moderated platform, because if you talk about something that the state does not want you talk about, you will be drowned out by an army of shill astroturf exercising the heckler’s veto. Thus was Usenet destroyed. I watched it happen.
I expound on this problem at length in “social networking“, and link to others who fought the unmoderated free speech battle for longer than I did. I think they were slower to realise what they were up against than I was. Normality bias.
abstract: Speech is suppressed by censorship, and on “free speech” platforms by state sponsored shill spam. Crypto currency transaction metadata goes over insecure networks, so we need a secure, uncensorable, and spam resistent Web 3.0 both for freedom of speech and economic freedom.
Your proposal is also (appropriately) oriented around closed communities and intransitive or minimally-transitive relationships. Meaning, people you don’t know at all cannot insert stuff into your feed, and even friends of friends cannot appear in your feed unless your first-degree friend reposts them, and then only that specific post will appear.
The ability to limit interactions with strangers, and to completely eliminate interactions with outright nuisances, is a critical element of censorship-free social networks. Enforced, always-on whitelisting eliminates the majority of rewards for parasitic behavior, especially sock puppetry – there’s no benefit to a million sock puppet accounts that no one sees or hears.
Yo. I just realized that Infinigger is the “shill spam” of physical existence. We need freedom to “censor” — or at least to moderate — in the infosphere, and also in physical space.
It’s the exact same shit.
Haha good take.
>That’s literally the Shillish phrase for “I am a shill”.
Whose shill am I, in your opinion.
Joo joo joo shilling has as far as I can tell mainly been an FBI thing and still is because Nick Fuentes since J6 is an FBI asset.
My perception is that Nick Fuentes has been an FBI asset from the beginning. A lot of good people facing years of imprisonment under harsh conditions were turned in J6. Pretty sure Nick was not one of them. Always in the enemy’s pocket from the beginning.
Probably yes but DEFINITELY since J6.
18 months ago I had some discussions and debates about crypto with Jim and a few other commentators.
As I recall it was mostly collegial and a good conversation, though I’m a bit out of the mainstream here. For example I use Ethereum daily, and don’t hate it.
But one thing about the conversation was that sometimes I would write a pretty long post, and Jim would quickly reply with a few lines.
I would reply again with a long post.
Then Jim would edit his formerly short post, fleshing it out and sort of responding to my second post.
Or, I would reply to Jim’s short post with another short post, and then he would expand on his, so it looked like my short post ignored 99% of the substance he had brought up
To someone reading the thread after the edits, it would look like I was– not repeating things Jim had already said, not being unresponsive exactly– but it made me look worse for sure. Sometimes my second post would end up looking like quite a non sequitur.
I didn’t complain at the time, and in that particular conversation I’m sure Jim’s edits overall made the thread better reading for anyone who was following. Likewise I’m not defending White Bread here or anyone else in particular who comes up short in a debate in the comments. A lot of what I said 18 months ago doesn’t look so great today.
But in a more adversarial conversation you can imagine how frustrating even small edits might feel. Like a reality TV show where they reshoot the scene with just the star, letting him appear to land great comebacks he only thought of later.
“I will repeat again that these four occurrences are the only places [in Scripture] where Strong’s Hebrew #3610 [כלאים, kilayim] is used, and from the King James Version it is rendered once as “seeds” at Deuteronomy 22:9 [where it is actually “divers seeds”], and three times as “diverse kind”, “mingled seed” and “mingled” at Leviticus 19:19. But, the King James Version cannot always be trusted, so we will turn to the lexicons for a better understanding of the original languages (in this case Hebrew, Arabic & Ethiopic). Sometimes, when the lexicographers can’t find a root word in Hebrew, they will often turn to the Arabic because of the similarity of the two languages.”
https://christogenea.org/comment/98
Do you see the linguistic problem? Note: using an alphabet that has been developed by another people is not nearly as problematic, in case people point out that Futhark (or the Latin alphabet) is Fenician/Etruscan in origin as well. If normies made it a habit to learn Hebrew e.a. this would do a lot to alleviate the problem.
So is Trump going to swing niggers’ heads off and make Moon Man real?
That’s my President.
“But Mossadnik, you’re not an American…”
I SAID THAT’S MY PRESIDENT.
But seriously, I wonder what’s planned for the vibrant yoofs in the Democrat cities. Any long-term, effective solution to black crime will necessarily involve the physical removal of some plains apes, and swifter + harsher (at least as they would perceive it) handling of the rest of them.
Chicongo mayor sez Trump is intimidated by his big, beautiful, and most important of all black brain:
https://x.com/EndWokeness/status/1955680709580038199
His nappy scalp should make an inspiring trophy.
INTELLECTUAL PROWESS!
INTELLECTUAL
PROWESS
!
Ok Jim, here’s some more truth you cannot handle. I’ve been keeping this “card” for a while, looks like it’s time to play it.
This comes from Lewis’ Abolition of Man :
“The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won. We shall have taken the thread of life out of the hand of Clotho’ and be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?
For the power of Man to make himself what he pleases means, as we have seen, the power of some men to make other men what they please. In all ages, no doubt, nurture and instruction have, in some sense, attempted to exercise this power. But the situation to which we must look forward will be novel in two respects. In the first place, the power will be enormously increased. Hitherto the plans of educationalists have achieved very little of what they attempted and indeed, when we read them — how Plato would have every infant “a bastard nursed in a bureau”, and Elyot would have the boy see no men before the age of seven and, after that, no women,’ and how Locke wants children to have leaky shoes and no turn for poetry — we may well thank the beneficent obstinacy of real mothers, real nurses,
and (above all) real children for preserving the human race in such sanity as it still possesses. But the man-moulders of the new age will be armed with the powers of an omnicompetent state and an irresistible scientific technique: we shall get at last a race of conditioners who really can cut out all posterity in what shape they please.
The second difference is even more important. In the older systems both the kind of man the teachers wished to produce and their motives for producing him were prescribed by the Tao — a norm to which the teachers themselves were subject and from which they claimed no liberty to depart. They did not cut men to some pattern they had chosen. They handed on what they had received: they initiated the young neophyte into the mystery of humanity which over-arched him and them alike. It was but old birds teaching young birds to fly. This will be changed. Values are now mere natural phenomena. Judgements of value are to be produced in the pupil as part of the conditioning. Whatever Tao there is will be the product, not the motive, of education. The conditioners have been emancipated from all that. It is one more part of Nature which they have conquered. The ultimate springs of human action are no longer, for them, something given. They have surrendered — like electricity: it is the function of the Conditioners to control, not to obey them. They know how to produce conscience and decide what kind of conscience they will produce. They themselves are outside, above. For we are assuming the last stage of Man’s struggle with Nature. The final victory has been won. Human nature has been conquered — and, of course, has conquered, in whatever sense those words may now bear.”
Great, at least someone has been paying attention to my nerd-kike book recommendations, heh.
(Everyone should actually read that short book. Not sure what Brown Toast was going for here, but anyway, The Abolition of Man presents a compelling philosophical argument.)
Being a Lewis fan myself, I’m on the edge of my seat in anticipation of our friend continuing his lecture.
>Not sure what Brown Toast was going for here
Really
>The Abolition of Man presents a compelling philosophical argument
Well he’s making the case for natural law, except that his version of natural law is deformed by christiantiy. But that’s not what I’m getting at.
As far as I concerned Lewis presents a compelling description of the path that technological civilization will take. Of course he’s not the first one to say it, but it’s relevant here since you mentioned him and Jim really likes “technology”…while trying to pose as a “conservatives”.
A young Lewis made a similar critique against Chesterton, something akin to “he’s so sensible except for that pesky Christianity nonsense.” His autobio Surprised by Joy explores this more, IIRC.
Well, he did not propound opposition to technology per se; rather, he sought to align technological/scientific progress with Gnon’s will:
That is the conservative approach, not Luddism. It’s perfectly consistent with this blog’s worldview.
Lewis is talking about a “science” that doesn’t exist at all. It is something he imagines and it is what he would like science to be, not what it actually is. He continues :
“Perhaps I am asking impossibilities. Perhaps, in the nature of things, analytical understanding must always be a basilisk which kills what it sees and only sees by killing.”
So calling me a luddite is just an attempt at ignoring reality. Reality is going the way Lewis describes it.
Lewis and many others can envision a better “science” and work to make it be because they cherish this thing called hope.
Hope is not a synonym for wishful thinking. Daydreaming is plentiful while hope is precious in its rarity.
Hope is made all the rarer due to those who make it their mission in life to kill it on sight, to draw others into a crab bucket of despair.
“Lewis is talking about a “science” that doesn’t exist at all. It is something he imagines and it is what he would like science to be”
This is a brazen lie about The Abolition of Man. Either that or you idiotically got exactly the opposite of the point Lewis is making in that book. Are you accustomed to spewing your stuff in forums where no one has read the relevant texts? The entire point of that book is to warn against the thing you say that Lewis is advocating in the passage you quoted.
(Which is NOT the part that Mossadnik quoted. I’m talking about the extended quote that you, White Bread, posted earlier.)
An ever popular shill tactic is to claim that some authority respected on the right is saying the opposite of what he is saying. The classic example being commies spin Adam Smith as a commie.
Brown toast hates science, hates technology, and hates western civilisation. So he tell us that our respected intellectual predecessors hated it also, that the core of the highest part of Western Civilisation is liberalism, not Cathedrals.
He has a point, in that individual rights in physical property are core, but the rest of individual rights is a poison tree with poison fruit. And, on an issue dear to my heart, free speech is a private property right, for you can only have free speech on a moderated platform — the battle for liberal progressive free speech, where you try to have free speech on a fully open platform, was fought and predictably lost long ago. Speech is free if many people and small groups of people own their own platforms, and can moderate them as they see fit.
What. Sounds like you didn’t actually read any of my comments. Notice that only you are (absurdly) claiming that I’m lying about what Lewis said.
Did I misinterpret your quoting of Lewis? Maybe. Luckily for you, you can clarify: What was your point in quoting that passage? Explain it in a few short sentences, sentences plain enough that they leave you no room for obfuscation later.
Here’s Lewis’ conclusion (spoiler alert):
He leaves open the possibility that science will do away with, or seek to do away with, Divine Law; he absolutely does not claim it to be inevitable (and why should it be inevitable?), and he clearly warns against it.
People who believe in “historical inevitability” tend to be spiritual losers who don’t realize that you can literally just do things, e.g., align scientific/technological progress with the Tao. And indeed, that very same ‘scientific/technological progress’ evidently stalls and declines when its animating memeplex — hijacked by this or that failure mode — is directed against the Tao.
As has been discussed at great length with Anus.
“Adam smith is commie “
I remember watching Naomi chomesky make this exact arguments it was blatant and shameless lie.
“Speech is free if many people and small groups of people own their own platforms, and can moderate them as they see fit.”
How exactly a king insure free speech for his subjects . Where are the line to be drawn between genuine criticisms and malicious actors. Old England was subverted on the base of free speech , which allowed none established denomination to take hold and grow and take over and overthrow the ancient regime.
He does not.
I am fond of remarking that Universities are religious seminaries of the state religion, always have been, always will be, and should ditch the silly pretence that the job training facilities.
Well mass media are state media. Always have been, always will be. But the wise King does not interfere in a multitude of small private people, because a wise king does not interfere in the private property of ordinary people, apart fromn the shakedown necessary to fund the state.
Thus James the First of England acquired the Globe theater, and Shakespeare, and it would seem that he or one of his minions, probably the King himself from the way Shakespeare depicts it in his plays within a play, would sometimes have a little word with Shakespeare. But that he did acquire the most influential theater would imply that private property rights meant he had rather limited influence over the other theaters.
Twentieth and twenty first century suppression of freedom of speech has been utterly extraordinary and unprecendented, with the communists spying on every family during the twentieth, and England attempting to control prayer inside people’s private homes in the twenty first.
This is the result of Utopia in power. The King might have a word with Shakespeare every now and then, but he is not going have an army of bureaucrats doing the stuff that was done on facebook and twitter.
Equally, however, he is not going to protect your freedom of speech from other bad actors. What he is going to protect is your private property rights, because he does not want any competition in the shakedown business.
So he does not protect freedom of speech. Individuals do by privatising it — hence my plan for social media.
“What he is going to protect is your private property rights”
So all rights flow from private property.
Right of speech , right of family, right of safety etc .
“he is not going to protect your freedom of speech from other bad actors.“
But if he enforce private property , he protect it from other bad actors.
No one here has ever, to my knowledge, called themselves conservative.
I believe you’re in one of the numerous state dept shilling organizations, perhaps with a longer leash than normal. Or perhaps not.
You support liberalism, is that liberalism for both sexes? We have a specific criticism of liberalist policies when it comes to women and their nature. Can you tell us in your own words what we think, and then express why we are wrong?
I would venture a similar guess, but hasten to add that it is not incumbent upon us to answer that question correctly, or at all.
The oh-so-clever “oh yeah, which one?” turn-the-tables response is, itself, another hallmark of shills and malign actors everywhere. This is not a criminal court in which an accuser is required to prove an accurate and precise sequence of events beyond any reasonable doubt. It is long-established doctrine that a shill is simply one who pursues an obvious agenda that is counterproductive to the community and therefore parasitic upon it, and is unresponsive to criticism and counterargument. It is a catchall term and it matters not whether the individual in question is literally on an agency’s payroll, or severely mentally ill, or merely a profoundly unfunny troll.
>Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won.
>For we are assuming the last stage of Man’s struggle with Nature. The final victory has been won.
It is clear that human nature can be changed and already has been changed. The clearest example is the racial, ethnic, and cultural differences between those groups… and yet, it is clear that the groups have obvious and significant differences in average outcomes. Some are extremely successful, some are extremely dysfunctional, and many are somewhere in-between. What ultimately determines success versus dysfunction is obedience to the laws of Nature or Nature’s God. Rather than Nature surrendering to Man, this is only proof that Man surrenders to Nature, and it is those who obey the law most obediently that ultimately come out on top. Gnon has the final say.
Tl;dr, yes, man can change his nature to be slothful, fat, vile, ugly, disgusting, demonic, and ultimately pathetic evil things of revile, but ultimately Nature and God will not allow such to propagate for long.
@White Bread
The Lewis quote would imply an elite that is actually competent at wielding power. Perhaps it was so in Lewis’ time, but it is no longer the case.
You mean modern day technocrats are incompetent so we shouldn’t worry? I wouldn’t count on that.
Competent elites will destroy you if they want to destroy you, and help you if they wish to help you.
With incompetent elites, anything they do at any point can destroy you, even if they are “trying to help you”. A fine very specific example is the Maui tragedy, where only those who didn’t obey the authorities during the big fire, survived.
Incompetent elites, even when they are not consciously evil, are not in touch with empirical reality, and even the slightest movement from their part can and does lead to horrendous outcomes. They start from fake logic, choose fake date, enact a series of events to achieve a fake goal, and the real results in empirical reality is suffering and death. In local politics, in international politics, even in tiny sub-systems like schools and family units.
When specific policies lead to constant death and suffering, such as with turning a blind eye on grooming gangs, or child castration and brainwashing, or euthanasia for the poor and the insane, the “symbolic good” which they are pretending (or honestly attempting) to want to achieve, becomes the latest mask behind which demons are being fed human sacrifice.
Not regressing to solipsism and demon-feeding is not a default state, rather it takes constant effort for a human system to not go there. Incompetent elites, even if they go to their graves claiming they were only trying to heal the world, are servants of demons who feed them a steady diet of human sacrifice, even if consciously they believe to be elves of light.
The hypothetical example Lewis was thinking of is something like NICE from That Hideous Strength- they plan to ‘solve’ the problem of elite decay (and everything else) with immortality and abandoning the human form. Of course in the story, it was a ruse by demons, it implodes and everyone involved dies horribly.
I agree with him here- absolute power of everything is more of a thought experiment because an elite attempting to grab it will quickly realizes its only enemies left are each other.
New “manosphere” type theory I came across that overlaps with my educational upbringing. [*deleted*]
This is an explanation of cultural changes as a bottom up phenomenon. But we can see the heavy hand. Culture is downstream of power.
You’re deleting a crucial point, [*yes I am, because it is only “crucial” if one presupposes culture is autonomous, comes from the bottom up. But culture is downstream from power, comes from the top down*]
Anonymous Fake, I have told you many times to stop presupposing things that are controversial on the reactionary right. You have to argue those things, not presuppose them. And the big unstated claim that you are pushing here is that power is downstream of culture. That it is technology and stuff changing society, not Hollywood, Harvard, and USAID. But these days the entire Republican movement, not just us, is pointing the finger at Hollywood, Harvard, and USAID. And if you want to disagree with us and most of Maga, you are going to have to argue it, just not presuppose it as if it was uncontroversial and everyone agreed. Assuming it is uncontroversial and everyone agrees is argument from fake consensus. And argument from fake consensus is not permitted on this blog
And even argument from real consensus needs to be supported by primary sources.
Thus, for example, when I was telling brown toast that individual human rights make women deeply bitter and unhappy, I did not just tell him we are all agreed that individual human rights make women deeply bitter and unhappy, nor reference the massive manosphere literature on this topic. I pointed to an exhibit: Matty’s Youtube channel.
I admit that I am frustrated by all the “we have always been at war with Eurasia” sources I come across though. I’m going by my own living memory, when the grinders in school were conservative and the clowns were liberal. Grinders wanted to be corporation managers, clowns accepted their place as employees, and entrepreneurship was for truly deviant people.
So rather than, ironically, grinding through questionable sources (or futilely trying to rely on my own single life and credibility as a source), I simply like the story that women like bossy speakers more than nerdy desk jockeys who actually work.[*payload deleted*]
Anonymous Fake, you snuck in the payload that the Cathedral strong arming culture is something new. The Cathedral strong arming the culture is obvious all the way back to 1858. Culture is downstream of power, and while the hand of power tries to hide the mailed fist in a velvet glove, the mailed fist is apparent. Soft power depended on hard power, and used it with casual brutality, as far back as I go.
I am not going to allow you to assume that power does not control culture. You have to argue it.
> Urbit
The entire and massive problem with all “P2P/Distributed” apps today can be summarized as follows:
1) They are developed by namefags aka: non-anons, who having chosen to be namefags (pride/$ is corrupt, and corruptible), thus are subject to arbitrary control by the State and other influences.
[eg: Tor Project, and non-Satoshi coin models re fair launch and anon]
To solve this you must be anondev. You can become a namefag 20+ years later after your protocol has effected change. People can speak as users, but only if they are skilled in maintaining the necessary separation, delays, language… all far more difficult and risky than simply remaining anon.
2) They operate over a network that is subject to arbitrary control by the State and Corporations.
[eg: the “Internet”]
To solve this you must [*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Monero 51% news
Qubic just reached 51% share of Monero. This is a huge feat. They will be the first to manipulate a cryptocurrency with a 51% attack. They intend to orphan all blocks from every other miner, making themselves the only mining entity of Monero. The only way to mine Monero will be through them and they are 3X more profitable than mining Monero directly. They are giving half the profit to miners and selling the other half of the profit to buy QUBIC and send it to the burn wallet. If they mine 100% of the Monero blocks this gives them 432 Monero mined per day. This is $118,342.08 at the current Monero price. They keep 50% of that and give the rest to miners making their profit $59,171.04 of Qubic being burned every day. $414,197.28 burned a week and $1.656 million burned every month. This is insane. This is history being made here. Qubic a less than 300 million dollar market cap will be the sole miner of a 6 billion dollar market cap coin.
Privacy Coins are great at routing around and even eventually fully disintermediating the State.
But smalltime players are still vulnerable to big angry dogs.
Design your protocols accordingly.
Also, difficult to grow and entrench yourselves without your own Global Maxi Marketing Team going hard 24×365.
Bitcoin should have been made private, privacy would have been the one to capitalize on Govt’s early and long inability to stop the entrenchment and use of any given crypto.
Now you’re stuck playing a twisted race to try to backport privacy into a now non-privacy crypto enabled world where any such privacy has been further memed and lawed out of existance. A far more difficult prospect.
Which is why the BTC Maxi memeology decade is hated by a lot of OG type people… all NGU, GovCorp cozy, ETF, zero privacy, scale unserious, compromised, sold out.
Privacy in level twos is entirely doable — it is just that the big pockets do not want to fund it. And coin mixers are back, after all the centralised coin mix servrices were taken down or taken over by the FBI.
It is not the maxis fault. I am a maxi. And I never maintained a large investment in Monero because I foresaw this kind of problem. Bitcoin is the one true crypto currency. Same as gold is money, silver ceased to be money in the long depression, and platinum was never money. Metcalfe’s law. There can only be one. There is no alternative but to fix Bitcoin at level two.
The fifty one percent attack is a fundamental problem with proof of work. Here is an alternative solution to the consensus problem:
Every so often, each client wallet of a peer, for example monero wallet gui, not monerod, generates a bullet proof that proves that it owned base currency worth X at the most recent block height that was a multiple of 214, and that assigns voting rights proportional to that amount of base currency to a long running always up peer, its own monerod if its own monerod is always up and running, some other monerod if its monerod almost always finds this other monerod up and running when it comes up.
At every block, ever peer gets a random rank, such that the probability of being rank
n+256is half the probability of being rankn, and the probability of being ranknis proportional to the amount of voting rights assigned to it. The probability of being rank code>n+m is an integer approximation to 2^(-m/256) of the probability of being rank code>n/code>. An approximation that is piece wise linear between multiples of 256 will suffice.At every block, each peer that finds itself with higher rank than any it has recently connected to, or a rank comparable to what is usual in winning blocks, proposes its own total order. The block with the highest ranking proposer wins. If there are several different chains of blocks competing, the chain whose chain of proposers had highest rank wins.
Each peer has its own secret key and public key, and the voting rights are assigned to that public key. To get random assignment of rank, we need a true random public oracle, something that cannot be predicted or manipulated. This is a hard problem, and there are some horribly expensive, slow, and ineffectual solutions out there. Here is a better solution:
Each block contains the random value for determining ranks at the next block, or each block at a block height that is a multiple of thirty two contains a random value that will determine everyone’s rank for the next thirty two blocks. The rank of a peer depends on the value it gets by a deterministic signature of the previous value. The deterministic signature of the previous random value by the peer that set the current total order becomes the new random value for determining ranks at the next block, or next thirty two blocks. Since the signature is determined by the secret key and the previous signature, the peer cannot manipulate it, and since most peers do not know the secret keys of most other peers, it cannot be predicted.
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]
Yeah, even if QUBIC doesn’t do any re-orgs, and even if they’re exaggerating their hash rate somewhat, it’s concerning that such a small operation could come so close to rattling Monero.
Hard to hold more than 1% of your crypto in XMR long term after this imo
Add to that the thorough failure of Tari, their long awaited L2
Add to that fluffypony’s physiognomy, and his handle
The classic way to get decent privacy is to send your BTC to an exchange and withdraw it to another address. Trageogre was nice for this, as they had about 10 years of history, were non KYC, and had XMR. But they seem to have exit scammed 2 weeks ago. It was never true privacy, but good enough in at least 50% of cases, but now all that data is probably in government hands, if it wasn’t all along. But the loss makes XMR and other privacy coins less liquid
I’m going to blindly assume that QUBIC’s strategy wouldn’t work to undermine BTC’s decentralization.
BTC mining is alarmingly centralised. I am very worried about it.
Jim, please tell when ETH is going to crash, cuz we don’t wanna get rekt an poe, kthx.
Ether is never going to crash. Just continue its long slow decline relative to Bitcoin.
How you say that? Because the evidence confirms the opposite…
https://bitinfocharts.com/ethereum/
Clicking on “all time” button shows eth:btc lows steadily rising over “long” time, literally beating btc. And eth raw price is now effectively at ATH too.
You are correct. Ether had been falling relative to bitcoin to May of this year, but has staged a recovery of which I was not aware.
US Gov may be adopting eth as main layer and eth treasuries are becoming a thing.
Ether is converging to become a CBDC.
Is Bitcoin Lightning private/as private as Monero?
No. But Lightning is more private than Bitcoin. It could easily be made considerably more private. There were plans to do it, and yet oddly and troublingly, those plans have not been put into effect.
Twatter post rumors are that Gabbard has gotten a lot of information about democratic party vote fraud at this point; most women in power are terrible but wow she is kicking ass so far beyond my wildest hopes of what was possible. Wonder why she is the exception…
Was she actually ever shot at in the military? That could explain something.
Or it’s all fake, and Gabbard’s being used to brown-wash, chick-wash AND beauty-wash the disclosure of the really incriminating stuff. A human shield for the truth.
What I do know is that her little verticle-screen pose videos all through 2020-2024 were super-Hollywood produced. Like, consistently Tom Cruise treatment for this chick. So there’s a whole team behind her and they definitely want something.
Back in the TRS days they talked about some Indian sect that she came out of, and is using her as the tip of their infiltration spear. Groomed for it since a teenager, possibly. Jeety Jesuits? Jeetsuits?
Has she done something materially significant in office, whether positive or negative? I try not be influenced by vague rumors of nebulous decisions that may or may not have been made, hushed secrets that may or may not ever be explained, and epic ownz and clapbacks on the twitterz. That’s all just theater. And talk, endless talk.
Show us action. Then we might be interested enough to form an opinion beyond casual indifference.
I meant toys like this little beauty:
https://www.creativecrafthouse.com/janelle-cipher-powerful-hand-held-encryption-device-encrypts-letters-numbers-and-four-keyboard-symbols.html
Usable after converting the numbers into hex.
Briefly looking, susceptible to letter frequency attacks. In theory you can use a physical cipher, in practice it would be tedious and prone to user error. Encryption is difficult
Jim…
What happened to Detroit?
Why did Detroit happen, what caused it, who is responsible?
How does Detroit get fixed?
Detroit was sacked. Whites fled state sponsored murder and arson. Their homes were burned down around their ears.
https://cabond.substack.com/p/why-the-west-looks-like-it-is-pretty
Good to see Chris is still around. He makes the obvious conclusion that even if Trump wants to stabilize a 1000 year liberal Reich with full support for women rights, he won’t be given a choice, none of the chucklenuts in the elites will be given a choice.
If you extrapolate the debt to freeloader issue, focusing on the UK, in the next 5 years, every single native British person must be enslaved working 10 hours in the fields to feed a hostile foreign population.
How does a state run on a population of which the majority are net expenses from cradle to grave? It doesn’t, huge whitepill to be honest (even though this will lead to quite a bit of problems in the future when the EBT cards run out).
Sorry Contaminator, even if you love the hotep niggas, somethings gotta give. Either you get taxed up the ass to sustain them, or they just gotta go.
Eh what am I being attacked for exactly?
Not specifically you to be honest (apologies if it seemed like an attack), I was just reminded one time reading a comment where you said you said niggers are more likeable than Indians, but does the order really matter when Tyrone the Alpha of Detroit Jungle known for his stunning skills of stealing more than 10 Catalytic Converters in one day when the state is broke?
If someone’s existence on taxpayer dime is justified on them being charming or funny, they better open a OnlyFans account or start a podcast real quick. Which at the end of the day, is actually great. There doesn’t need to be a inquisitioner breathing down the necks of every black guy in america to see if they one of the good ones, the problem solves itself when the State has to choose who the moneys going to, like Ukraine cutting off single moms with barely a peep heard about it anywhere.
My general solution to the soul brutal question is something akin to the millet system… anyone with a jeet name or phenotype except D’Souza Dr Shiva and Vances wife have to leave. My view on niggers is basically you can pacify niggers but you can’t stop jeets from trying to conspire with fellow caste members to scam outsiders they are just white collar gypsies. It’d be like trying to turn a cat into a vegan.
Holy fuck. My hero. Rhetorical gold medal on rollerskates, my man. I’m dizzy.
We reject: Kings, Presidents, and Voting. We believe in: Rough Consensus and Running Code. – David Clark 1992
Observe that successful open source projects generally have an unelected absolute monarch, notably Linux itself and Linux Torvalds himself. Observe the recent Kingly interaction over the late arm contribution to the new kernel. Kinglessness led to a catastrophic takeover of many opensource projects by cat ladies with no interest or capability to code — checkout the Lunduke journal for hilarious examples, as for example the Shaman incident.
Did consensus give us Git? King Linus gave us Git.
[*deleted for not conforming to the moderation policy*]