Hillary and the decline of the elite.

Bill Clinton was a truly great politician. He could embrace you and steal your wallet, embrace your wife and fuck your wife, and you would still somehow like him.

Hillary Clinton is the drunken dumb heiress bitch Bill Clinton married to fund his initial entry into politics. She is now big fat drunken carpet munching dumb bitch. Bill Clinton is a very good liar, an extraordinarily good liar. Hillary Clinton is a terrible liar. Whenever something bad happens in her vicinity, she goes into damage control mode which immediately leads everyone to assume that she deliberately caused that bad thing. Nothing stuck to Bill. Everything sticks to Hillary.

Bill Clinton was a very good politician. Hillary Clinton is hopelessly incompetent, and particularly bad at politics.

So why is the Cathedral preparing to enthrone Clinton the Second?

Answer: The Cathedral is stupid and getting stupider, in part because everyone is required to believe ever sillier things with ever greater sincerity.


34 Responses to “Hillary and the decline of the elite.”

  1. […] Jim likes the Trump candidacy for one reason: It forces our cultural masters to occasionally tell the truth about the shame nature of democracy. And here is Jim noticing the differences between Bill and Hillary. […]

  2. […] equilibria. Principled positions. White blight. Difficult spreads. Zones of progressive failure. Idiots at the controls. Order force. The weekly round, and the week in […]

  3. Zach says:

    Hillary is just an abomination. A scar on the ass of a cow.

    Folks, I wouldn’t hire that cunt to do a paper route. I’m not kidding.

  4. Dr. Faust says:

    Are Jews leftist by nature?

    • jim says:

      Obviously not all of them, but that is the way to bet. On the other hand, this probably reflects an automatic tendency to align with the winning side.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        Yah my original thought was an adaptive response. They’re just ahead of the curve in recognizing the paradigm and signalling. Orthodox seem to be more right than reform. Reform are atheist leftist in the West. Also, Israel is an ethnostate with big gay parades but racial profiling at their airports and checkpoints.

    • Jack says:

      The Jews’ outright Leftist proclivity isn’t the be-all end-all question pertaining to the Jews. There are other questions just as relevant: are Jews greedy by nature? are Jews snobbish by nature? are Jews lecherous by nature? are Jews materialist/amoral by nature? are Jews zealous by nature? Answering those questions would go a long way to solving the puzzle of the Jewish Question without addressing it specifically as a problem of Jewish Leftism.

      If Jews are greedy, snobbish, lecherous, materialist, amoral, and zealous, that would explain their attraction to communism, sexual liberalism, hedonism, radical individualism, dogmatism, and political profiteering much better than some vague correlation between Jewishness and Leftism.

      Yes, Jews are Leftist by nature – but that stems from other natural tendencies afflicting the Jews.

      • jim says:

        Probably they are. But why are you obsessing about Jews, given that gypsy behavior is much worse?

        You are obsessing about Jews because they are a market dominant minority, which is a self destructive way of thinking, and leads you to deny agency to whites, much as as the concept of “racism” denies agency to blacks.

        • Jack says:

          The fundamental, essential difference between Jewish domination of Whites and White domination of Blacks is that the former is informal while the latter was formal.

          When Whites ruled Blacks, they did so very openly and declaredly, hence held responsibility, hence were responsible in using their power. Now that Jews dominate Whites, they do so informally by influencing the Cathedral, thus lack responsibility and act irresponsibly.

          Therefore, expectedly, when Whites ruled Blacks, Blacks (and Whites) were obviously, demonstrably better off; as now Jews rule Whites, Whites are obviously, demonstrably worse off. Jewish power should be formalized. Until it is formalized in the same manner that Whites had formal authority over Blacks, all discussion of White agency is moot, because it lacks an acknowledgement of actual power dynamics between Whites and Jews.

          When Whites directly and formally control Blacks, there is indeed no “Black agency”, as the agency belongs to the White rulers, not to the ruled Blacks, just as in normal families children lack the agency that their parents, who are formal authorities, possess.

          The problem is that Jews do not formally control Whites, but informally do, so Whites are held responsible even while they are ruled by Jews who have actual power over them. Responsibility and agency should be matched with power, but are not matched with power when Jews are concerned, because Jewish power is vehemently denied. In this case, the parents have the actual power but their children are expected to hold agency, because the parents don’t have formal authority over the children, even though in practice they control them.

          Also, different ethnicities do make for different rulers; Whites are benevolent and those who come under their control are better off consequently; Jews are parasitical and leech upon the host society, thus are detrimental as rulers. Of course if Jews weren’t a market-dominant minority, there wouldn’t be any need to discuss their ruling methods and practices, but because they are, there is – it’s not a vain obsession.

          • jim says:

            I don’t think Jews rule whites. If they ruled whites, they would rule Gaza.

          • Jack says:

            It’s not that simple. Many Jews are Progressives and don’t want to rule Gaza. Also, Muslims, too, exert some influence over Whites.

            Most Progressive Jews, like most Progressive Gentiles, revere the Jews while detesting Israel. Jews in the diaspora aim to be leaders of minorities; Israel is a source of friction between Jews and the Muslim Arab minority; so Progressive Jews hate Israel. Particularly in Europe, Israel makes coalition building between the non-White invaders more difficult, since those invaders are at war with the Jews in the Mid-East.

            You’d expect Jews to realize how counterproductive their support for the Islamic occupation of Europe is, but Jews seem incapable of rationally assessing reality, which resulted in the previous holocaust and will result in the next one. All the more reason why Jews must not be allowed to rule Whites.

  5. Mark Citadel says:

    This seems international. See uber-leftist Corbyn’s victory for leader of the Labour Party in England. I suppose the positive aspect is he wants to shutter the Trident Nuclear system. The less Libtard countries have nukes the better.

  6. red says:

    I’ve shut up a bunch of progressive by asking them what’s Hillery has accomplished. Their brains go into crime stop loop where they can’t think of anything positive to say but still believe she’s the greatest candidate ever. It’s amusing to watch.

  7. Oy Gevalt, Give credit where credit is due

    Its not the Cathedral. Its the synagogue as in:

    Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before your feet, and to know that I have loved you.

    • jim says:

      To determine whether the Jews are ruled by the Cathedral, or rule the Cathedral, consider Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.

      People obsess over the real and imaginary faults of Jews because Jews are a market dominant minority, and attribute to them magic powers of mind control to make whites do self destructive things, just as white males are attributed magic powers of mind control, that cause women and coloreds to underperform by thinking racist thoughts at them.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        Jews still aren’t white

      • stats says:

        I’m not even sure what your point about Hamas is, but I think it is fair to say that Jew’s power is inordinate and stupifying. Consider the foreign policy of almost every Western nation adheres to the wants and needs of Israel. That is not an exageration either. Balkanization of the Middle East has been Zionist plan for 40 years(Odid Yino Plan and Project for New American Century) and every, repeat every Western nation’s foreign policy has only one objective: balkanization of the Middle East.

        Your comment is really no more than whistling past the graveyard.

        • jim says:

          I’m not even sure what your point about Hamas is,

          Hamas and the Palestinian Authority are suicide on the installment plan, a down payment on doing to themselves what Rhodesia and South Africa did to themselves.

          Consider the foreign policy of almost every Western nation adheres to the wants and needs of Israel.

          The US government refuses to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

          Every Western nation’s foreign policy has only one objective: balkanization of the Middle East.

          The alternative being something very like the Caliphate, which has been at war with the west for a thousand years.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:


      It’s called The Cathedral because white civilisation has traditionally been Christian, so people can more readily understand the concept of a pagan, “secular” institution as a metaphorical Cathedral when it pushes doctrines and gets itself worshippers and devoteés. If it would be called the Synagoguge, it would be a less direct way of getting to the point. Also, it would put, as “Jim” says, less emphasis on in-group traitors and would even being denying the men of the white race due agency in their, our, actions!

      To develop that point further, it should be understood that there are many supposedly Christian factions or “Cathedrals” that should be seen as enemy traitors or as non-invested aliens. For example, many mainline Protestant Christian branches have fallen and the white ethnic devotees of the Vatican or Oriental Churches are as alien as ever from the perspective of white countries. Consider the 30 Years War, where the Reformers, after being expelled from the ecclesiastic community, won their, our, freedom from the paganising denomination which would soon be known as Roman Catholicism. Brick-and-mortar Cathedrals were then not permitted to be the traditional sanctuaries for fugitives that thay sometimes were. Time to knuckle down, chappie…

      Best regards,


      • stats says:

        Idiot. Don’t know what your are talking about. Same old ignorant protestant bullshit. Jezz, you guys are historical morons.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:


          You’re drooling on your keyboard again, aren’t you?


  8. Dr. Faust says:

    If Hillary wins then it will be because of women. If she wins women will hate her. Women will vote for her and curse her the next morning. Most women prefer male bosses, hate female bosses, and will hate having a female president. They’ll vote for her though because of the sisterhood, because of some fantastical ego trip, because of some queer sense of vindication.

    And the cries of sexism will be quickly drowned out, drowned out quicker than the racist cries were when Obungo. Women will cry the loudest, trumpet for her head, and hate every move she makes. Hillary will be the worst president in history and perhaps the last in the form and shape of the America we have now.

    Women ruin everything, Oval Office edition.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Doctor Faust”,

      Where coloureds go, women follow soon thereafter.

      1870 – “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”

      1920 – “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

      What I’m saying is that the office is already ruined or destroyed. Naturally, one doesn’t need coloureds in his nation, though he does need women. But, for this situation, perhaps coloureds, for example the negro in the office from 2008-2016, signal that the situation under the current set of rules has already been played out. It’s over unless changes no less drastic than the 1st Constitutional Convention are enacted. My pet name for this played out system is America 1.0, and I now am looking for the new institutions of America 2.0….

      Best regards,


      • Dr. Faust says:

        Yes, that’s my point. It’s beyond redemption so best to kick the sandcastle down quickly with a female libtard at the helm. The alternative is a slow demise which people won’t notice since their time orientation is too short.

        Trump is not the great right hero. It must get worse, more need to become aware, and Hillary will provide a permanent sense of dispossession to white males.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:


          Well, that’s not exactly what I’m getting at. The new institutions should emerge like stronger pillars holding up a tent, while the corrupt pillars, the institutions of America (or Western Civ. or the white race) 1.0, are sinking lower and lower. If there is a bottleneck stopping the change from 1.0 to 2.0 then, yes, the whole thing would need to be toppled. But there is too much talk, conceptualising and even understanding of “the slow decline” and “not with a bang, but with a whimper” to take the enormous risk in not building and finding the new institutions at this present time…

          Accelerationism only makes a bigger mess to clean up when Political Correctness is finally replaced by something more effective.

          After adressing that, I believe that my original point to you should be re-iterated and done so by stating that, very curiously, a lot of changes have happened quite rapidly in the 1960s on-ward. This makes differentiating the 1.0s vs. 2.0s more easy. For example, if there were no production of Frozen, then is there anything preventing keen-eyed citizens from marking down Disney as another casualty in the first round of U.S. insitutions? Certainly loss of pro-white legislation, changing away from traditional canon laws, and things like ubiquitous smoking bans and pets replacing children are all big changes that surfaced as the 1.0 institutions became largely corrupt and useless in the ’60s. I could give more proper noun examples, too, but I expect you already see what I’m getting at…

    • Pseudocrates says:

      “Hillary will be the worst president in history and perhaps the last in the form and shape of the America we have now.”

      Wow. I never thought I’d say this, but you’ve just almost convinced me to vote for her.

  9. Spandrell says:

    Oh come on, it’s easier than that. A huge patronage work formed under Bill, and they’re most comfortable with his wife in charge instead of some Hawaiian negro.

    Wives taking the place of husbands isn’t unheard of. Of course Bill should have produced a male heir to take over his faction, but he was too busy getting his dick served by fat clerks.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      L.O.L., this has a truer ring for me than what “Jim” has reported on in the above blogpost…Thing is, that I’d never be able to figure it out on my own, as paying too much attention to Washington politics would make me go back to the bottle…


    • jim says:

      That is the specific detail of why this dumb bitch instead of some other dumb bitch. Yes, the patronage network.

      But the patronage network still winds up with an incompetent dumb bitch in charge.

      Both explanations are true – but Obama did not have a patronage network, and he and his white advisers are not the sharpest chisels in the box either.

    • jdsaunders says:

      Bill Clinton is infertile.

Leave a Reply