We anthropomorphize the Cathedral as a person or a conspiracy. Â Such anthropomorphizing is a good approximation for corporations, since they make considerable efforts to make the approximation true – by concentrating all power in the CEO, and then delegating power from the CEO.
However, the cathedral is rather a bunch of conspiracies, and its direction is determined by entropic forces akin to enthalpy, rather than a sinister and clever plan. Â To build a ruling coalition, divide power into bite sized morsels and distribute widely. Â Not a good plan for operating a functional organization. Â Mann is sovereign, and Mann is an idiot.
In Europe you go directly to jail for thought crimes. Â The US has the first amendment, so employs a workaround. Â If a business employs thought criminals, it has a “hostile work environment”, so gets sued by social justice warriors, and has to pay them large sums, making thought criminals effectively unemployable, and social justice an obscenely lucrative career option.
This, however, does not work on open source, hence Gamergate is relatively successful. Â The Social Justice Warriors attempt to seize open source projects. Â Sometimes they seize them, and to their surprise destroy them, often they get pushback, which pushback they attribute to Gamergate and the Neoreaction. Â And indeed it is true, in that Gamergate and the Neoreaction is the think tank of the pushback, but what makes the pushback effective is the propensity of the revolution to devour its children, what makes the pushback effective is that leftists pretty soon start persecuting leftists for insufficient holiness, with the result that pious leftists find themselves, to their horror, deep shame, and great embarrassment, joining forces with Gamergate and the Neoreaction in self defense, as the Montagnards found themselves collaborating with the Dantonists.
There is always a state religion. Â There never was a golden age of freedom of speech and thought. Â However if you have many states with many state religions, and there is a lot of movement and communication between them, as in America before the civil war, then truth stands a chance, because if the gentleman from Massachusetts cannot say the truth, the gentleman from Virginia can say it, because before the Mormon War and the Civil War, the State of Virginia had a different and independent state religion from the state of Massachusetts.
The religion of Massachusets wound up conquering the US, and eventually the world, in large part because Virginia took religious freedom seriously, while Harvard and Massachusetts was unyieldingly and fanatically determined to extirpate it with fire and steel and still are unyieldingly and fanatically determined to extirpate it with fire and steel. When crazies and fanatics go up against moderate, compromising, and cynical cosmopolitans, the moderate and cynical cosmopolitans tend to get trampled.
If ever there was freedom from the state religion in a white state, that state was Virginia before the War between the States, and it did not end well.
We today have two problems: Â A single monolithic state religion, that since World War II has dominated the entire world, and a state religion with no archbishop and inquisition to keep the crazies in line. Â Kings put Bishops on the payroll to shut up the crazies. Â If you have a state religion controlled by the holiest, you get holiness spirals of ever more holy people
Having freedom would be the cure, but freedom within a single state is tricky, and, as we saw in Virginia, vulnerable to violence from the holy. Â Whites are prone to state religions. Â Asymmetric repression leads to movement ever leftwards. Â The state religion has to repress the excessively holy as well as the insufficiently holy, or it inevitably gets ever crazier.
If freedom for the insufficiently holy is hard to achieve, restricting the liberty of the excessively holy is easy to achieve.
White nationalists tend to mistake repressing the excessively holy, controlling the priesthood, for controlling the Jews. Effective measures to keep the priesthood and the excessively holy in line would quite disproportionately affect Jews, but Jews as such are the wrong target.
I think the three major religions, Christianity, Islam, and Progressivism have a rock-paper-scissors relationship:
Christianity defeats Islam by producing smarter offspring. Though Islam keeps its females pumping out babies from puberty to menopause, those kids receive so little parental investment that they aren’t good for much besides raping and pillaging soft targets.
Progressivism defeats Christianity because it’s a heresy of Christianity, a cluster of memes selected for their ability to undermine and destroy Christian faith from within.
Islam defeats Progressivism by beheading its men and raping its women. Progressive mind tricks don’t work on Muslims.
Can you describe how Christianity results in increasing the IQ of offspring?
If I had to guess (assuming its true) then marital monogamy in Christianity results in higher parental investment and higher IQ people breeding to over time create a higher IQ population. In islam, polygamy results in low parental investment…um not sure how that works actually. But definetely something to do with marital monogamy vs polygamy.
I’d argue Christianity also revived a lot of the old philosophical and logical argumentation of the Greeks that had by then largely perished. You could find the world intelligible in Christianity, whereas in Hinduism for example, very little could be understood about the world.
Polygamy results in
(1) Men try to build out instead of building up. It’s more advantageous to continue to show off after you’re married and try to get more kids with more wives than try to build the future for your children
(2) Because every man is always in the sexual market, high-trust cooperation is difficult
(3) All the ugly women are forced to wear bags over their heads, not because men don’t want to see them, but because their owners don’t want men to see them before they are purchased or after they are purchased
(4) Young men the following choices of sexual strategy
* be the child of the Big Man and have women handed to them
* be the best at everything, marry multiple women, and secretly cuck other men
* be a mediocre faggot, never know the warm touch of a woman, and wake up with ass pain every morning for another day standing around and raping goats punctuated by kneeling face down ass up offering their ass to Allah in exchange for another day standing around raping goats and in turn being raped by a slightly less mediocre faggot
* join a terrorist militia, death or glory \m/
* emigrate to a country where sand niggers are worshipped and there are women to rape or otherwise take advantage of
So many ways!
Christians marry for life and respect the wives and property of other men. Muslims have to keep their valuables hidden and cover their women with trash bags so they don’t get stolen. If I like your wife, I just have to torture you until you say “divorce” three times!
Muslims more often than not marry first cousins. The early Church banned marriage out to sixth cousins to dissolve tribes and ensure a vigorous mixing of the gene pool.
Christian children received more attention, especially from their fathers, and thus more knowledge could be passed on and built upon.
All this allowed Christians to build more complex, specialized, meritocratic economies with wider circles of trust, which gave more intelligent people a reproductive advantage.
But it also made them vulnerable to Progressives. The problems of Islam don’t stem from polygamy, but from the fact their property system deviates from the Torah, leading to the effects you noted above. Christians also deviate from Torah, which is their weakness.
This presupposes that Jews are following the Torah, which in fact they are no more following than Christians are. The Rabbis permit what the Old Testament forbids, and forbid what it permits. Judaism gets reinvented at frequent intervals.
Jim, I’m not presupposing anything about the Jews. When I speak of Torah, I mean the first 5 books of Moses. Orthodox Jews have high birthrates because they’ve gone Amish. But Jews in general would be a lot stronger if they followed Torah fully. The Rabbi’s recently voted to continue the ban on polygamy. They signed their death warrant; the Muslims are coming. The womb is a weapon of biological warfare.
>The womb is a weapon of biological warfare.
Yes, Arafat also said that the qus of the Arab woman was the weapon of the intifada. He was also wrong.
http://www.jewishpolicycenter.org/4058/israel-demographic-miracle
Polygamy has little to do with birth rates, unless you have a society where there is a shortage of males.
>This presupposes that Jews are following the Torah, which in fact they are no more following than Christians are.
The Torah tells us: “As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever.”
Jesus denounced divorce and polyamory, putting those rabbits in the unenviable position to agreeing with Jesus. But then again, so am I, not out of a respect for women, but for the Männerbünd \m/
Anyway, Mark and Nick, it seems that B believes that the Jewish people have infallibility, but Jesus claimed infallibility for the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Perhaps this is the origin of the recent statement from the See of St. Peter that it is a mystery of the faith how Jews can ever get into Heaven and certainly no attempt should be made to convince them to seek redemption in the sacrifice of the Lamb or confess their sins
>Jesus denounced divorce and polyamory, putting those rabbits in the unenviable position to agreeing with Jesus.
We are not against divorce.
>it seems that B believes that the Jewish people have infallibility
The Jewish people do not have infallibility in the sense that we can’t do wrong things as a nation and suffer for it (obviously) or in the sense that individual Jews can’t do the wrong thing and be punished for it (obviously.) We have a guarantee from G-d in the Torah that His word and Torah will be among us and in our mouths forever , and that He won’t abandon us and will return us to our Land and make us as numerous as the stars in the sky and the sand on the beach, and so on.
So anyone who says that e.g. the Jews have twisted and distorted the Torah and no longer have it or know what it says, and that now the Torah is with the Arabs or the Christians or the Papua New Guineans is going against G-d’s promise in the Torah.
Even if Christianity did nothing to support that, Islam specifically encourages incest, which lowers IQ. Inbreeding depression and all that. In addition to knocking off around 10 IQ points first cousin incest also makes people more tribalistic, something for which Islam is known worldwide.
How do you establish an inquisition that will round up all the holiness-signallers but won’t scapegoat all of the bishop’s political rivals?
Railroading the political rivals of the Archbishop is exactly what I want the inquisition to do, since by and large, the political rivals of the Archbishop will be arguing that they are holier than he is.
Who is this “archbishop”? If an archbishop was chosen right now, he’d kill off anyone who gagged and revolted at pedophilia, homosex, and blue-haired land whales. No thanks. Islam is the new loyalty test, since communism and pedophilia have lost their social impact, become too mainstream. Anyone who restrains their sense of disgust and revulsion in the service of the Cathedral, has a chance to serve it.
Probably, but he would also crack down on anyone who outflanked him even further on the left.
Today the only safe position is to be even lefter than everyone else. We can plausibly hope that with an archbishop, he would announce a safe position, fulfilling Moldbug’s unanswered demand.
Moldbug declared that if he was told what doctrines were required, he would affirm loyalty to them – knowing that no one dared answer.
Jim, you are the best, bar none.
That didn’t save the Romans, did it.
That’s neither here nor there — the Romans abandoned their traditions.
Rome was strongest when its traditional and Hellenistic religions were strongest, and when its nobility served as high priests and oracles. Its conversion to Christianity — a Jewish heresy from a blighted Imperial backwater — went hand-in-hand with its decline. Less than 100 years after its conversion to Christianity was complete (circa 380 AD — Edict of Thessalonica) it fell. I believe that the minute it forswore its myths and its traditional religious origins, its fate was sealed.
…The populace never took to Christianity very seriously anyway, and ended up with bizarre hybrid-religions and superstitions. In those last years, the state was anything but “repressive” about religion. They had other concerns.
Extraction of copper, lead, and silver had peaked prior to introduction of Christianity to the Roman elite, extraction was already in decline by 100AD. Not sure about gold and iron extraction, but I imagine it was in a similar position. The conquering of Dacia was a desperste attempt to secure precious amd industrial metals, just as the invasion of Iraq was a desperate attempt to spread Cathedral influence. Rome was in decline well before Catholicism became the official state religion.
One word: Antinous.
That’s the highlight of the Roman Empire.
Imagine if Obama openly took a catamite, and then after the catamite drowned, erected temples across the land and on every major US installation overseas, where that catamite was worshipped as a god.
You must still bear a grudge against Hadrian. There were far more egregious examples of Imperial excess than that.
In any case, Rome has many true highlights, and among them is the final defeat of the Hebrews, and the dashing of their messianic hopes, by Hadrian, the companion of Antinous. The way I see it, you owe him a debt. One could argue that he didn’t do a thorough enough job — even after your defeat, Rome suffered your people and religion to exist.
Let’s not forget that the Roman pantheon and its Emperors have been intertwined from the very first — “Divus” Julius Caesar was declared a God by Augustus very shortly after his death. As Emperor, and therefore primary religious authority, Hadrian was well within his rights to deify Antinous. Besides, there were many parallels between deified Antinous and the cult of Endymion, which Hadrian, who much admired the Greeks and studied their religions, was very well acquainted with.
…Your “highlight”: An eccentric but mostly-benevolent, successful, and respected Emperor, in mourning, honoring a lad who meant a great deal to him. That old man in mourning scattered your people to the four winds, and could have done far worse.
I just think that a faggot emperor making his empire worship his catamite is as disgusting as it gets, is all.
That he did not kill all of us is not a point in his favor-it was G-d working through him, similar to Nebuchadnezzar.
Had the Romans not destroyed our Messianic hopes but supported them, it is likely their empire would be around today. As it is, they hit the standard imperial spiritual decline, into which stepped first Christianity (largely responsible for the progressive pacifism which destroyed the Western empire,) and the Islam (which destroyed the Eastern empire.) A Roman empire with Rome as its secular center and Jerusalem as its spiritual center would not have suffered from either.
lol, obviously a religion isn’t going to hollow out and lose it’s moral authority if it stays a tribal faith and isn’t used to legitimize an empire or whatever
if Jews had used their religion in the same way the Romans and Christians used their, they’d probably have had the same problems
daily reminder that the fall of Rome was caused by taxing the Roman middle class into ruin while subsidizing the lumpenproletariat through direct welfare payments while replacing middle class labor with foreign slave labor.
Daily reminder that, as culture is downstream of politics, fetishizing the Other through worshiping one of them as the son of the Logos while sneakily using his words to defend the family, or fetishizing the Other through praising immigration while sneakily saying that we should be more family centric like the Others, is the result of policies making honest labor and family formation more difficult than having a series of gf’s and bf’s while producing only bullshit.
Daily reminder that the institutions of higher learning are thus predicted to be at their most useless when civilization needs them the most, and, thus, should never be permitted to exist under any circumstances, and all foreign-educated intellectuals should be killed.
Also, AJP should be here saying this, since Bob Whitaker said this here http://www.whitakeronline.org/blog/2015/12/03/carthage-must-be-destroyed/
>daily reminder that the fall of Rome was caused by taxing the Roman middle class into ruin while subsidizing the lumpenproletariat through direct welfare payments while replacing middle class labor with foreign slave labor.
This is a standard and unavoidable part of the cycle of any empire. I recommend taking a break from the tinfoil hat nazi agitprop and reading Ibn Khaldun’s Muqadimmah. Every single empire goes through this exact process, where the core group goes from being the rulers’ main power base to the main threat to their power, and thus the ruler must align himself with new clients. Likewise with taxes-where an empire starts with a surplus due to the low needs of its founding class, it soon extends and overextends its budget. Etc.
I’ve linked to the Muqadimmah before. Ibn Khaldun was quite something. Among other things, he discovered the Laffer Curve 700 years before Laffer.
The discovery of the Laffer curve was a sociological phenomenon in which big business came up with a meme and used it to switch from having company helicopters to the company swimming pool on the top story of the building as in Superman 3 to directly paying the executives to build their own swimming pools
Similarly, the theory of comparative advantage was a sociological phenomenon in which the British empire told other countries that importing their manufactured goods was for their own good, and, later, the middle class that importing other workers was for their own good
and the theory of burying money in a landfill and letting people have at it or whatever was a sociological phenomenon in which it was discovered that paying people not to work provided better votes than not paying people not to work or something. Actually I’m a bit unclear on this one, so, maybe Keynes had some genuine insight.
Laffer curve is trivially true. All Western countries tax their most productive citizens far beyond the Laffer maximum, and some of them, notably Greece, tax their working poor far beyond the Laffer maximum. That you criticize the Laffer curve reminds me that Nazis are socialists, and anti semitism is the socialism of the stupid – the idea that if we take the Jews stuff, we will be rich.
There are indeed valid arguments that Jews are a problem, but stuff is not one of them. Taking the Jews’ stuff will not make us rich, but rather, will make us poor.
You mean to say that if you increase the fraction of income which must be paid as taxes, you won’t hit a point beyond which your revenue in absolute terms starts falling?
Laffer, btw, ascribed this observation to Ibn Khaldun.
Comparative advantage is pretty obvious. Again, Ibn Khaldun pointed out that it’s almost impossible for one person to feed, clothe etc. himself and his family (not talking about Mountain Men living as hunter gatherers in the Rockies here,) but when you have 10 people farming, who have a smith and carpenter, they can grow enough food to support 100 people. So does it make sense for the other 90 to farm as well, or should they do something else with their time?
The theory of burying money in a landfill is obviously idiotic, but the underlying logic is inevitable. When you have an empire (or even a really big city state) working smoothly, it creates so much surplus that starving is difficult to do. This was the case even 700 years ago-Ibn Khaldun says that the beggars in a big city in Tunisia would beg before Eid Al Fitr not just for enough for an animal to sacrifice, but also for spices, butter, new dishes and pots, etc. In a smaller city, he says, they would have been treated poorly for this chutzpah, but in Fez, people gave them their necessity. If you have enough to feed these people easily, and if this is the way to keep them from becoming a restless and destructive mob, it’s very tempting to just pay them their survival minimum. Especially if your form of government is at all dependent on public opinion.
In the long time, you run into the Dire Problem, and also the quality of the people you are paying degenerates. Then you have the inevitable degeneration of the dynasty and ensuing financial problems, and now the EBT fails and you have millions of Dindus rioting…but there is about a 60+ year interval before this happens, so the people instituting these policies are immune from their consequences.
B:
This is pretty rough on the core group. Ottoman empire fell because the Turks revolted against it, correctly perceiving themselves oppressed.
This is not quite identical to the ruling underclass problem and the invite a new people problem, but pretty similar.
“So does it make sense for the other 90 to farm as well, or should they do something else with their time?”
That’s not comparative advantage. Comparative advantage is when 10 can produce food for 100 or a Porsche, and 90 can produce food for 100 or zero Porsches. Then, it’s more efficient for the 90 to produce the food, even though the 10 are much better at it.
>Comparative advantage is when 10 can produce food for 100 or a Porsche, and 90 can produce food for 100 or zero Porsches.
That all follows pretty trivially from what Ibn Khaldun said.
Point is that you want to end up, in theory, solving to maximize the total output of the system.
>This is pretty rough on the core group.
This is obvious, and again, part of Ibn Khaldun’s basic idea. Once the core group has produced a dynasty/associated administrative apparatus/cadres to man it, it has nothing else to offer them. Rather, it represents a constant threat. The administrators owe everything to the dynasty/apparat. They are completely identified with it. But the cousins of the dynasty don’t owe their status to it; rather, it’s the opposite. So they are a liability and a threat to be marginalized and managed.
“That all follows pretty trivially from what Ibn Khaldun said.
Point is that you want to end up, in theory, solving to maximize the total output of the system.”
Well… no, comparative advantage also applies when the group of 10 are a separate country and are not concerned with the total output of the system but just want the best for themselves.
And the concept that a person nine times as productive can be disadvantaged is not trivial. It relies on opportunity cost, another nontrivial observation. The 90 when producing food have positive output, while the 10 when producing food have negative output on net because they are paying the opportunity cost of not producing Porsches. Which is what gives the advantage to the 90.
@pdimov: this is not the way it should work. The 10 super productive people, if they live in sane society of their own, should concentrate on food production, and keep reproducing until they approach limit of carrying capacity / food production given their tech (such limit being signalled by decreasing rate of return on their current tech/land limit). Thereupon, the (closed) society should start working on either conquest (if they haven’t already) or drastically scaling up their tech for food production.
In other words, the objective of any sane society is to pursue cohesion, grow from within and pursue autarky. Trading food is only advisable in cases where the goods that are being acquired in return are somehow instrumental (essential!) to sustainment / growth of the food-selling civilization.
The idea you should look into here I am actually borrowing from computer engineering: it’s called Amdahl’s law, and it’s about system bottlenecks. To illustrate, if by selling food, a country can get energy for its machinery, which otherwise wouldn’t be obtainable, then selling food it *must*. (A better thing would have been to develop or steal the tech to extract and produce energy on their own, or to consider invading the civ that has this energy, but we are simplifying for sake of illustration.)
You proceed from a neoliberal/free trade worldview assumption, which is embedded in today’s discourse in most economics books and magazines, but it’s not necessarily how the world might function, if given a much less imposing unipolar balance of power that is the reality today.
I proceed from a multipolar, nationalist-state-actors assumption. We are not in this world yet, but we/they will be there when the current order collapses.
“You proceed from a neoliberal/free trade worldview assumption…”
Ricardo proceeds from a free trade assumption, not I. 🙂
>Well… no, comparative advantage also applies when the group of 10 are a separate country and are not concerned with the total output of the system but just want the best for themselves.
This is only relevant when you have shipping costs between the two countries which are low relative to the value of the goods being shipped. Which Ibn Khaldun covers a bit, and which is also the reason he primarily talks about big cities, where transportation costs are low because of geographic proximity.
Ricardo’s reality was one of low shipping costs, developed maritime networks, relative security of shipping, etc. But his theory follows pretty trivially from that of Ibn Khaldun.
>And the concept that a person nine times as productive can be disadvantaged is not trivial.
It is trivial to say that it is a waste of e.g. a scholar or doctor’s time to grow cucumbers, and then extrapolate from there.
Incidentally, Peppermint is wrong in his assertion that (((Ricardo))) thought up comparative advantage as a ploy to get the goyim to embrace free trade. It’s true that today comparative advantage is mostly used in such a manner, but projecting present attitudes into the past is wrong, here as well as elsewhere. Ricardo developed the idea of comparative advantage in order to explain the already existing phenomenon of countries importing, under free trade, things that they could have produced themselves more efficiently.
I’m talking about the actual social consequences of these trivial discoveries, since they are only worth noticing for their social consequences.
When I first heard about the Laffer curve from a right wing family member a decade ago, I wondered why it was believed that the government should take as much as it can, since after Laffer came the libertarians arguing that the government should put as little drag on the velocity of money as possible or keep its filthy redistributory hands off other people’s stuff.
The government didn’t stop growing when the Laffer curve was discovered, nor did conservatives find their calling as the accountants of the welfare state, but instead there was the growth of the wage gap that socialists love talking about, and implicitly or explicitly blame nigger behavior on.
Back when that whole “trayvon: are you following me? zimmerman: you have evolution mixed up” thing happened, I was expecting liberals to blame the wage gap and privatization of everything, but they started playing telephone on the Internet and still haven’t stopped.
You’re forgetting Augustus’ valiant but unsuccessful attempt to enforce consequences for the actions of women. Once there was no social pressure on women it was all downhill from there. Aristophanes knew this several hundred years earlier.
http://www.stoa.org/diotima/anthology/wlgr/wlgr-romanlegal120.shtml
Augustus continued the emancipation of women, and undermined the power of husbands. Hence the lack of success.
The Left always starts off proudly announcing that it is for “liberty in an unfree world” and then eventually ends up demanding a repressive state religion. For freedom.
“We anthropomorphize the Cathedral as a person or a conspiracy.”
Uh…do we? Because if we’ve read our Mencius Moldbug, no, we probably don’t.
Religion is naturally repressive. Thats part of its function, and its a damn useful one. The only question is what is being repressed in the human experience, and what is being amplified. The Cult of Progress, propogated by the Cathedral represses things like ethnic identity for whites, and amplifies things like sexual degeneracy and materialism. And so we have an entropic religion condemning its adherents (both willing and unwilling) to their own suicide.
Christianity and Islam, when calibrated correctly, both have the capacity to work in the opposite direction and create stable, functioning, flourishing societies. But you definitely need a good high priest, and a good king, to keep things running optimally. If they are outflanked by either progressive sycophants on one side or degenerate hellcats on the other, things go downhill fast.
Bruce Perens decided to go full SJW recently. So check out this post that made (+5, Insightful): http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=8557433&cid=51222089
The point of the startup economy is, of course, http://www.condenaststore.com/-sp/I-ll-do-what-everybody-does-sell-this-startup-just-before-we-have-to-hir-New-Yorker-Cartoon-Prints_i13514483_.htm
The long-term solution is, of course, leukhaemiolatry, the worship of White blood.
Many people dwell on religion because it is an easy way to hijack a different group’s understanding of the world. However, it is far from a complete prescription because it ignores the importance of hereditary power.
A.J.P.
Yes, and another thing to add is that this focus on the Congregationalists as the source of the world’s problems is doing the bidding of the Vatican.
It completely and conveniently gnores the way that Vatican loyalists discuss their imposition on white American people:
-This point my students would not buy. “Father Dolan,†they would say, “there’s no denying that this bigotry was there in our past. But, come on! Who could ever believe now that immigrants are dirty, drunken, irresponsible, dangerous threats to clean, white, Protestant, Anglo-Saxon America! Those days are gone.â€-
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/timothy-dolan-nativism-rears-big-haired-head-article-1.2307111
It takes an assortment of mental acrobatics to pretend that the “clean and white” America that the Vatican clergyman doesn’t have anything to do with the derisive epithet “Puritan” or purifier. It is for this reason that papist sympathisers must be pointed out for what they are and what they’re doing.
A.J.P.
A.J.P – It’s noted that you have a real problem with Progressive Catholics. We all do. I am curious though as to what grievances you have against the Catholic Church in history and its more Traditionally-minded defenders and spokesmen.
M.C.,
L.O.L., but it’s you who is mentioning the “Progressive Catholic Problem”
Wanting self-determination, and freedom from persecution and genocide is natural.
A.J.P.
You’ve got to keep these things going or else the whole country will be handed over to the Vatican in the name of fun ‘n games. On a crash course with history to becoming the next India, ie. a white elite on top of a coloured population, steadily browning itself out.
delusional. The Vatican has no power and Francis has lost it its independent legitimacy. The Vatican will be a museum within the next 50 years.
No Inquisition would ever investigate the too Holy. A few zealots have been prosecuted, but the main thrust of an inquisition would still be, “more.”
The too holy are a direct threat to the power of the Archbishop and the inquisition. The insufficiently holy are not.
Recall that the original mission of the Spanish Inquisition was to keep free lance witch finders in line. They were perfectly satisfied with pro forma compliance, provided you did not actively worship other rites.
“Too holy” is only an issue when you have a Savonarola.
On the other hand, once you’ve empowered a religious body to investigate and prosecute, and you’ve created a direct financial benefit to successful prosecutions, you’ve got a closed loop to hell. Meaning, there was an incentive for the Inquisition to arrest conversos and torture confessions out of them, an incentive for their neighbors to inform on them, etc. And given the fact that once the Spanish Jews converted and thus the professional barriers keeping them out of e.g. academia were gone, they filled many prestigious professions, there was plenty of incentive (jealousy) for their Old Christian colleagues to inform on them.
Far from “torturing confessions out of them”, in practice they tortured them into being more discreet about their faith, tortured them into refraining from confessing. They did not really mind insincere conversos. They minded insincere conversos getting in people’s faces with obnoxiously blatant displays of insincerity. About one in a thousand of accused conversos were convicted. You had to be mighty stubborn to get yourself convicted.
The inquisition was happy with pro forma Christianity provided you did not actively say out loud it was pro forma, and if you did say out loud it was pro forma they would show you the instruments of torture, and ask you again whether it was pro forma.
This is some interesting alternative history. I get mine from Benzion Netanyahu’s The Origins of the Inquisition in Fifteenth Century Spain. What is your source?
I don’t believe your account of Benzion Netanyahu’s account of inquisition procedures.
The inquisition tortured people into denying their guilt, rather than confessing their guilt.
If only there were some way to check without relying on my words. Like a building where all sorts of books are stored and you can read them and order ones they don’t have on hand…oh, well.
Anyway, what is your source?
In the past, whenever I have checked one of your alleged sources, the alleged source reported the contrary of what you claimed. I have done this many times, and I am not going to do this any more.
You definitely shouldn’t read any of the classic sources on the Inquisition before making sweeping controversial statements on it. It would be a waste of time.
You are pig ignorant about the Spanish Inquisition, and pointing you to relevant sources would be a complete waste of time. Since you already know what they say, you would not bother actually reading them.
We have been over one source after another, and when I quote the actual words, you just repetitiously lie barefaced about the plain words. Not going to waste my time on a barefaced liar.
>You are pig ignorant about the Spanish Inquisition, and pointing you to relevant sources would be a complete waste of time
Of course, very reasonable.
And you yourself are so informed about the Spanish Inquisition that reading Netanyahu’s book on the subject would be superfluous.
Your other readers are also so well informed that there is no need to provide sources for your assertions-surely, they’ve read them, or at least are willing to take your word for it.
There are an abundance of non Jewish sources about the inquisition, and about the crusades. Try them. I have. For the Spanish inquisition, go for recent sources, because the records of the inquisition have only recently been studied.
Though I know full well that you have absolutely no interest in the truth, and you get your knowledge of the Spanish Inquisition not from Netanyahu, but from Mel Brooks.
Netanyahu just spent the last decade trying to start a war with Iran to stop them from getting a weapon that could affect that war within the next 1-3 years, so…
If there is such an abundance, you should be able to point to some of them.
B, The Spanish crown derived no financial benefit at all from the Inquisition. It was widely understood at the time, to the point of being explicitly and repeatedly acknowledged by Ferdinand himself, that the Spanish economy would be significantly harmed by the Inquisition. Though there may well have been jealousy on the part of Old Christians, even they by and large recognized that the Inquisition would harm the Spanish economy. The Inquisition was very popular in Castile but outside of Castile there was plenty of opposition to it on the part of Old Christians, with economic factors being one of the main reasons for the opposition.
Netanyahu’s history of the Inquisition is flawed in many respects, but his major contribution was to demonstrate that there was little to no actual judaizing on the part of the New Christians, but that the conflict was largely to do with racial antagonism. Nevertheless, the authoritative book in the English language on the Inquisition is Henry Kamen’s The Spanish Inquisition. You should read when you have the opportunity.
The Spanish crown didn’t have to derive financial benefit from the Inquisition. The Inquisition and denouncers derived financial benefit from the Inquisition, which was enough. Similarly, the NKVD and denouncers derived benefits from the NKVD’s purges, while the overall Soviet economy suffered.
I will look at Kamen’s book when I get the chance, thanks.
Happy New Year, Jim!
>This, however, does not work on open source, hence Gamergate is relatively successful.
But Gamergate and Open Source don’t have much to do with each other, so far. They could, they should, I already thought adopting Open Source could help GG but so far it is not really happening, because gaming is one field that really resists OSing.
This is a long and complicated story, but basically it is the highly technical stuff like Apache servers that lend themselves very well to opensourcing, where patching, stability, plugging security holes and crashes are the top priority. The problem with games is that 95% of a game is artwork. And artists absolutely hate the idea. Why would the 3D model of a dragon be open sourced? The author doesn’t need any patches from users, so why? That is how open source games end up with crappy looks, artwork done by non-artists, like in Freeciv or Freecol.
I don’t game much, but I am a big fan of Mount & Blade Warband and its mods. It is not a game, it is a genre, namely the smoothest combination of RPG, tactics, strategy and action so far. It is extremely moddable, leading to such gems as Brytenwalda, The Last Days Of The Third Age and Gekokujo, in fact, replacing the core engine with an OS one that could run all these mods would be a major win. But nobody is working on that. And the mods, despite being user made, are not open sourced. Why? Because they are 95% artworks. Artists are a jealous bunch.
So OS could help GG but I really don’t see it happening. Even the most straightforward things, namely to create OS replacement for these types of games that mostly used as platforms for user made mods anyway, is not happening.
The social justice warriors taking command of open source projects are under the impression that they have a great deal to do with each other.
Gamergate is primarily a reaction to the social justice warriors taking over games, which they do by the threat of hostile environment lawsuits. However, hostile environment lawsuits less effective on open source projects.
I think you’ve nailed here a key reason why open source has proven so powerful and effective at solving difficult problems.
They’ve effectively chosen to trade:
o intellectual property
o most profit motive
…for:
o receptivity to outside “2.0” assistance and criticism
o resistance to SJW entryism
…and come out ahead in many regards.
It goes to show just how damaging SJW entryism actually is.
Your blog has been a great education for me, along many axes. Were it a requisite Ivy League freshman seminar, the world would be very different in 20 years.
‘And among the most precious and unique benefits from reading this — for me anyway — has been the perspective and understanding (perhaps the word is “maturity”) to calm down, rationalize, and “de-hate-rify” my suspicion of Jews.
Seriously. It’s a very real quality-of-life factor for me. The truth sets us free.
I, like Jim, oppose anti-Semitism. But it is important to note that what Jim seems to be doing is simply proposing a means by which the Jews can be understood. He is not offering a cure to anti-Semitism. In fact, his account of the Jews is compatible with anti-Semitism. I’ll let him speak for himself, but at least in my opinion the only reason why he appears to oppose anti-Semitism, besides his apparent philosemitism, is because the solutions offered to the Jewish question by anti-Semites are generally some variety of communism, or something that will typically tend towards communism, which he of course opposes.
The solution to the JQ is obvious and the same as the solution to institutional racism and Islamophobia. It’s called “separate countries”.
Who I had in mind when I used the term anti-Semites were people who really, really hate Jews, and who therefore hate Israel as well, and who think that Jews are as noxious and harmful to non-Jews where ever they are in the world, whether they be Israel or anywhere else. But yes, I agree, Jews should live in their own country, i.e. Israel.
Diversity leads to conflict and distrust. Jews are accustomed to reading documents one way, non Jews in a very different way. So when a Jew makes a contract with a non Jew, trouble is apt to ensue. Each race, religion and ethnicity needs their own place or places, and those races that are capable of managing their own affairs should be allowed and encouraged to do so.
Jews should move to Israel or assimilate, and in practice, the way the wind blows, that is what, over time and over generations, Jews are doing.
People who live in regions belonging to a religion or ethnicity different from their own should be able to own property and work, but not vote, nor work in state or quasi state institutions such as banking or education, nor should they be able to evangelize their religion. They should be expected to conform to the customs of their host society, leading to eventual gradual assimilation over generations – or possibly expulsion for failure to conform or inability to conform. Jews should not be in the US house of representatives, nor Muslims in the Knesset. Israel should be a Jewish state, and the US should not be.
Many white nationalists favor taking Jews’ stuff. This is the socialism of the stupid. They think that if they take the capital of a group, they will get that group’s income. Does not work that way in practice. Seizing capital destroys much of the capital, and all of the capability to earn income associated with that capital. Attacks on the wealth of market dominant minorities make everyone poorer. If a member of a market dominant minority chooses to leave of his own accord and sells his business interests to the highest bidder, he will sell his business interests to someone capable of using those assets productively. If he gets expelled and robbed, the business will be looted and destroyed and then everyone is worse off and wonders why the neighborhood looks as if it has been bombed.
That said, whites should be white nationalists. They just should not be stupid and should not be socialist.
“That said, whites should be white nationalists. They just should not be stupid and should not be socialist.”
Stupidity is genetic. When you’re stupid and white, your options are either “stupid white nationalist” or “stupid white something else”, non-stupid is not on the menu.
I suspect that something similar holds for “socialist” as well.
This reminds me of the common “new atheist” tactic of citing numerous examples of stupid religious people being stupid, then associating this stupidity with religion.
Examples are numerous because religion is popular among the stupid. And the reason it is popular is because it works. It provides accessible heuristics that stupid people can follow to their benefit.
The same is true for white nationalism. And anti-Semitism. If you’re stupid, “with Jews, you lose” is not at all a bad bet.
Jim, isn’t white nationalism a species of socialism to begin with? It might be that I’m misunderstanding you.
Nationalism is not necessarily socialism, but that is the way the wind blows.
>Jews are accustomed to reading documents one way, non Jews in a very different way. So when a Jew makes a contract with a non Jew, trouble is apt to ensue
Hence the massive problems Jews have making contracts to sell tech to non-Jews. If we only read contracts the same way, we’d see some Israeli companies getting bought for billions.
Also, this explains the difficulty Jews have had functioning in the American legal system-reading documents in their own way has led to complete mutual incomprehensibility.
“isn’t white nationalism a species of socialism to begin with?”
Well, no. White nationalism is just being in favor of a white nation, at least in principle. Even if you’re making the connection white nationalism == Aryan nationalism == Nazism == NSDAP == form of socialism because of the letter S, it still doesn’t work because the NSDAP did not in actual fact institute socialism, despite it being in the program.
Firstly, the Nazis did implement socialism, not in the sense that the Soviet Union was socialist, but in the sense that Venezuela is socialist – with similar economic consequences.
Secondly, the Nazis were socialist in the primitive sense that they confiscated Jewish property – the politics of covetousness and envy.
pdimov, The white nationalists that I particularly had in mind, however, were today’s white nationalists. Many of them, with some exceptions, appear to what not only a purely white ethnostate but also some kind of state socialism.
Maybe, I don’t know. It’s perfectly normal for the white working class to have socialist tendencies.
It’s perfectly normal for the immoral to want to get free shit at others’ expense. And if the immoral happen to be too dumb and weak to take it, it’s perfectly normal for them to hope someone smarter and stronger, like the government, to take other people’s shit away and give it to themselves.
“It’s perfectly normal for the immoral to want to get free shit at others’ expense.”
That’s not white socialism. White socialism is not immoral and not about stealing. It’s a moral system in which those who produce more are obliged (as a moral duty) to subsidize those who produce less.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
Which winds up as the politically connected, the Nazi equivalent of social justice warriors, telling the productive what they must produce, and what they shall do with what they produce.
“Firstly, the Nazis did implement socialism, not in the sense that the Soviet Union was socialist, but in the sense that Venezuela is socialist – with similar economic consequences.”
I don’t know much about the history of Nazi Germany, but this doesn’t seem right. If we consider what economy the Nazis inherited from the Weimar republic, that there was a Great Depression going on, that Venezuela has oil, and that Germany later was at war with the united forces of the whole world, the comparison rings remarkably hollow.
In what ways was Hitler more socialist than FDR?
Well FDR was pretty socialist, price controls and quotas all over the place, and Hitler’s socialism was even more of the same. You could not pocket your profits, you had to invest them as directed, which tended to be in something stupid run by politically connected people. Hitler was socialist in that his program was the New Deal on steroids.
>It’s a moral system in which those who produce more are obliged (as a moral duty) to subsidize those who produce less.
That’s not socialism. It’s charity.
The difference is that charity is a moral obligation, and socialism is a legal one.
And they are mutually exclusive.
“Which winds up as…”
In what Scandinavian country does it wind up like that?
Scandinavian countries tax the stuffing out of businessmen, but do not tell them how to operate their business.
“That’s not socialism. It’s charity.”
Not quite, although one could make this a matter of definition. The moral obligation to help those in need is nearly universal. The moral obligation to help those that are permanently less productive than yourself due to inequality in capability and not due to illness, a crippling defect, or unfortunate circumstances, even if they aren’t in need, is not.
“The difference is that charity is a moral obligation, and socialism is a legal one.
And they are mutually exclusive.”
The moral and the legal aren’t mutually exclusive. Not in general, and not in this particular. You can have both charity (helping those in need) and socialism (equalizing the inequal).
Most really poor people are just no damn good and remain poor no matter how much money they have. Lotteries stopped giving winner the money all at once because the winners were apt to kill themselves with excess.
Most people who have difficulty earning much money are just plain difficult. Employers will not put up with them, and they will not put up with employers.
I don’t feel any moral obligation to help these people. Indeed, I favor chattel slavery for both categories in place of welfare or prison.
“You could not pocket your profits, you had to invest them as directed, which tended to be in something stupid run by politically connected people.”
I prefer to classify Nazi Germany as fascist.
– the state takes your factory: socialist (point 13 of NSDAP program)
– the state forces you to distribute the profit among the workers: socialist (point 14)
– the state confiscates your profit and distributes it as welfare payments: socialist (current favorite, not in NSDAP program)
– the state installs a government employee in your firm whose job is to ensure that what you’re doing is in the national interest: fascist
That’s also why I classify China as fascist.
So, how would you classify Venezuela?
>The moral obligation to help those that are permanently less productive than yourself due to inequality in capability and not due to illness, a crippling defect, or unfortunate circumstances, even if they aren’t in need, is not.
I don’t think there’s a moral obligation to e.g. help your car mechanic if you are a doctor. He has a job, a house and food on the table-he can cover his necessities.
>The moral and the legal aren’t mutually exclusive. Not in general, and not in this particular. You can have both charity (helping those in need) and socialism (equalizing the inequal)
Of course they are mutually exclusive. If the government is taking more of my stuff because I am smarter and work harder and giving it to the poor, I will not be inclined to help them on top of that. Screw them, they’ve already got the government robbing me to give money to their asses. Not only that, but the money taken from me to give to them is something that I can’t give to them.
“Equalizing the unequal” is impossible, and attempts to do so lead to universally bad results.
>Most really poor people are just no damn good and remain poor no matter how much money they have.
Not in my society, but in America for sure.
I have no problem helping poor people who are either working and still struggling financially, or can’t work. Maimonides, by the way, said the second highest form of charity is when neither the giver nor the recipient know who the other is. But the HIGHEST form of charity is when you strengthen your brother’s hand and help him get to the point that he doesn’t need charity, for instance by helping him learn a trade or open a business (or keep his business from closing during hard times.)
But I have a huge problem with someone forcing me to help poor people, with the threat of incarceration to convince me. And then deciding which poor people should be helped with the money he took from me. And putting most of the money into the pockets of the people administrating this program.
“Most really poor people are just no damn good and remain poor no matter how much money they have.”
Things are different in ethnically homogeneous white countries with avg. IQ 105.
When you enrich with diversity, it all predictably breaks down, of course.
“So, how would you classify Venezuela?”
Marxist.
>Things are different in ethnically homogeneous white countries with avg. IQ 105.
Since no such country exists, of course things are very different there.
There’s a lake of stew and of whiskey too in the big rock candy mountains.
““Equalizing the unequal†is impossible, and attempts to do so lead to universally bad results.”
Of course it’s impossible. It’s a way to live, not a goal to attain. See Jante law, again. It maintains the pretense of equality.
And the results are not the same in Scandinavia and elsewhere. Elsewhere, socialism wrecks the economy almost instantly. In Scandinavia, it doesn’t; the holiness spiral of increasing the tax rate does. It can’t go on forever though, 100% is kind of an obvious limit.
There are bad effects, of course. It leads to a weird inversion. In the rest of the world, the private sector is efficient, and the government is inefficient. In Sweden, it’s the other way around. That’s because working hard for the common good earns you morality points, but working hard for yourself loses points.
“Since no such country exists…”
They did in the not so distant past.
Nowadays, only Finland is left.
Finland has a national IQ of 99 or 97.
Now do the math. Figure out how many of those Whytes have an IQ of below 85.
Ever hang with Euro underclass? They don’t give much away to American blacks (except for the impunity of the latter.)
>Of course it’s impossible. It’s a way to live, not a goal to attain.
It’s a retarded way to live.
>In Scandinavia, it doesn’t; the holiness spiral of increasing the tax rate does
Sorry, is this the Scandinavia which imports Muslim trash en masse and lets them rape and pillage with impunity?
The Scandinavia which sends support teams to Gaza and Hevron?
That’s your success case?
“Finland has a national IQ of 99 or 97.”
Wrong.
I know that this is what Google tells you when you type “iq of finland”, but it’s still wrong. Sensible estimates place Finland’s IQ between 102 and 105.
I’d still bet on 105 though, the average for Northern Europeans.
“Sorry, is this the Scandinavia which imports Muslim trash en masse and lets them rape and pillage with impunity?”
Importing Muslim trash is not a feature of Scandinavian socialism. You can tell it isn’t because Scandinavia was socialist long before it started importing Muslim trash, at the same time other non-Scandinavian countries also started importing Muslim trash.
Importing Muslim trash is a feature of countries who accept poisonous ideology originating from America.
But you know all that.
“That’s your success case?”
Socialism is never an economic success, but some ethnicities can live with its economic costs, presumably in exchange for something.
Socialism is inherently unstable. Utopia fails to arrive as promised, so socialism and socialists must become ever more extreme, or else lapse into Brezhnevian stagnation, resignation, and cynicism.
When socialism fails to deliver, the socialists, if committed to democracy, must import a new people to continue voting socialist, and eventually eradicate the old people. Anything short of autogenocide would be undemocratic. And being undemocratic is the worst thing ever.
-When socialism fails to deliver, the socialists, if committed to democracy, must import a new people to continue voting socialist, and eventually eradicate the old people.-
Anti-whites aren’t serious people: look at what they’re laughing about in South Africa right now.
“…comedian Daniel Friedman, who goes by the stage name Deep Fried Man, sings: “Forget the rhino — save the whites. The second (that) Mandela died — it’s the white genocide.â€
Friedman, who is white, pokes fun at white fears that after the death of liberation icon Nelson Mandela, blacks would…”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/entertainment/2015/12/27/South-Africa-laughs-at-race-as-comedy-provides-pain-relief
» That’s not white socialism.
» White socialism» moral system » obliged » moral duty) » subsidize
» https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante
» 2016
» citing 20th century Scandinavian principles as if we don’t know about the results of the last few years of the Scandinavian social experiment
» those who produce more are obliged to subsidize those who produce less
» from those who have according to their means, to those who take according to their mouths to feed
the inevitable result is the destruction of civilization within at most one generation, as those who produce less are subsidized and more able to reproduce and get their children into positions of power, and those who are capable of producing instead get bullied by niggers as kids, then secretly gather guns and bombs and shoot communists instead of producing and getting married.
are you a christcuck, or just a retard?
putting the word White in front of something doesn’t make it any less Jewish. Don’t forget, the media in Sweden is controlled by Jews.
» The moral obligation to help those in need is nearly universal
fine, give them welfare payments so they can go live in a trailer park and eat cheetos. but give them vasectomies. better, put them in monasteries and have them make beer that we can buy to subsidize their existence as temporary failures at life
>Don’t forget, the media in Sweden is controlled by Jews.
Did we cause the Toba supervolcano eruption, too?
What about the dinosaurs-did they die off because of Jews?
>I’d still bet on 105 though, the average for Northern Europeans.
There is no source I know of that claims an average IQ of 105 for Northern Europeans.
As for Finns, the Northern Midwest is full of them. Great people, full of sisu, but I have not seen any sort of massive intellectual achievements come out of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
>You can tell it isn’t because Scandinavia was socialist long before it started importing Muslim trash, at the same time other non-Scandinavian countries also started importing Muslim trash.
The French and English were importing Muslims from their former colonies, with the idea that they had lots of experience in managing them.
The Germans imported Turks and Kurds because they needed people to work in their factories. And by and large, those Turks and Kurds worked.
The Swedes and Norgs imported the absolute trash of the Muslim world, from countries they had previously had zero connection with, with no business case whatsoever. Somalis! Is there some sort of case where Somali goat herders are good to have on North Sea oil platforms and cell phone manufacturing centers?
Not only did they import these people, but they export their trash as well. I can’t go to Hevron (the 3% of it which is not Judenrein) without seeing packs of Swedes roaming around in keffiyahs, defending the natural right of the Palestinian People to shoot Jewish infants like Shalhevet Pas in the face with sniper rifles. If they’re not with TIPH or the UN, they’ve been sent by their Lutheran Church. I don’t see so many French or Italians or Serbs. But tons of Scandis. Also, those kids Breivik shot were part of an official youth organization which was doing exchange programs with Hamas. Why? Because socialists are always drawn to supporting groups of retards who sow disorder and try to rob their betters.
“Socialism is inherently unstable.”
You keep saying that, and I keep asking why it isn’t in Scandinavia.
What both you and B fail to grasp is that socialism can be organic, rather than imposed.
It did self destruct in Scandinavia. That is why they have to import a new people and get rid of the old people.
Socialism was a disaster. They kept saying that even more socialism would fix it, but the public did not buy it. So they went for Brezhnevian stagnation instead: “Utopia has arrived, so we shall neither back off from utopia, nor attempt to be even more utopian.”
Brezhnevian stagnation proved even less popular. The people replied “This is utopia? Utopia sucks!” The people proved entirely indifferent to pile of highly scientific statistics supposed proving that utopia had arrived, and was thoroughly wonderful.
So they imported a new people who were less capable of speaking back.
“citing 20th century Scandinavian principles as if we don’t know about the results of the last few years of the Scandinavian social experiment”
Innate Northern European (some would say Neanderthal) socialist tendencies are a product of evolution. Evolution doesn’t work on timescales of “last few years”. Obviously, Scandinavians are ill-adapted to the present environment in which niggers and kebab can enter, and survive in, their country without freezing to death and in which they get their picture of the world from broadcast media that lies to them.
» What both you and B fail to grasp is that socialism can be organic, rather than imposed.
Igor Shafarevich wrote a book about the will to socialism, The Socialist Phenomenon, in which he described examples of socialism in practice but could not figure out why people would do such a thing.
Today, the NRx understands that the will to socialism comes from an organic process of social signaling.
But socialism, in which stuff is taken from producers and redistributed, sometimes through anonymous proxies, to non-producers, can only be imposed on producers through force.
Your failure to understand that socialism is the means by which the Jews destroy White civilization, presumably because you were educated by Jews or are a Jew yourself, makes you a Jew-enabler. Please deport yourself to Israel, otherwise you will find yourself in the concentration camps.
“Your failure to understand that socialism is the means by which the Jews destroy White civilization…”
No, peppermint, (((international))) socialism is a Jewish thing. Ordinary socialism is white. There is a reason why NSDAP had an S in its name. (And A, for that matter.)
Feminism and environmentalism are also white. Their weaponized, American, versions are Jewish, engineered to use the white innate tendencies against whites.
“… presumably because you were educated by Jews or are a Jew yourself, makes you a Jew-enabler. Please deport yourself to Israel, otherwise you will find yourself in the concentration camps.”
Zero out of five.
((Karl Marx)): from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs
((Pdimov)): It’s a moral system in which those who produce more are obliged (as a moral duty) to subsidize those who produce less.
Look, the Jews are trying to destroy the White middle class. What a surprise.
“Look, the Jews are trying to destroy the White middle class.”
You do understand that in the environment in which Northern Europeans evolved, there were neither Jews nor a notion of “middle class”, right?
Once again… (((Marx))) is using the innate white propensity for socialism as a hook on which to hang his ideological weapon.
pdimov,
>Feminism and environmentalism are also white. Their weaponized, American, versions are Jewish, engineered to use the white innate tendencies against whites.
What is difference between the former kinds of feminism and environmentalism and the latter kinds?
“What is difference between the former kinds of feminism and environmentalism and the latter kinds?”
In the former kind, women are given rights and the environment is taken care of.
In the latter kind, men and producers are demonized and women and SWPLs are convinced to vote for communists.
Feminists always wanted to destroy marriage and the family. Environmentalists always wanted to exterminate the human race.
Those who defended Queen Caroline were not significantly different from Andrea Dworkin and company.
Nazis believe that leftism was fine until 1930 or so. It really was not. The female emancipationists were vicious hateful lesbian scum, sluts, and whores. Similarly, the anti slavery people.
“Feminists always wanted to destroy marriage and the family.”
You don’t agree, then, that Germanic tribes (pre-Roman influence) were more egalitarian in their treatment of women, “more feminist”, on net, than the average patriarchal society?
(Of course they didn’t call themselves “feminist”. There were no -isms at the time yet.)
According to the Roman writers, German husbands had power of life and death over their wives. Then feminists read the Romans and conclude the Romans got it wrong, and the Germans were actually matriarchal.
Feminists rewrite history to make our society seem less anomalous.
I suspected as much. Most history nowadays consists of Cathedral fairy tales.
Still, the fact remains that Sweden is the most feminist place on Earth at the moment. That is, feminism, as an ideology, was (much) more successful in taking over Sweden than it was in taking over other countries.
Why is that?
I say that it is because feminism exploits the natural propensities of Northern Europeans.
I say that Nazi Germany, had it won or drawn the war, would have went full leftist social justice retard even faster than America did. Because Northern Europeans.
What do you say?
“The female emancipationists were vicious hateful lesbian scum, sluts, and whores.”
I recall that the emancipationists were actually the (very wealthy) madammes of said whores, although I admit I don’t know why they elected to pursue it. They were creating competition for themselves, after all. Basically putting themselves out of business.
pdimov,
Please stop defending feminism.
Women should not be able to own property, or have any say in politics, or be able to decide what to wear, or drive a car (unless in the case of an emergency), or go to school past the age of 13, etc.
“Women should not be able to … drive a car”
How barbaric. Of course women should be able to drive a car, as long as there is a man walking in front of the car waving a red flag.
stop trying to Jew us by Talmudically redefining the middle class and arrogantly claiming that we had no concept thereof before your people came as a light to the world. Your people killed enough kulaks half a world away for us to remember the name.
In our White marriage ceremony, the man and the woman are pronounced husband and wife. Wife means woman. Husband means homeowner.
A White civilization is built by its homeowners with the intention of providing for the safety and comfort and further reproduction of their children.
And you say that you are a national socialist, a socialist in one state. The USSR was started by a cabal of Jews. Chinks and gooks are rice niggers. Venezuela is filled with jungle apes whose behavior in Caracas is exactly like the title of Napoleon Chagnon’s classic The Fierce “People”. Hungarians and Bulgarians aren’t actually White, but Turks. Scandinavia was doing just fine before they stopped having White kids and started being humanitarian superpowers. So Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s dream about the arc of history bending towards Rawlsian justice hasn’t been crushed by evidence yet.
But in reality, every honestly convinced commie is a Jew-educated faggot whelp sperglord whose only experience of positive human interaction is when mom makes sure he has as many loxy Jew bagels as his jerk older brother and expects him to feed his little sister enough cocoa but under no circumstances coffee, on pain of being sent to time out, and this experience is then extrapolated to statecraft with reckless autism.
An experience of physical intimacy with a woman, who, in her hindbrain if not in her words that she wants you to ignore, looks to you for protection for her and your future children, should be enough to disabuse you of the notion that communism is a good idea. Failing that, there should be printouts of my blog and reading groups at the work camp you are assigned to for spreading toxic ideologies in a country permitting voting.
When us true national socialists say heil Hitler, we don’t just mean the anti-Semitism Hitler of the Six Million. We also mean the anti-socialism Hitler who comissioned faggots to beat commies and wished they would kill each other. But I’m not sure which side you would be on.
14/88 o/
p.s. socialism caused the fall of Rome, Moscow, and London, and without the immediate intervention of the avatar of Hitler who was born the year after Hitler killed himself with a promise to return and finish what he had started, socialism is soon to destroy Washington; would that Soviet socialism had destroyed Washington, NYC, and SF 30 years ago with nuclear fire.
“And you say that you are a national socialist…”
If you’re addressing me, no, I say nothing of the sort. I am not a socialist of any stripe, I favor laissez-faire, but without open borders. Basically the US pre-income tax. As for nationalism, it’s just common sense. The word shouldn’t even exist. (Other words that shouldn’t exist are racist, straight, and Gentile. And in fact the latter two do not exist in my language.)
“socialism is soon to destroy Washington”
Importing a million third-worlders a year is going to destroy any first world country no matter what. Placing them on welfare is perhaps more “socialist” than not, even though socialism is supposed to benefit the native working class, not hurt them; but even without welfare, the country would be finished.
“Placing them on welfare is perhaps more “socialist†than not, even though socialism is supposed to benefit the native working class, not hurt them”
That is delusion.
Socialism is supposed to destroy the native working class so that they can be more cheaply bribed with spoils from looting the country they live in – meanwhile the actual parasite class (those whose only skill is writing justifications for socialism) gets to live off the skim.
This, of course, doesn’t imply that businessmen are saints – no matter what your scheme is someone will figure out how to make money by making it work to some degree.
The true meaning of socialism is the children, cat ladies, degenerates, pensioners, and anyone else who feels sad about not being the White middle class being given increasing amounts of resources, prestige, and power from the White middle class, which silently moves away or openly approves because signaling against sharing means signaling discomfort or political unreliability, which will make your wife unhappy and try to sleep with a drug dealer who doesn’t have much but is sure of himself.
Socialism, feminism, Puritanism, and giving apples to children on Halloween are the same phenomenon.
Treating White women the way White women are treated by White men, or hospitality and kindness towards strangers, as aspects of the White behavior, are distinct from the socialist phenomenon.
Right.
“Socialism is supposed to destroy the native working class…”
You mean “intended” here, not “supposed”, if I’m not mistaken. “Supposed to destroy” implies that it’s thought to destroy but doesn’t. Hence “supposed to help”.
No matter how much you stretch the word, a socialist policy must at the very minimum pay lip service to the interests of the working class. This is what makes it socialist.
— a socialist policy must at the very minimum pay lip service to the interests of the working class
Congratulations, you just defined most Americans who call themselves Marxists out of socialism.
Unless all that is required is for them to mention classism and qq about how they don’t have jobs like their White middle class brothers, and as long as their hatred for rednecks with guns and trucks who don’t have all the latest poz installed in their professed beliefs is phrased not as spiteful classism but anti-anti-intellectualism.
Marx doesn’t define socialism, socialism is older and more subtle than that one communist who never worked a day in his life or did anything remotely serious in his life of leisure. Socialism is caused by the producers having enough capital that they and their faggot children can start a signalpocalypse.
Socialism is actually very easy to understand, much easier than the evolution of races and sexual behavior. Rather than arguing that socialism should somehow be taken at face value, please argue that r/K is a good model for riberals/Konservatives, or maybe you could sperg about ethical systems like the TRSwaggots.
If socialism was about signaling, it would be hip and cool in America to call oneself socialist. But it’s not. Only old Jews from Vermont stuck in 1970 call themselves socialist. Socialism is unhip, uncool, old school. That’s because defending the white working class is uncool and bigoted. Current year.
Presidential candidate Sanders calls himself socialist – even though his actual policies are not particularly socialist. Indeed his major “socialist” policy is privatizing the financial system’s risks and losses.
So, despite centuries of failure, disaster, famine, and mass murder, it is still hip to call oneself a socialist.
“… it is still hip to call oneself a socialist.”
I don’t think so. Only old people call themselves socialist. Maybe Sanders will be able to make it hip again.
There are words that change their meaning to stay at the forefront of hipness. The obvious examples are ‘progressive’ and ‘liberal’, but also ‘feminist’. First, second, third wave, intersectional, have to run fast to not fall behind the current year.
Socialist is not such a word, as far as I can see. Maybe it was once, I don’t know.
what the fuck, how old are you Pdimov?
If you were a teenager or college student, you would know that socialism is the way to sound edgy while actually being perfectly safe, and the economic philosophy most compatible with telling women to drop their pants for your liberation.
If you were a 30 year old, you would know that all the women on your Facebook are socialists and socialists get to say whatever the fuck they want to, up to and including calling for deportations and summary executions of their political enemies or just people they don’t like, while fascist must keep their power level concealed.
If you were a 50 year old, you would know that the dildo is going in your ass no matter what and you might as well lube yourself up.
If you were a 70 year old, you would be either an old hippie commie, an old hippie lawyercunt, or the reincarnation of Adolf Hitler, ready for the final battle to determine the future of the White race in North America.
I can only conclude that you’re autistic enough to transcend age as the perfect pure individual of the new era
I’m not American, Peppermint. All I know about America I learned from the Internet. And nobody calls themselves ‘socialist’ except old people. It goes like this:
young alt rightist: … so the SJW morons took over Github …
old fogey: Hey! As a socialist, I fought for social justice in the 60s!
YAR: LOL grandpa, get off the Internet.
This sounds awfully like B. You argue from a supposed personal experience that differs strangely from my own.
Andrew Anglin claims that signaling socialism is not actually edgy and just sad and gay. He has a point, but he’s mostly just playing politics.
Okay, you’re from Eastern Europe, where signaling socialism is not a good way to signal reliability. It is still, of course, a good way to signal comfort. The strongest way to signal comfort is to call for your own genocide.
You won’t be rid of socialism until you understand what it is, as evidenced by the fact that you are sympathetic towards socialism despite your society having tried it and turned against it.
“You argue from a supposed personal experience that differs strangely from my own.”
I claim zero personal experience with the American college. If you say that students call themselves ‘socialist’ but do not even pretend to care about the oppressed worker, I have no choice but to agree.
Either way, redefining socialism as mere signaling empties the word of meaning. Everyone signals, therefore everyone is a socialist. Not very useful. How could we argue about whether Hitler was socialist or not on that basis? Makes no sense.
“you are sympathetic towards socialism”
Not at all. Socialism is economic poison. Only selected countries can endure it (at a substantial economic cost) and even then, the dose needs to be chosen with care.
Whether socialism makes you welcome refugees, well, that’s another story. Former socialist countries don’t welcome refugees. No true socialism?
I am not redefining the word as mere signalling. Occupy Wall Street want socialism so that the government can command that the highly educated worthy people, such as themselves, get high salaries and status. That is socialism all right. Socialism is state command replacing the market and the pursuit of self interest.
Mr Dimov,
In a way you are right, and that people don’t really care about socialism. Rather, they care about standards of living. In the 20th Century, people realised that living under communist totalitarianism was miserable, and that made the difference more than a thousand economic arguments.
In the same way, living in a brown country rather than a Western, white country is considerably worse. Turning one’s own country into a brown one from a white one is then easily seen as an unmitigated evil…
Best regards,
A.J.P.
Socialism is “a moral system in which those who produce more are obliged (as a moral duty) to subsidize those who produce less”, and this moral duty is enforced by the government.
This is utterly retarded. The question is, why would anyone do such a thing?
Your support for such a moral system is one reason it happens. Another reason it happens is that, since the middle class is larger than the Dunbar number, it is necessary for people to signal their reliability to each other, so that they can know who they should have business dealings or family relationships with.
The way a person signals reliability is not to tell the truth, outside of a few hardcore scientists. Instead, political reliability is signaled through enthusiastically repeating whatever bullshit is fashionable, and comfort is signaled through calling for one’s own genocide.
The reason you support such a moral system, however, is that your mind has been poisoned by cuckstainty, in which instead of a bunch of apes building civilization for their progeny, we have a bunch of souls from the mysterious beyond whose highest calling is to have gay orgies. To the cuckstain, evolution is mysterious but unimportant or heretical, and the important part is that right now, there are seven billion souls who need food to be taken from food producers and distributed to them as well as smartphones so they can watch gay porn.
» Rather, they care about standards of living.
yes, your generation was told that they cared so much about standards of living, they were willing to let their country be infiltrated by subhuman garbage and give their factories to other countries as foreign aid in order to raise their standards of living, as well as not drop their standards of living by not having children
when in reality, cuckstains and kikes were carrying out White genocide due to the moral imperative that cuckstains and kikes feel to carry out White genocide, and talking about standards of living as a way of bullshitting the feebleminded
“people realised that living under communist totalitarianism was miserable”
That’s wildly optimistic. People never learn.
Many here consider life under ‘communism’ (we called it socialism though) to have been better than it is now. This is partly because they were younger then, partly because we were isolated from Western moral degeneracy, partly because living standards did not improve to Western levels, and partly because economic inequality was less visible then.
Socialism fell because you can’t run an economy at a loss forever. And whatever can’t go on forever eventually stops.
But, as you can see from the copious anti-austerity arguments – austerity meaning simply not running the economy at a loss – people didn’t learn.
It’s optimistic for you, in your opinion.
You’re trying to get people to believe that nobody noticed that they were being fenced in when people from non-Marxist countries flew over there to tell them that the wall was for keeping people in?
People saw the way that the promise of a “Worker’s Paradise” became a literal prison and wasn’t synching up with the on-the-ground reality. That’s called cognitive dissonance, and is not such a sophisticated concept, then again that’s not anything that requires a person pointing it out to have advanced diplomas on his wall, therefore might be seen as a lackluster point. Nevertheless, sometimes truth is stranger than fiction and perhaps that is why people prefer fiction…
“Socialism is “a moral system in which those who produce more are obliged (as a moral duty) to subsidize those who produce lessâ€, and this moral duty is enforced by the government.”
Yes, that’s Scandinavian socialism. Doesn’t work anywhere else. Perhaps in Canada, too.
“This is utterly retarded. The question is, why would anyone do such a thing?”
My guess – and I claim zero personal experience w/ Scandinavia either – is that there are two moral systems when it comes to differences in productivity. One says that if you produce less that’s your fault for not working hard enough. Other says that you produce less not due to a fault of your own, as differences in productivity are just a consequence of natural human inequality.
So, if you accept the latter, _and you have no parasites_, you go socialist.
(You have no parasites in cold climates because they tend to die off. That’s of course before enrichment. But winter is coming.)
!@#$%^&*
^ It feels good to be able to filter “Peppermint Papist”‘s anti-Christian rantings so convincingly.
» One says that if you produce less that’s your fault for not working hard enough. Other says that you produce less not due to a fault of your own, as differences in productivity are just a consequence of natural human inequality.
and the third says that what a man produces, he should give to his children, or his slaves, or his community, as part of a reciprocal agreement with mutual, personal obligations, and, if these obligations are not personal, then
(1)the mouths will look to the government bureaucrats instead of the producers
(2) the producers will be unable to procure the better life for their children that makes it all worthwhile
(3) the children will grow up thinking that they should be government bureaucrats instead of producers, there will be less children
(4) the government bureaucrats will try to import all manner of refuse from the rest of the world, and try to police every social interaction the natives have
(5) collapse takes a variable amount of time, from over a century in Rome, to 70 years in Russia, to as little as a single generation. The Law of Jante is first recorded to have been formulated in the ’30s. Scandinavian socialism must have begun in earnest in the ’70s-’90s.
“The female emancipationists were vicious hateful lesbian scum, sluts, and whores.”
FWIW, I just read chapter 4 of “A Renegade History of the United States” by Thaddeus Russell, and while the chapter is about how the prostitutes were the original strong and independent women, at the end, it’s mentioned that the early feminists were moral crusaders who were against prostitution. They got prostitution banned, brothels closed, and prostitutes sterilized.
“Occupy Wall Street want socialism so that the government can command that the highly educated worthy people, such as themselves, get high salaries and status.”
I am saying that calling yourself a socialist is roughly synonymous with “I stand with the oppressed worker.”
You’re saying that the motive of the wealthy intelligentsia for declaring themselves socialist is that they are rent-seeking.
One does not contradict the other. Never has.
>Occupy Wall Street want
Heh. OWS, BLM, Femen and the rest of the Soros foot soldiers have no idea what they want. When OWS were asked what they wanted, they had to brainstorm for weeks to figure it out.
“Socialism is state command replacing the market and the pursuit of self interest.”
State redistribution from the “1%” to the “99%”: socialism
State redistribution from the “99%” to the “1%”: not socialism
Nationalizing coal because coal miners’ wages are too low: socialism
Nationalizing coal because of its strategic significance: not socialism
Commanding Porsche to build Volkswagens for the people: socialism
Commanding Porsche to build tanks: not socialism
If so, then socialism so defined has never existed, and is never going to exist.
“If so, then socialism so defined has never existed, and is never going to exist.”
Why not? The tings I listed as examples of socialism have definitely existed. Here’s three more that exist right now:
Advocating for minimum wage $15/hr: socialism
Attacking Walmart for exploiting its workers: socialism
Ranting against economic inequality: socialism
And here are two interesting corner cases:
Advocating for open borders because closed borders are the state interfering with the free market: socialism or not socialism?
Advocating for open borders because poor people have the right to seek a better life: socialism or not socialism?
None of those are socialism. They are posturing.
It was pretty clear what OWS wanted. They were standing outside major financial institutions yelling about bailouts.
But when they were asked, they had to go through the progressive stack, and demand that no one say mean things about minorities, but, in fact, people should use preferred gender pronouns.
» I am saying that calling yourself a socialist is roughly synonymous with “I stand with the oppressed worker.â€
yes, that is the denotative content of that signal.
What you’re actually saying is “I am reliable and comfortable, so you can be comfortable dealing with me”, with a hint of “It’s sad that people are poor” or “I want an easier job with better pay”.
And what you’re going to bring about is the death of your race and its replacement by turd worlders.
“And what you’re going to bring about is the death of your race and its replacement by turd worlders.”
You keep saying that.
Of East/West Germany, which was socialist?
Which Germany imported Turks?
Which Germany was sexually enriched on New Year’s Eve by imported “refugees”? Look at the map.
http://pic.twitter.com/pzJMi4nvOi
being on the losing side of the Cold War had that advantage.
Rome was powerful, and the powerful signaled, and they implemented socialist policies, and imported Goths and muds, and were destroyed by Goths instead of turning into India.
The US and Western Europe is following Rome.
Since Eastern Europe had Marxist socialism instead of organic socialism, it destroyed its economy but couldn’t figure out how to genocide its people, though not for lack of trying.
“being on the losing side of the Cold War had that advantage.”
Heh. Fair enough.
Are open borders free market libertarians socialist? By jim’s definition (state intervention) they are the complete opposite. Yet they would still flood the country with third worlders.
I am not philosemitic. I am always telling B how bad and obnoxious Jews are. It is just that I think that Jews, like every competent group, should have their own country, a specifically Jewish country – rather than a country run by the progressives and the Cathedral, which is what they have now.
And I am always telling national socialists that confiscating property is stupid, self destructive, and a manifestation of envy and covetousness.
Quite frankly I don’t even understand Anti-Semitism. Jews aren’t even a group as such. 90% of the cases just secular, universalist liberal individuals with Jewish ancestry, and not all that different from other kinds of modern rootless liberals. 90% of Jews are ex-Jews and not even full-blooded usually.
Hating a group would make sense if the group would really exist as a coherent, cohesive unit. Well, all right, some cohesive groups do exist, but most “Jews” I meet are just isolated free-floating modern individuals who have some amount of Jewish ancestry and they even don’t really like that fact much.
Another issue is that Anti-Semitism tends to be a mind-killer. It is amazing how stupid intelligent people become when this topic comes up. For example Carl Schmitt was an absolute, 100% genius, when he was writing about political theory. When he was writing or speaking about Jews it was embarassingly low-brow.
Generally I don’t even understand why does the topic comes up. Apparently Jim has some Anti-Semitic commenters, while they are generally absent from other NRx sites, they tend to go to Alt-Right instead. HBD-wise, Jews are intelligent and well adjusted to civilized life. They are not your street thugs. Herzl, the founder of Zionism wrote the Jewish Question exists precisely because of their above-average IQ: if a society does not provide enough high status jobs suitable for a high-IQ population, they tend to become subversive e.g. become Communists. (Another reason to not hate Jews is that they are THIS good at self-criticism.) Sp it is basically an IQ test for every society to succesfully integrate Jews, because they can be integrated into every society that approves of commerce and making money by being smart. And in your favor, America proved to be far better at integrating Jews than Central and Eastern Europe where our anti-commercial, romantic, agriculturalist instincts are at odds with the idea of commercial competition and “too smart” deals, so this is why Anti-Semitism has been historically so popular here and still alive. The average Polish peasant hated Jews because the rural Jewish shopkeeper was 25 IQ points above his and could run circles around him, screw him over any way he wished. That is also why the average Malaysian peasant hates the Chinese shopkeeper. Same story. So it is an IQ test for every society to be able to integrate Jews. Or Chinese.
So ultimately, I don’t really see that much wrong with Jews, but the most important things is that they aren’t even Jews i.e. not a coherent, cohesive group, mostly it is just individuals with some amount of Jewish ancestry who don’t even like it.
So I don’t really understand how people arrive to Anti-Semitism. It is weird anyway, especially for you Americans, aren’t the right-wing tends to be big on “we stand with Israel” ?
At any rate, IMHO, hate progressives as a group, not Jews. And if most progressives end up being Jews, well, there is still no point in hating them as Jews, not as progressives.
The topic comes up because B pisses people off with stereotypical bad Jewish behavior, confirming many Jewish stereotypes.
I can only hope the history of the PHP language isn’t what “stereotypically Jewish” means or I’ll turn Anti-Semite, too 🙂
this makes sense to me, but I think your should expect Jews in positions of cultural influence to undermine ‘racial’ and religious identity even if they have a good relationship to society
is there a chance i’m on to something when i suspect that the high point of ‘jewish conspiracies’ and so on in the us was between the 40’s and the 80’s?
> “this makes sense to me, but I think you should expect Jews in positions of cultural influence to undermine ‘racial’ and religious identity even if they have a good relationship to society”
You contradict yourself. If they have “a good relationship with society”, this means that they are progressives.
If they are fully assimilated into their host populations, and do not consider themselves Jews in a religious or even a racial sense, would you still expect them to “undermine ‘racial’ and religious identity”? If so, why? (And how would you explain, say, Lawrence Auster?)
If Jews don’t consider themselves to be Jews in any sense, then how are they even Jewish? It’s possible that the Ashkenazim have some sort of genetic or cultural tendency towards leftism anyway. They wouldn’t be the only ones, lol.
If Jews are progressives to the same extent as “society” and no more, then there is no point in complaining about Jewish progressiveness as such imo. This is getting more true but, definitely wasn’t true in the past.
Auster doesn’t need special explanation any more than someone like Sowell does. There are always outliers.
TheDividualist,
The idea that Jews are just a collection of “isolated free-floating modern individuals” is a lie cooked up by Jews in order to undermine the basis for Gentile anti-Semitism. All of that is bullshit.
Moreover, the problem with Jews extends far beyond the simple fact of their on average higher IQs.
Comments like this really get on my nerves. For example, you’re trying to take the perspective of some neutral, disinterested observer in your commentary on this question, as if you’re being entirely objective in your treatment of it, but I’m 99% sure that you yourself are Jewish. This is exactly the sort of behavior that makes people anti-Semitic.
“The average Polish peasant hated Jews because the rural Jewish shopkeeper was 25 IQ points above his and could run circles around him, screw him over any way he wished.”
“So I don’t really understand how people arrive to Anti-Semitism.”
How do you reconcile these two statements?
“It is weird anyway, especially for you Americans”
Americans are the least anti-Semitic group in the known universe. I wouldn’t be surprised if, per capita, even Jews themselves were more anti-Semitic.
What’s wrong with the Polish peasant concerned for his own interests not to want smart money-grubbers in his town? This would seem perfectly logical. The Jew has no right to be there anyway.
Nothing is wrong with it from a pure moral perspective, but setting up society such that peasants get to choose who can be a merchant will have negative effects as well as positive.
Can an African peasant also decide not allow money grubbing Europeans and Indians in his town?
Or perhaps American Indians can ask the white people who are exploiting them to leave?
In practice they generally do not allow Europeans and Indians, in that whites and Indians are subject to restrictions and mistreatment that make it difficult for them to earn a living.
This of course fucks up the economy, because blacks lack the capability to run a modern economy by themselves, so in countries run by saner black or mulatto elites, they allow the Chinese in, and the Chinese government, unlike the European government, is apt to prevent them from changing their minds and engaging in mistreatment of those Chinese.
It is pretty obvious that Europeans are capable of running a modern economy – while Jews contributed disproportionately to the scientific and industrial revolutions, their contribution was quite small. It was not Jews that gave us the scientific and industrial revolutions, and Israel is not punching above its weight in science and industry.
My position is that all prosperous peaceful honest middle class males and their families should be able to travel and do business freely, but countries should belong to particular ethnicities, because diversity leads to distrust and betrayal, and you don’t want the government betraying you. Easier to deal with people in the private sector betraying you. So people of the wrong ethnicity should not be allowed high status positions in state and quasi state organizations. Kicking private sector Jews out of Poland would reduce Polish living standards, particularly if accompanied by confiscation, but would not radically reduce Polish living standards, because Poles are competent to run industry. Kicking whites out of black countries does radically reduce black living standards, because blacks need supervision to accomplish anything.
Anyone could potentially be a merchant, but why the hell is the Jew in Poland anyway? He can go and be a merchant in his own country. If he refuses, then eventually after decades of pissed off Poles getting increasingly frustrated, there will be a holocaust. Avoid holocaust by moving all Jews to Israel. The leaders of Poland should be determining who is allowed in and who isn’t, and there is no reason to bring Jews in, any more than bringing in some dindu. Poles are perfectly fine.
Also, Amerindians had a war and were beaten. They have no land anymore apart from what whites give them, and they do very well indeed with their casinos. And blacks in Africa kicked the Indians and whites out a long time ago. Only a couple of holdouts left now.
>Israel is not punching above its weight in science and industry.
Untrue. I’m not going to run a long list of scientific and industrial advances that came out of Israel (specifically the Technion and TAU but also the private sector.) There is no country with a similar sized population that has a similar contribution.
>Kicking private sector Jews out of Poland would reduce Polish living standards, particularly if accompanied by confiscation, but would not radically reduce Polish living standards, because Poles are competent to run industry.
It depends. Industry and tech have become more intellectually demanding. Anyway, this is a utilitarian argument about a moral question.
>Anyone could potentially be a merchant, but why the hell is the Jew in Poland anyway?
What a great question. “Anyone could potentially be a computer scientis’, so why all dese Chinese mofos be up in heah when brothas be on unemployment””
I’ll explain. When Poland was a war-torn hellhole hanging off the ass of Europe, the people ruling it had a hard time finding enough talented managers willing to live there. So they invited the Jews and gave them good terms. Over the centuries, the need of the Polish rulers and aristocracy for talented managers stayed high, so they renewed these terms.
>He can go and be a merchant in his own country. If he refuses then eventually after decades of pissed off Poles getting increasingly frustrated, there will be a holocaust.
Yes, good point. The Holocaust happened because the Poles were increasingly pissed off that the Jews didn’t emigrate to Israel in the year 1500 or thereabouts. Therefore, the Poles (who were tired of being exploited by the Jews) arranged to have the Germans invade their country and kill 3 million Polish Jews (and another 3 million Poles.) History is so much clearer now.
>Also, Amerindians had a war and were beaten.
Similarly, Poland was conquered by its aristocrats, who decided to invite the Jews in and contract with them to manage the peasants. So what is the problem? The peasants are in the exact same position as American Indians. If they had what it took to conquer their land, they would have.
>And blacks in Africa kicked the Indians and whites out a long time ago.
Actually, European and American elite whites did that, using the blacks as a proxy, and are doing something similar in the US and Europe now. I assume you have no issue with the process, since black sentiment towards whites actually is what you seem to think Polish sentiment towards Jews was.
B.,
The Ottoman empire colonised Greece and still has Istanbul to this day (originally “Constantinople”).
Go tell the Turkish to get out of Istanbul because they stole it.
Muslims in Europe are AT THIS MOMENT taking over White countries.
Go tell Muslims to get out of Europe because they’re colonising it with immigration.
We all know you won’t, that’s because you’re anti-White.
You say you are anti-racist, what you are is anti-White.
A.J.P.
B, if I understand him correctly, agrees with me that Israel should be Jewish, should be governed by Jews, and non Jews in Israel should be at best guests and outsiders, should not vote, not participate in government, nor have high status positions in government and quasi government institutions.
The obvious implication of that is that America should not be Jewish. I don’t think he is too happy with that conclusion, but is honest enough to accept it – some of the time. And some of the time not.
That may be true, “Jim”, but it may also be true that he spends his time here as a way to distract pro-whites from organising and has pragmatically couched his anti-white purpose in layers of believable ideology. For me, I’ll treat him as any other anti-white and as you say anti-white means anti-English so anyone being against Anglo-Saxons could right away be painted with the same broad brush strokes of anti-white-wash…
>Go tell the Turkish to get out of Istanbul because they stole it.
You are confused. I don’t believe that the Americans need to get out of Indiana, the Turks need to get out of Istanbul or the Franks out of France.
>You say you are anti-racist, what you are is anti-White.
I say I’m anti-racist? Where do I say that?
Also, I’m not anti-white. I’m pro-Jewish.
>B, if I understand him correctly, agrees with me that Israel should be Jewish, should be governed by Jews, and non Jews in Israel should be at best guests and outsiders, should not vote, not participate in government, nor have high status positions in government and quasi government institutions.
Certainly (with the caveat that I don’t think Jews in Israel should vote either.)
>The obvious implication of that is that America should not be Jewish. I don’t think he is too happy with that conclusion, but is honest enough to accept it – some of the time.
I think that all the Jews should come to Israel out of love for and fear of G-d, not due to expulsions and out of fear of the goyim. Of course, the viewpoint of men like Rav Kahane and Rav Issachar Teichtal was that the Jewish people is G-d’s treasured possession, and that He will acquire us in His land one way or the other; if we go voluntarily, then voluntarily, and if not, then by having the non-Jews drive us out. But personally I love my people and do not want them to be harmed or dispossessed. And those who wish to harm or dispossess
them should know that every nation which has done so has paid a very heavy price. G-d does not take this sort of thing lightly.
On the other hand, as a guy who grew up American and paid his dues to America, I think that the idea that America should not be Jewish is not any better than the idea that America should not be Polish, or Irish, or German, or Norwegian, or Italian, or black or Mexican for that matter. America should be American, meaning, run responsibly for the benefit of its existing population. Of course, this is incompatible with popular government.
On the third hand, I left America because I saw that the vast majority of its people were not interested in having a country run responsibly for the benefit of its population as a whole, and because I saw that it had no future. Sadly, I doubt anything any of us will say or do will change that.
You agree that Israel should not have an ethnically diverse government. Why then should any land have an ethnically diverse government? Diversity plus proximity leads at best to distrust, defection, and failure of cooperation, at worst to war, and the worst is alarmingly common.
>You agree that Israel should not have an ethnically diverse government.
Depends what you mean. I think that all the people in the government in Israel should be Jews, and which community they descend from is irrelevant. I don’t even care if they come from converts (though converts themselves can’t be in the government-Torah says so.)
>Why then should any land have an ethnically diverse government?
If you have something like America, where even the white population is a soup of different nations/cultures/folkways, what would a non-ethnically diverse government look like? Would Pollocks and Scots-Irish hillbillies from the Appalachians be allowed in? How about criollo Mexicans (European descent)?
>Diversity plus proximity leads at best to distrust, defection, and failure of cooperation, at worst to war, and the worst is alarmingly common.
Depends on the terms of the diversity. For instance, the antebellum South had no such problems.
All white, and all one religion or ideology. Like the government of every American state before the civil war.
The governments of the antibellum South were homogeneously white Anglican or white English religion that was Anglican descended.
B, don’t try your Talmudic logic again. All of Europe despised the Jews in the early 1900s. The Poles hates Jews, the Romanians hated Jews, the Russians hated Jews, the Germans hated Jews, even the Brits hated the Jews. Everywhere Jews have gone, they have bred animosity towards themselves. You can say this is justified by jealousy, but that doesn’t matter. Animosity is animosity.
You have just said you want Jews to move to Israel, so there is no practical disagreement between us. You don’t think Jews should be in Poland either. Why, even when in practical agreement, do you have to attack the desire of white peoples for their own ethnostates? It would seem to be another example of “racial integrity for me, but not for thee!”
>All white, and all one religion or ideology.
This is a very 2nd half of the 20th century way of looking at things.
A Mexican criollo, an Irishman, a Bavarian, an Italian and a Russian are all “white.” There are massive differences. A government made up out of all of these would be full of “diversity.”
>The governments of the antibellum South were homogeneously white Anglican or white English religion that was Anglican descended.
Especially Judah Benjamin.
>B, don’t try your Talmudic logic again. All of Europe despised the Jews in the early 1900s.
All of Europe hated each other in the early 1900s as well. So what?
>Why, even when in practical agreement, do you have to attack the desire of white peoples for their own ethnostates?
I do not have an issue with the Serbs wanting a Serbian ethnostate in Serbia (though they will have massive problems with Vlachs, Hungarians, Albanians, etc.) or with the French wanting France to be a French ethnostate. This is somewhat organic and workable.
But a “white” ethnostate is an idiotic concept, especially when you have what you have in the US, i.e., white people of completely different backgrounds (I’m talking not just religion but outlook, i.e., Catholic Lithuanians and Catholic Italians) are supposedly all one thing and can get along just fine, because their differences do not constitute “diversity.”
If you were a real “white nationalist,” you’d have read Mein Kampf and would know that half of it consists of Hitler ranting about how horrible the Slavs are and how incompatible they are with Germanic (European) civilization. And he was talking about Czechs, the most mitteleuropean, genteel slavs you’re gonna get, who shared a religion and 1000 years of history with the Austrians! When it came to the Russians, he considered them a sort of talking gorilla. And you’re going to tell me that you’re going to throw together all these white nations in America, and they’ll just all be ok together because they don’t have “diversity”?
That’s like saying “we’ll have a pure Asian ethnostate. It will have Mongols, Yukagirs, Cambodians, Han, Japanese, Viets and Malays. No problem, there’s no whites or blacks or hispanics, so no diversity.”
Good luck.
And all have different religions. I said all white, and all one religion – like nearly all well functioning European governments until the late twentieth century, arguably all well functioning European governments ever, depending on what you count as a malfunctioning and treacherous government. (While a Roman Catholic would probably claim the Irishman and the Mexican have the same religion, they really do not, particularly now that the old gods walk again. The French Vendee and the Peninsular War were holy wars between to different versions of Roman Catholicism. Maybe the Italian and the Irishman have one religion, sort of. The Italian and the Irishman might come to have one religion, as Ashkenazi Jews and Mizrahi Jews came to have one religion as a result of forceful state suppression of Mizrahi Judaism, Ashkenazi Judaism persuasively claiming higher status, and external enemies creating an urgent need to bury religious differences, but getting the Mexican and the Irishman to have one religion would probably require bloodshed resembling the American war between the States or the French Vendee.)
“And you’re going to tell me that you’re going to throw together all these white nations in America, and they’ll just all be ok together because they don’t have “diversityâ€?”
Of course they don’t have diversity. Try staffing a company with them and then ask your co-ethnics in the media whether the company has a diverse workforce.
In other words, the prevalent anti-white ideology makes no distinction, which is why the reaction to it doesn’t, either. Dealing with white diversity is a good problem to have, compared to the status quo. A marvelous problem to have.
>Of course they don’t have diversity. Try staffing a company with them and then ask your co-ethnics in the media whether the company has a diverse workforce.
That’s not a very good metric.
Also, fuck you very much, “your co-ethnics in the media.” My co-ethnics in the media are taking their cues from your co-ethnics (assuming that the WASPs who founded the Cathedral would see a Slav like yourself as their co-ethnic.)
> Dealing with white diversity is a good problem to have, compared to the status quo. A marvelous problem to have
The Europeans in 1914 and 1939 didn’t agree with you. Hitler thought that Czechs were a major diversity problem, and obviously the Czechs and Poles occupied by their fellow white Germans did not see this as a marvelous problem to have.
It seems obvious that “white” and “European” are not coterminous. Not all whites are in European: for example, Anatolian Turks (who are mostly converted Greeks and Slavs), Georgians and Chechens, Syrian and Lebanese Christians, and other groups that I could name seem pretty white. Although many wouldn’t want to hear this, Ashkenazi Jews “look white to me”, to quote Jared Taylor. So, does white nationalism include all of these other groups as well? Obviously not, so that proves that white people do not constitute one ethnicity.
>My co-ethnics in the media are taking their cues from your co-ethnics
B, you can’t just say that every Jew that is up to no good is somehow not Jewish. Clearly if it were come to pass that Americans started harming these people, Jews around the world, including you, would be vociferously denunciating the persecution of American Jewry.
I (for the most part) have no problem with Jews, but its obvious that there are many genetically Jewish people out there that are doing bad things. You shouldn’t think that you’re betraying your people by admitting to the empirically undeniable fact that there are some very unpleasant and immoral Jews out there.
And rightly so. If we punish Jewish wrongdoing, rather than wrongdoing that is disproportionately done by Jews, we are off target.
“… obviously the Czechs and Poles occupied by their fellow white Germans did not see this as a marvelous problem to have.”
We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. Israel is more diverse than that, after all; if you can do it, so can we.
B. is now saying that “whites don’t exist” as a way to justify White Genocide.
Just as a thief says that property rights don’t exist, “I was only borrowing” as a way to exonerate himself from his crime, those comitting genocide say that race doesn’t exist to escape the guilty charge.
B., if race doesn’t exist, then the crime of genocide doesn’t exist because the legal definition of genocide includes the wording “racial groups”.
You are justifying genocide.
A.J.P.
>And rightly so. If we punish Jewish wrongdoing, rather than wrongdoing that is disproportionately done by Jews, we are off target.
B tends to want to say that criminal Jews are not real Jews because to the extent that they are criminal, it is because they’re “conversos” who have renounced their Jewishness. But I know for a fact that if Americans or Europeans started to harm these criminal “converso” Jews, he, like every other Jew in the world, would claim that Americans and Europeans are being anti-Semitic, thereby acknowledging the Jewishness of “converso” Jews. After all, only Jews can be victims of anti-Semitism. It was only this contradiction that I was reacting to. I certainly don’t support harming Jews for being Jews, or harming Jewish criminals and sparing non-Jews who are just as, if not more, criminal.
>And all have different religions.
Not only do a Pole and an Irishman and an Italian all have the same exact religion, but so does a Criollo (pureblooded Spaniard) Mexican. Certainly the guys who look like Jorge Ramos are not worshipping Senora Muerte or whatever. And of course an Austrian and a Hungarian and a Czech all had the exact same religion, lived together for 1000 years, and how did that work out? Ask Uncle Adolf.
>B tends to want to say that criminal Jews are not real Jews because to the extent that they are criminal, it is because they’re “conversos†who have renounced their Jewishness.
“Tends to want to say”? I say exactly what I want to say.
A Jew who gets up on CNN, without a kippa (which he’s never worn in his life,) whose wife is non-Jewish, who doesn’t keep Shabbat, and talks about the evils of (white) racism is doing a bad thing because he’s a converso. He is Jewish, in that his mother is Jewish, but his behavior is certainly not Jewish. He is motivated by the desire to fit in with the fashionable goyim.
A religious Jew who e.g. embezzles money is not acting as a converso, but as a criminal religious Jew. He’s not motivated by the desire to assimilate-he’s motivated by the desire for money.
>B., if race doesn’t exist, then the crime of genocide doesn’t exist because the legal definition of genocide includes the wording “racial groupsâ€.
Perrick, is it too much to ask that if there must be white nationalists, at least they have more than three brain cells?
Try to follow along. Obviously, race exists. The Caucasian race consists of hundreds of peoples, who have very different values, standards of behavior, physical and mental characteristics, etc., from the Kalash to Calais. Many of these peoples have proven time and time again that they have trouble living together without killing each other in any situation where there is not a firm super-national power over them (or unless united against a common threat.) E.g., Finns and Italians are white, but the only time you can see their “white identity” as important to them (as opposed to being Finnish or Italians) is when they live in Michigan and are both preyed on by blacks. This identity is not something you can build a working government on, unless you want to keep the blacks around and feral to keep everyone united (which wouldn’t work.)
As for genocide, again, if you’re going to be a white nationalist, at least learn some basic Latin. A gens is a people. Genocide is the murder of a people. “White” is not a people-it’s a race. Of course, you can’t mass murder whites without mass murdering their component peoples, but you can certainly do the reverse (and they have repeatedly gone in this direction when living together.)
I am glad to see, however, that you’ve recovered from your compulsion to put “quotation” “marks” around people’s “pseudonyms,” “Perrick.”
>Israel is more diverse than that, after all; if you can do it, so can we.
No, you really can’t.
For instance, I feel at ease living next to, working and hanging out with a bunch of Yemenites or Persians or Moroccans (or vice versa.) The differences are funny, not critical. We speak each other’s language, pray the same prayers, intermarry, work together, etc. pretty smoothly.
But when e.g. a Russian hangs out with Italians, there is a vast, vast gap between them, which is not bridgeable except in exceptional cases.
They can work together when order is imposed impartially from above.
Theoretically the same, but the Vendee and the Peninsular war were Roman Catholic versus Roman Catholic holy wars.
Just as the Holy Roman Empire was not really an empire, Roman Catholicism is not really one religion.
“A Jew who gets up on CNN, without a kippa (which he’s never worn in his life,) whose wife is non-Jewish, who doesn’t keep Shabbat, and talks about the evils of (white) racism is doing a bad thing because he’s a converso.”
And yet, when I remark in passing about your co-ethnics in the media, you start jumping up and down, trying to excuse their behavior.
>And yet, when I remark in passing about your co-ethnics in the media, you start jumping up and down, trying to excuse their behavior.
To understand my perspective, imagine if I constantly talked about the inherent trashiness of whites, illustrating my point with an endless parade of whiggers with dreads, teardrop tattoos and their pants around their ankles.
“Look,” I would say, “at this white piece of shit. He’s a member of the Crips, and he sells crack and brags about it. That’s your fellow whites.”
You’d rejoin that this particular piece of shit is a piece of shit precisely because he’s trying as hard as possible to be black, and the worst kind of black at that. And you’d be right.
> the Vendee and the Peninsular war were Roman Catholic versus Roman Catholic holy wars.
Pretty sure they were post-Catholic revolutionary French vs. Catholic French and Catholic Spanish holy wars. It’s very difficult to describe the Revolutionary and Napoleonic French armies as Catholic.
But if you were correct, it would support my point-having the same religion doesn’t keep whites from killing the hell out of each other, it just makes them find some other pretext.
They were not post Catholic at the time. In retrospect, well on the way to becoming post Catholic, but they did not think of themselves that way, and denied the accusation vehemently, though not altogether convincingly.
>They were not post Catholic at the time. In retrospect, well on the way to becoming post Catholic, but they did not think of themselves that way, and denied the accusation vehemently, though not altogether convincingly.
Wikipedia says:
The Civil Constitution of the Clergy required all clerics to swear allegiance to it and, by extension, to the increasingly anti-clerical National Constituent Assembly. All but seven of the 160 bishops refused the oath, as did about half of the parish priests.[10] Persecution of the clergy and of the faithful was the first trigger of the rebellion; the second being conscription. Nonjuring priests were exiled or imprisoned and women on their way to Mass were beaten in the streets.[10] Religious orders were suppressed and Church property confiscated.[10] On 3 March 1793, virtually all the churches were ordered closed.[11] Soldiers confiscated sacramental vessels and the people were forbidden to place crosses on graves.[11] Nearly all the purchasers of church land were bourgeois; very few peasants benefited from the sales.[12]
Also, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-clericalism#Revolution and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dechristianization_of_France_during_the_French_Revolution
That doesn’t seem very Catholic at all.
There was, nonetheless, a very large supply of Roman Catholic Clergy who claimed to be simultaneously loyal to church and state – a claim that was a whole lot easier to believe than the current Pope’s claim to be loyal to Roman Catholicism, since the state was not requiring the Pope to kiss the feet of sexually active transexuals.
>There was, nonetheless, a very large supply of Roman Catholic Clergy who claimed to be simultaneously loyal to church and state
During the vast majority of the existence of the USSR, most of the Russian Orthodox clergy claimed to be simultaneously loyal to church and state (and cooperated fully with the KGB.) Does this mean that the USSR was Christian?
It means that Christians in the USSR were Christian, and indeed Russian Orthodox Christian. The Orthodox Church today cooperates with the non communist government as it formerly cooperated with the communist government, and is as Christian, and as Russian Orthodox Christian, now as it then was.
Christianity was repressed for a time, but Stalin ended the repression, and thereafter, it was indeed possible to collaborate with the government and be a good Russian Orthodox Christian.
Whereas it is today impossible to cooperate with the American progressive government and be a good Roman Catholic Christian.
>Christianity was repressed for a time, but Stalin ended the repression, and thereafter, it was indeed possible to collaborate with the government and be a good Russian Orthodox Christian.
Sure. It was possible to cooperate with a government which taught all children that there is no G-d, and jailed people for private enterprise and under which there were multiple abortions for every live birth, and be a good Christian.
Likewise, it was possible for the French soldiers raping nuns in the Vendee to be good Catholics, just like the raped nuns.
But totally impossible for Catholic Italians and Irish to be of the same religion.
Yet you want an America governed by an undiverse group of whites.
Well, you’ve got them-represented by Pajama Boy.
[…] In favor of a repressive state religion. […]
[…] Jim writes In favor of a repressive state religion1: […]
A state religion would be pretty great if it was your religion, wouldn’t it?
Well, Yuri Bezmenov reveals that our state religion was given to us by communism. Were it not for that, I doubt we’d see this leftist fanaticism on such a scale.
[…] Jim writes In favor of a repressive state religion: […]
http://Www.Ygames.Me
“[…]In favor of a repressive state religion: « Jim’s Blog[…]”