Review of Left Singularities.

The Left Singularity is  increasing leftism causing ever faster increases in leftism until something breaks short of achieving infinite leftism in finite time.

Dark ages are slow, more or less continuous, economic and political decline, imperceptibly slow, typically about one percent a year on average, hard to notice against the background of random economic and political fluctuations.

Left Singularities, on the other hand, unlike dark ages, end with a decisive boom, a close approach to infinite leftism in finite time.  Sometimes a left singularity is followed by reforms or a restoration.  Sometimes, as when Stalin purged the left, things just stop getting worse, but do not get a whole lot better.

The basic mechanism of a left wing singularity is political correctness.  The elite competes to be holier than each other.  Everyone is compelled to be ever holier, and the holier they get, the more everyone is compelled to be even holier.

if we believe the “Admonitions of Ipuwer”, Bronze age civilization ended in a left singularity.  Archeaology shows that bronze age civilization ended with a bang, that led directly and immediately to a dark age.  Presumably the social technology of trade and commerce was lost in the left singularity, and not immediately recovered.

Recent events in China happened the other way around, a long slow decline into darkness, with intermittent left singularities along the way, and then the restoration following the Maoist left singularity cured the dark age.

China was in continuous slow economic decline from the Southern Song Dynasty until Socialism with Chinese characteristics.  Thus a dark age, terminating in a left singularity followed by a restoration, rather than starting in a left singularity.

Which gives me hope that our left singularity will be followed by a similar restoration.

The bronze age left singularity resulted in the total destruction of most existing states, with new states growing up from large extended families.  Assyria survived, and Egypt did not altogether cease to be a state, but the rest of them mostly vanished.  Egypt survived in bad (highly leftist) condition – liberated women and all that.

Rome suffered its bout of leftism before its greatest days, and then suffered a long slow decline that terminated in anarchic and disorderly feudalism, not leftism.  The dark age did not set in until long after Rome’s bout of leftism, and we recovered from the dark age without any left singularities.

The decline of China started with a burst of leftism, but not a full blown left singularity. During its decline there were at least two left singularities – Maoism and Chang Hsien-chong – arguably more.  The final left singularity was followed by a cure, which is not a very common outcome of left singularities, though I have hopes for Russia  That cure was the communist party converting to a hereditary aristocracy with an electoral monarchy, which elected competent monarchs, the first such monarch importing an economic system from Hong Kong, which had absorbed eighteenth century Manchesterism from nineteenth century colonialists and preserved it, more or less, though the twentieth century.

For feudalism with electoral monarchy to work, the election should be for life or good conduct, the removal of a monarch being an extraordinary, and usually quite violent, event.

Russia, on the other hand, after recovering from its left singularity, attempted to import the modern western economic system, which turned out that they imported the parasite but not the host.

The bronze age transition from large scale civilizations to disorderly familism happened abruptly and was mediated by a left singularity.  The transition to disorderly feudalism following the decline of Rome just gradually happened without any connection to radical leftism.

The French left singularity ended in the Red Terror. The French left was fairly thoroughly squashed by Napoleon, much as the Russian left was very thoroughly squashed by Stalin. It utterly and permanently disappeared following its attempted recovery of power in the Paris Commune. Britain imposed its institutions on France, so today’s French left is a colonial outpost of the anglophone left.

The initial stages of a dark age are over taxation and over regulation, where the government attempts to persistently tax and regulate beyond the Laffer limit. However in the final stages of a dark age, the government is apt to be nonexistent, lawless tax collectors gradually becoming indistinguishable from bandits, which does not in it itself necessarily cure the dark age.

Leftism tends to involve:

Breakdown of traditional gender roles, emancipation of women.

Breakdown of traditional hierarchies, progressing towards more democratic and bureaucratic forms from authoritarian and legal forms. Dissolution of responsibility and answerability for decisions.

Anarcho-Tyranny, where protection of the law from criminals is removed from decent citizens, but self-organized self defence is still illegal.

Millenarianism, the belief in an ongoing or near-at-hand massive transformation of society. Accelerating this is considered a moral imperative. This belief also justifies the above breakdowns as disposing of “outdated” things

What Happens in a Left Singularity

In the realm of discourse, non-leftist ideas become increasingly unacceptable, with their proponents facing social, professional, and legal consequences. The negative consequences for speaking against leftism quiet down the resistance and thus increase the boldness of the left, which accelerates the process.

The French left singularity began with false popes of Avignon. Its initial growth was relatively slow, becoming rapid, pathological, and alarming under the highly progressive radical left regime of King Louis XVI.

The anglophone left singularity began with the Puritans, ended in Cromwell doing a Stalin and crushing everyone to the left of him. After Cromwell died, Monck made a military coup. His praetorians proceeded to “guard” parliament and restore the monarchy. Leftism continued to fester, but did not really go malignant in Britain until perhaps 1770 (American Revolution) or 1820 (failure of King George to divorce Queen Caroline despite conspicuous infidelity, disobedience, and gross sexual immorality).

It manifested with alarming moonbat crazy biting mad leftism in 1820, and has continued to get worse faster and faster ever since.

The Russian left singularity began not with a religious heresy, but rather with Alexander the Liberator being fashionable and influenced by British leftism.

The British nineteenth century enclosures were a land reform that redistributed land from the aristocracy to the individual peasants. The left wanted the land redistributed collectively rather than individually, so that the left would have to administer land and peasants (administering the peasants on behalf of the peasants, because they love the peasants so very much). What you think you know about the enclosures is the left demonizing them. The enclosures were in practice a quite reasonable moderate left wing land reform – but the left wanted a moonbat crazy frothing at the mouth biting mad left wing land reform, and did not get it, and so have stridently demonized the enclosures to this day.

In Russia, Alexander the liberator, influenced by fashionable British leftists, introduced the moonbat crazy frothing at the mouth biting mad left wing land reform that they had been seeking, and to this day argue should have happened. He distributed the land to the serfs collectively, rather than to the individual serfs. But of course, the serfs were, for the most part, incapable of administering the land, so there followed endless further reforms to administer land and serfs, which moved Russia ever lefter, creating an ever larger class of government and government privileged leftists, eventually culminating in the artificial famines of the 1930s, leading to Stalin’s great purge, during which he purged both the largely imaginary right, the wreckers, and the terrifyingly real left, the trots, thereby ending the left singularity started by Alexander the Liberator.

70 Responses to “Review of Left Singularities.”

  1. […] put the odds at less than 50%. Jim’s left-singularity model is still the dominant theory of where liberalism is heading. But this alternative theory is worth […]

  2. […] None of these were. And each focused on key concepts of the The Neoreaction. First there is a Review of Left Singularities. A magisterial review and analysis of the […]

  3. Shenpen says:

    Why can’t I find any reference to Alexander’s crazy scheme in my copy of Anna Karenina? Remember the subplot when a noble tries to push his peasants to farm independently by treating then like adults and basically they beg for being ruled instead?

  4. […] Singularities and restoration (plus, the Cathedral isn’t ZOG). Private cities (1, and police. 2). Swimming […]

  5. […] Singularities and restoration (plus, the Cathedral isn’t ZOG). Private cities (1, and police. 2). Swimming […]

  6. Mister Grumpus says:

    I appreciate this post very much, as per always. It makes me want to quit my job, move into a cardboard box, eat Ramen noodles, smell awful, and do nothing but flesh out a short book (or podcast series?) about this that works out and demonstrates the rough play-by-play patterns of leftist/holiness singularities.

    For example: To learn how the modern West’s decline parallels with ancient Egypt’s, for example, is such a shocker to my naive mind, yet there it obviously is.

    Hey Jim:

    Why in the hell is discussion/noticing of these matters limited to such a minuscule demographic of fourth-sigma Internet weirdos like us?

    To what do we attribute there not being more people talking about this?

    And what is it about you that has incidentally made you The Jim in all this?


    (I know I know, it’s because Armed Holiness has people scared. I get that. But still, though, there are 1000X as many people discussing how to make their own anthrax powder, pipe bombs and LSD online than there are discussing leftist singularities, and that puzzles me.)

    • peppermint says:

      The other day I told my gf that the song Waterfalls by TLC promotes harmful stereotypes and it’s cultural appropriation for her to like it. I feel like something was lost in the translation to respectful English of ‘nigger nigger nigger’.

      Ten Americans drive trucks over the mountains all night, but one of the trucks has bad brakes. The next day nine of them visit the one in the hospital.

      Ten Frenchies fuck women all night, but one of them has AIDS. The next day nine of them visit the one in the hospital.

      Ten Russians drink and tell political jokes all night. The next day one of them visits the nine in prison.

      Ten Americans drink and tell racial jokes all night. The next day one of them visits the nine who aren’t even in the unemployment line because they were fired for cause.

    • peppermint says:

      plus, Menachem Moldberg was right about the Christcucks and Commjewists. To understand that leftism is a problem, you need to renounce social justice, which is the true message of Rabbi Yeshua bar Yahweh. Without renouncing social justice, you will never be able to talk about leftism categorically except to praise it, and thus no one who isn’t a Christcuck or a Commjewist, or us, is able to draw these parallels.

  7. […] review of left singularities. Related: Where does #BlackLivesMatter […]

  8. Eugine_Nier says:

    With Rome, was there a leftist singularity in the late Roman Republic?

    • jim says:

      Hard to say. There was accelerating movement left, resulting in the social war, with ever more people executed for insufficient leftism. The leftists tried to create a left wing army, and allied with the Samnites, whose objective was to overthrow the walls of Rome and kill every Roman. So something rather like a left wing singularity.

      • Wyrd says:

        Poul and Karen Anderson’s series The King of Ys throughout and most forcefully in its fourth and final book The Dog And The Wolf asserts the late western Roman Empire actively sought to deprive its citizens of self-defense against invaders. There’s nothing more left-wing singularity than bending over one’s own population for some ol’-fashioned barbarian buggery.

        • jim says:

          Nah, highly left wing.

          But the left singularity is where the process feeds on itself and runs away.

    • peppermint says:

      Ask Revilo P. Oliver, the last honest professor of classics. I copypasted his most striking commentary of leftism in Rome here ->

  9. I have always understood that George made strenuous efforts to divorce Caroline, but that the divorce bill couldn’t make it through the House. Which doesn’t invalidate your larger point.

    • jim says:

      It did not make it through the house because they were reluctant to accept the clear and compelling evidence of Caroline’s immoral behavior.

      Now what should have been was that Caroline should have been restrained from flagrantly immoral behavior, because inconspicuous immoral behavior should have led to frequent and severe beatings with a rod no thicker than her thumb.

      What we saw in the attempted divorce of Queen Caroline was the collapse of the will to impose chaste behavior on women.

      In place of the eighteenth century view that women were uncontrollably lustful, and had to be kept on a tight leash for their own good, for the good of the family, and the good of society, we got the PC view that women were naturally pure and chaste, therefore no controls, restraints, or punishments were necessary for women, only for men.

      Hence the numerous and hilarious nineteenth century attempts to “rescue” fallen women.

      With the development of the portable camera, capable of taking unposed pictures, the doctrine that women were naturally pure and chaste got a shellacking, and was replaced by our present doctrine that anything women do, such as cheating on the father of their children, is just fine, while anything men do is bad.

  10. vxxc2014 says:

    “Which gives me hope that our left singularity will be followed by a similar restoration.”

    Thank you Jim.

    This is the Leftist singularity now BTW. Pathetic by comparison.

  11. Korth says:

    Another good example is the Spanish Second Republic. The ruling left-liberal clerisy started a virtue-signalling cascade with the intent of rooting out their Catholic competitors, and plunged the country into civil war in the attempt.

  12. Cassander says:

    Not all leftward movement should be considered a singularity. Singularities are what happen in places like revolutionary France, where someone who’s a radical leftist on Monday can be executed on Friday for insufficient leftism.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      In the end it’s only so many buzzwords, a lot of the time…

      • AllEnglishareGAY says:

        Woah, you forgot to sign your initials! You’ll never be a respected Anglican by your Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and Michael Curry now!

  13. Not Paul says:

    Rome did suffer a leftist singularity, namely Christianity.

    • jim says:

      As Cassander says, not every movement left is a singularity. If on Monday someone was a saint, and on Thursday he was executed for being insufficiently Christian, that would have been a left wing singularity.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        There are lots of Saints that, if they lived in the wrong period, would have been executed for heresy. Saint Justin Martyr believed Christ was created, and Saint Cyril of Alexandria was a Monophysite. And Saint Mark (or whoever wrote his gospel) was probably an Adoptionist.

        People were not labeled “Saint” until long after their death, so your test could never be positive.

        • jim says:

          Now, however, we have people sainted right away, because by tuesday after their death, their former positions have become radioactive.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            Recent Popes have made a bunch of ancient chicks “Doctors of the Church”.


            The point is, that Christianity was a singularity, if a slowly moving one. The codification of various philosophical doctrines that would have been foreign to the Apostles. The creation of various holy orders with increasingly strict demands, such as vegetarianism, celibacy, et cetera.

            • jim says:

              However Christianity never went boom, always remained slow moving – in part because when portions of did go boom, they obviously ceased to be Christian, in part because being conspicuously holier than King or Emperor was a bad idea. Kings tended to feel that the best place for the excessively holy was a bleak island on the far side of nowhere, where the very holy were safe from the distractions of wealth or power.

          • B says:

            No true Christianity

          • A Pint Thereof says:

            jim: “However Christianity never went boom…”

            Would you ever be persuaded to see the Reformation as a “boom” moment?

            Rejection of traditionally held authority; reappropriation of the priestly class; super-speeding of the vortex of the holiness spiral etc.

            Or was it lacking in some fundamental “leftist” ingredient to make it so?

            • jim says:

              Cromwells Puritans, and today’s progressives, come from the reformation. Cromwell’s puritans went boom, or would have if Cromwell had not cracked down.

              The propensity of Christianity to leftism, inherited from the Jewish propensity to leftism, is obvious, and an obvious problem. But by and large, reformation did not go boom, leftism leading to more leftism faster, until some drastic action ensues to halt the process.

          • jay says:

            There we go with the reformation causing progressivism again:

          • Koanic says:

            The best resistance to Christian holiness spiral is no institutional churches of any kind. Independent baptists simply send out a preacher to start a church, who is then under no one’s authority. Just a man with a KJV in his hand. And the KJV, like Mao’s Little Red Book and the Koran, is best understood as a weapon, not a book. It makes men willing to line up and walk to their deaths like gentlemen.

            States and institutions do holiness spirals. Books don’t.

            For example, see Steven L Anderson.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >No true Christianity

            The New Testament you will find in the bookstore contains certain books. Each branch of ante-nicene Christianity had different books. Some preached various peculiar ascetic doctrines, including the forbidding of certain foods, all violence, and all sex (especially marriage).

            Progressives have evolved beyond the New Testament. Often Progressives developed in ways that paralleled earlier gnostic Christian groups. I.e. their prohibition of violence and marriage.

            Put another way, we’ve seen Progressivism before. It’s just a modern variant of a very old type of Christian belief. It’s a heresy, according to the proto-Orthodox church. The Apostle Paul was clearly on the side of the proto-Orthodox, but it’s not clear which side Jesus was on. Which is why it’s legitimate to call them “Christian”.

            • jim says:

              Peculiar ascetic doctrines, forbidding all sex, etc, is the kind of conspicuous runaway holiness that Jesus vigorously and intemperately condemned.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            As much as dindu nuffin Catholics enjoy hearing “It’s the ‘Puritans’!” or, in proper, non-weaponised wording, “it’s the Congregationalists!”, one major flaw of the accused group is likely that there weren’t enough “Puritans” or Congregationalists. Demotism took root, using the United States’ example, in places like Pennsylvania where a lack of enough European settlers meant that religious tolerance had to be enacted in order to continue the flow of migrants with less complication. Meanwhile, in Congregationalist New England, state religions for the colonies and new states were established, an anti-egalitarian move if ever there was. Many papist, anti-Protestants, however, prefer to stay ignorant of those facts in order to perpetuate their “gibs me dat” narrative for their fellow, leftist, Vaticanist new arrivals…

            How hard is it to understand that making using of a state religion is an important part of getting the Neo-Reaction trichotomy in place?


          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >As much as dindu nuffin Catholics enjoy hearing “It’s the ‘Puritans’!”
            They shouldn’t enjoy that. Anglo-Protestants rule the world, and so the strongest variant of leftism will come from Anglo-Protestants.

            Chinese pagans might enjoy hearing “It’s the Christians”. Of course, Chinese paganism is nearly extinct, so any world-dominant leftism is unlikely to originate with them. Same with Catholics.

            As Jim has covered before, all actual Catholics are sedevacantists. If Catholic sacramental theology is correct, the last two Popes is are not priests, and so are incapable of holding the office of the Papacy.

            There may be some association between Protestantism and leftism, though I doubt it’s particularly strong. But at this point it’s a moot question. Everybody’s a Protestant now, even the Pope. He’s just declined to fully give up some of the peculiarities of the Roman rite.

            Catholics had their variants of leftism (jansenism, gallicanism, the french revolution). But as Catholicism is extinct, those variants of leftism are extinct.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            I’m not entertaining your opinions on religious history, R.N.G.

          • peppermint says:

            AJP, I agree that it’s a good idea in general to defend your ancestors from insults. But that doesn’t extend to the ideas that were forced upon them by outsiders anyway. The history of Christianizing England begins with the Druid academies, for whatever word they used for their academies, being destroyed and the Druids put to the sword by pre-Christian Romans. See the Daily Stormer Narrations:

            The Daily Stormer had an interesting article recently about some dindu who has been killing humans after selling them drugs (it is wrong to use the word murder, since mens rea can not exist where mens does not). The dindu had the name Ernest Moore.

            Every time I hear about the actions of some Stephanie Rawlings-Blake or Freddie Gray, I assume it’s a dindu, because the last thing the English-Americans did before going gently into that good night was to give their names to their beloved pets.

            If you will not hear why our ancestors chose death over life, what remains of your people will follow them, and then their graves, like Nathan Bedford Forrest, will be effaced in a final act of spite. The Jew Book commands the Jews to erase the Amalekites and not keep their stuff in museums the way Whites do, and the Jews and their vibrant diversities will erase everything your people have created.

            As to the rest of this thread, yes, if the word Catholic means a believer in the 2000 year tradition of Catholicism, all Catholics are sedevacantists. This is not an argument for Catholicism, this is an argument against it, the See of Rome has fallen into cuckoldry, and it’s because Catholicism has always been a relijewn about redirecting the inherent patriotism of Catholics into promoting Catholicism instead of their nation.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >is the kind of conspicuous runaway holiness that Jesus vigorously and intemperately condemned.
            1) The Jesus of which gospels? If you mean Matthew, Mark and Luke, sure. If you means John, not really. If you mean the gospel of Thomas, or another gnostic gospel, that’s not true at all.

            2) You’re acting as if Jesus was condemning all holiness spirals. He was condemning the Pharisees, and extending that to all holiness spirals is speculation.

            3) Moreover, many gnostic sects forbid marriage for their “elite” members, and permitted it for the “commoners”. It’s not really possible to run a religion where all sex is prohibited. And that setup does not clearly contradict Mathew, Mark, or Luke.

            • jim says:

              You’re acting as if Jesus was condemning all holiness spirals. He was condemning the Pharisees, and extending that to all holiness spirals is speculation.

              Jesus condemns conspicuous and trumpeted holiness, and Paul condemns being holier than thou in general, writing not about pharisees, but about Christians who are overly strict against their fellow Christians.

              Yes, we see lots of holiness posturing in the Christian tradition – and it is all heresy.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >But that doesn’t extend to the ideas that were forced upon them by outsiders anyway.
            Nearly every belief was forced upon people by outsiders.

            My ancestors are Scandinavian, so presumably they would have been Germanic pagans prior to their conversion to Christianity. Do you think that each Germanic tribe independently developed their own god named “Odin”? No, Odin worship was spread across Germany by a mixture of inter-tribal conquest, and voluntary inter-tribal cultural exchanges. Same with Christianity.

            You may claim that Christians were more violent, but that’s unlikely. Christians may have been more iconoclastic, but Germanic paganism was a war-oriented religion, while Christianity was not.

          • peppermint says:

            Yes, and pre-Christian Romans suppressed Druids too, with the city of Orleans being named after Aurelian who authorised its reconstruction after it was destroyed and left fallow for a while, it had a Druidic name probably starting with Car or whatever but idk what. My point was simply that defending ideology should only be done where it is defending your people.

  14. james says:


    • jim says:

      What about Japan?

      Seems to have been remarkably resistant to left singularities, perhaps because of the stability provided by a remarkably ancient monarchy.

      • mukatsuku says:

        After the war, the CIA funded the emerging LDP (Japan’s main party) as a bulwark against communism. (See link). If CIA/State had instead designated Japan as a revolutionary colony, history could have been different.

        • Candide III says:

          At that time, CIA was not yet taken over by the blue government. Also Gen. McArthur hated commies and sent his State Department advisors packing as soon as he saw what they were up to.

  15. Mark Minter says:

    When I searched for the Admonitions of Ipuwer, a lot of the links where religious writing, and Wikipedia said there are claims that it details a parallel to the events in Exodus.

    So then could we say of that Left Singularity that caused the fall of Bronze Age that the Jews did it?

    • jim says:

      Well, it seems likely that the Jews got blamed for it.

      If the “admonitions of Ipuwer” is an account of real events happening in his time, then Exodus is based on real events, but whereas the events depicted in Exodus are miraculous, the corresponding events in Ipuwer’s account are non miraculous – indeed remarkably resemble twenty first century social decay in today’s middle east.

      • Mark Minter says:

        I like how your blog comments are like a question and answer session after a lecture.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Jim did a piece about exactly this subject that I — and also my pastor — found particularly fascinating:

  16. Dave says:

    You mentioned earlier that the pre-war Vietnamese aristocracy had an average IQ three standard deviations above that of the peasants. Do you have a source on this? Do any other countries have such a large IQ gap between indigenous social classes?

    How do you suppose this came about? I’d guess (a) the aristocracy evolved at a more northern latitude and recently conquered Vietnam, or (b) a Chinese-style meritocracy gradually evolved into aristocracy as high-IQ genes were concentrated in the ruling class.

    • red says:

      All of Indo-China suffered population replacement at the hands of the Chinese during the Mongol invasions. Before that the people living there were Indian and now they’re an admixture of both with a largely Chinese ruling class.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        So that’s who the southeast Asians are racially-speaking? Chinese with an admixture of East Indian?

        Of course this helps to explain why there are so many Hindu-type temples there, and why the Thai script is so close to Sanskrit.

      • spandrell says:

        What the hell?

        Why do you people keep on talking about stuff you know nothing about?

        • lol says:

          Because it feels good to attribute every bad thing in the world to your enemy. And an enemy who perdures over long stretches of history, far from being an essentialist fallacy, is an enemy one can worship with this sort of homespun Rube Goldberg-machine blogging.

        • jim says:

          Red’s account seems pretty accurate. One could argue about the date – it is not all that close to the mongol invasions, but from the point of view of a twentieth centurian, seems close enough. The Khmer are the closest to the original inhabitants, and they are and were culturally Indian and racially somewhat Dravidian. Khmer is part of the South Indian family of languages.

    • jim says:

      No source. That is just my subjective impression of Vietnamese aristocrats.

      Anecdotes of how families were run depict horrifyingly brutal eugenic breeding. A family consisted of the children and “cousins” – numerous illegitimate children of lower status. A smart “cousin” was apt to be promoted to a child, and an incompetent child demoted to a “cousin”. Marriages were determined by parents on the basis of nobility, wealth, and ability. If my subjective impression of their ability is correct, it is absolutely no mystery how it came to pass. High female fertility, very high male fertility, plus brutal selection.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        I’ve seen at least one aspect of exactly this in Cambodia today.

        Country cousins (usually female) who are especially sharp (and obedient) are invited to move in with the more-upper-crusty family in town and be servants. But still, even if they’re servants, they’re taken care of like “original” children, and get access to education and upper-crusty men who meet and fall in love with them.

  17. Chris B says:

    Holyness may be a big driver at the cutting edge of the left singualirty, but it is not the full story. It really is like the story of the Chinese emperor presenting a deer as a horse. Bring able to actively present a lie and force everyone to question it (and be punished) is about as close to pure power as you get. Now imagine this with multiple groups one upping each other with the lie (but passionately convinced it is the truth) and no individual or centre to call a stop? The Holyness has to be based on lie.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Wow man. So the Chinese emperor invented some political correctness just to demonstrate and exercise his power over people. What a diabolical fucker. And of course it sure sounds familiar.

      Can you point us to some sources/write-up’s about this event?

      • Erik says:

        I’m not sure if “political correctness” is the term I’d use for this, but:

        The reverse of The Emperor’s New Clothes. In this one, the kid gets beaten for lese-majeste.

        • Chris B says:

          “In this one, the kid gets beaten for lese-majeste.” Because Chinese are not retarded, and don’t tell themselves candy coated lies over governance. That’s the western ” modern” tradition.

      • lol says:

        Get with it, man. Every social phenomenon alt-righters don’t like, every instance of abuse of power and authoritarian deception that might have benefited anyone but the aristos, is “leftist” and “cultural Marxist” de jure. There is a direct line of genetic descent from the first man who told the first despot that he was withholding too much to Antonio Gramsci and Teddy Adorno. This is settled dogma, and if you question it, you’re probably a Jew.

  18. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Giving Theonomic differences all of the credit for destructive Leftism is really strange. In each situation, trust in the military, the Ethno-Nationalist bastion has deteriorated alongside Theonomist collapse. Also, free market Techo-Commercialism has been progressively hindered with Environmentalist, anti-business regulations such as measures taken to combat pollution and use of child labour.

    All of the factors together are called Republicanism and the aim for it is a egalitarian demotism.


    • jim says:

      Aryan descended peoples are always ruled by priests or warriors or some mixture of both. The left singularity causes and is caused by rule by priests. The priests always wind up denigrating the military.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        This time it wasn’t really caused by either, but was due to the vast amount of land resources that was opened up to the third-estate, the Techno-Commercialists. Not to say that that side must be scaled back, but that the priests and warrior-nationalists need to catch up with it! The republicanism that has filled in the gap has not been either a real priesthood (atheism is on the rise) nor an authentic nationalism (floods of aliens have been brought in to “assimilate”). That strange egalitarian pull in the power vacuum is what’s called The Cathedral.


  19. Chip Haddock says:

    Is there a source available online about the Enclosures?

    • jim says:

      All secondary and derived sources are leftist and demonize the enclosures for insufficient leftism.

      So, check the primary sources:

      tl;dr A supermajority of filthy peasants get to outvote the lord when he stints their access to the common lands.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Jim, the problem with enclosure wasn’t that it wasn’t left enough. The “rights of common” allowed someone to start small and work their way up. Enclosure created a huge barrier to entry. Either you had enough to have a full plot of land, or you were just a slave with nothing at all. It created a hard cutoff to the landed and non-landed, whereas before there was a gradient that went all the way down to the property right to graze a single goose on the common land. Someone who used more than their rights of common was punished harshly by the community. The Commons system made sure the yeomanry had a steady influx of hard and thrifty workers. Gave people something to aspire to.

        • jim says:

          The rights to the common were rationed (stinted) by the lord. So everyone got pretty much the same benefit off the common, apart from the lord granting extra benefits to windows and orphans, and for loyal service. The commons was socialism administered by the local aristocrat – which being small scale and local did not have the problems of large scale socialism, where distant bureaucrats strangle people in red tape.

          Someone who used more than their rights of common was punished harshly by the community.

          Bullshit. The commons was wholly and completely administered by the Lord of the Manor. Socialism requires power and submission. The difference was that with aristocratic socialism, the central planner knows the person he is planning, whereas when leftists plan people, they plan for strangers, and are apt to inadvertently kill them, or indifferently kill them. The leftists wanted to take over aristocratic socialism, but instead the enclosures dismantled it.

          Efforts to have “the community” plan the commons in place of the lord generally resulted in the tragedy of the commons. Collective action is hard, and peasants are not very good at it.

          Further the left is subconsciously or hypocritically aware of this. Whenever they talk about the peasants controlling the land, they in fact mean the left controlling land and peasants on behalf of the peasants, for the greater good of the peasants.

Leave a Reply