Trump denounces the press

“You are fake news”

Trump is able to take on the mass media because he has is own non state power base. He is the Batman’s Bruce Wayne.

But the elephant in the living room is Academia. He has small plans to take on Academia over global warming pseudo science and reluctance to subject vaccines to adequate safety testing, but the biggie is degree deflation, and we have not heard a word about that – yet. Any plans for degree deflation will burn everyone who has spent a fortune on inflated credentials and will be massively misrepresented as plans to deny education to the masses, so that is a tricky one.


94 Responses to “Trump denounces the press”

  1. […] Jim applauds as Trump denounces the press. […]

  2. Mediocre IQ White Nationalist says:

    Trump just needs to let kids discharge student debt by filing bankruptcy. Solves just about the whole problem in one move

    • jim says:

      No. At present, if the student files bankruptcy, the taxpayer eats it.

      Have to make the university eat it. That will solve the problem.

      If we let students file bankruptcy, large numbers of people will take courses in protest, rioting, arson, vandalism, and general stupidity, and then declare bankruptcy. We have to penalize universities that offer useless courses to stupid people.

  3. cryptonymous bill says:

    Sell it as reparations. Seize uni endowments and real estate. Anyone awarded a bachelor’s degree issued in the last 40 years in STEM (or non-STEM disciplines that existed before 1965) gets a lifetime annuity funded by the seizure and firesale. “Studies” and Human Resource Management degree holders can go pound sand. They knew they were buying bullshit.

    Graduate students, masters and non-m docs can either find useful employment if they don’t already have it, or have their barista income supplemented by the annuity. It beats the non-tenure life.

    • peppermint says:

      Their punishment does not need to be more severe than what they lost by getting the degrees, which is a punishment but it doesn’t cause them to blame us. Whites with STEM degrees will thank us when we eliminate affirmative action. There is no need to sweeten the deal with gibsmedats.

      All professors will be given a year to find employment at or above median wage, and if they can’t, they will be assumed to have been doing more harm than good and thrown out of a helicopter.

  4. burg_phil says:

    What’s the most you’ve been offered for the domain?

  5. Cavalier says:

    Slanty Libertarian mentions his friend getting a job in the federal government, but even under the as-yet hypothetical Trümpenreich, I just don’t see the appeal of being a minor government bureaucrat over a proper lord-of-your-own-dominion capitalist.

    • thinkingabout it says:

      In a nationalistic society with a sane polity, government work can be very rewarding. You are giving back to society, getting a cushy salary with good retirement benefits, and can see yourself as part of something larger than yourself. The British empire at its peak was filled with such men, especially from the minor aristocracy.

  6. pdimov says:

    Why is degree inflation a problem?

    • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

      You serious lol? making people waste their twenties listening to leftist propaganda, signaling and not learning anything useful that the private sector couldn’t teach with a tenth of the time and money is not a problem?

      • pdimov says:

        Yes, I’m serious. First, degree inflation is not the above, but extending the above to the progressively stupider. Second, it’s a symptom, and treating symptoms instead of the underlying causes is often futile (although suitable for movement conservatism.) And third, it’s just what the market provides in response to demand. People willingly sign up for degrees in stupid. Go libertarianism.

        • jim says:

          If you give everyone a school leaving certificate, then the smart have to get a high school diploma. If you give everyone a high school diploma, then the smart have to get a two year degree. If you give everyone a two year degree, then the smart have to get a four year degree. If you give everyone a four year degree, then the smart have to get a PhD.

          We are now moving towards giving everyone a PhD.

          • pdimov says:

            It’s still a symptom.

            Fighting is like fighting inflation by price and wage controls. Unless the underlying cause is removed, it won’t work.

        • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

          Degree inflation has nothing to do with libertarianism.

          Libertarian approach to education is exemplified by early 19th century where we had classics schools for the elite to signal, technical schools for smart Vaishyas looking to learn a trade, and zero schools for everyone else. Search “Cornelius Vanderbilt” -richest man in America late 1800s had ZERO schooling. All schools were private except some schools for the poor which could easily be abolished with no consequences.

          Making dumb people go to school kills their fertility (especially females), waste huge amounts of money and time and disrupts the classroom for smart people. If they had to spend 50k to signal, they would not. But if the state provides them with a “free” opportunity to signal at 50k, they will take it and the whole society is far worse off because of it. Libertarian approach would have these people working and cranking out kids by age 16 and would rely on lower cost stuff like IQ tests to sort out the elite.

          • pdimov says:

            Except that the state doesn’t provide them with a free opportunity. It provides them with the opportunity to take a 50K loan that is not dischargeable in bankruptcy. And they willingly sign up for that without the state making them do so.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:


              State provides them with a free opportunity to signal from age 6 to 16 but I get your point. The way the market works with stupid people is by getting the stupid people under the control of smart people. Hence, wage employment.

              If the state screws up this process by offering alternatives to wage employment, living in mom’s basement, being a charity case (for males) and marriage (for females), then obviously you would see bad decisions. The people who take the 250k loans are generally female, NAM, or some other group who doesn’t have the time preference to make these decisions.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                *6 to 18

              • pdimov says:

                I’m not that certain that people who get those useless and ridiculously expensive degrees do that because they’re morons. It’s possible and even likely for degrees in intersectional basketweaving to be worth the money, however odd this may seem.

                • peppermint says:

                  yes, it gives men access to women who have those degrees and it gives women degrees. But that access is as emotional tampons. The men become more frustrated and angry with every chad their stacy hooks up with until they write that White men should be exterminated.

                  But they’re not even stacies most of the time, just jews and nigger sows.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Could be like a lottery.

                  If you become the highest performing low IQ SJW, you get a government job that is in effect a 70k USD pension (high IQ SJWs don’t need a degree in basketweaving). This lottery is disproportionately attractive to morons with no morals because their estimate of its expected value tends to be on the high side. But regardless there’s no way a degree in basketweaving would get you paid more in a free society, quite the contrary actually.

            • Javier says:

              No one tells you about the bankruptcy part, and everyone tells you you *must* to go college, at any cost, and that the experience and diploma will be worth it, no matter what, at any price.

              Then when all the propaganda and lies they have been sold for 20 years comes crashing down on them, yahoos like you smugly tell them “You made your own choice to do this.”

              We can’t ignore the elephantine cultural, political, and economic forces which brainwash children 24/7 into going to college. Most parents don’t understand and don’t know any better (but the next generation will know). Parents are even shuffled into special classes at college while their children are being brainwashed, where they are told they are not allowed to question their children’s life choices or choice of major, it’s not their place. Of course the school will happily lecture the children at any length.

              As Jim points out, the expectation to attend college quickly turns into the expectation to graduate. As people feel entitled to the degree, the job, and the salary they have been promised by clueless school administrators, the classes are dumbed down and the harder modes of study are placed at the next tier of education. Starting your job and family at 18 was good, starting it at 22 is okay, starting it at 26+ is not quite so okay. We are at the point where children are expected to spend upwards of 20+ years of their lives being ‘educated,’ most of it either redundant, useless, or false.

              So don’t say it’s market demands, by any libertarian measure the current school edifice is a testament to the nature-defying powers of a state and media determined to force their will onto reality.

              • pdimov says:

                You don’t understand. I’m not smugly telling _them_ anything. I’m smugly telling _you_ that your assumption that they are easily deceived morons is incorrect. They are smarter than you give them credit for, and degrees in intersectional interpretive dance really do have value.

              • peppermint says:

                Normalfags will be sad about their wasted years and there’s nothing to say to them, it was a total disaster and loss.

                There are, currently, high-IQ people who normalfags trust who willingly spread lies like the ridiculous Russian hackers hoax or the mundane and disgusting hoaxes about equality and schooling. They do this for social status. These people must be brutally murdered.

                Also, the universities have proven themselves to be worse than worthless and must be brutally suppressed. In the future, being a thought leader should carry 0 weight, for three reasons. If namefagging thought leaders are lauded, they will get tied to old thoughts and new thoughts won’t be considered. If thought leaders are allowed to conspire at universities, they will be an independent source of unknown amounts of political power, which is inherently destabilizing. Finally, high IQ individuals have natural authority and power, just like young women but with the creativity to use that power. When they conspire with each other, they can fool pretty much everyone pretty much all the time, and the vile university degrees system creates the incentive structure for this to happen.

                Having thoughts is worthless. Having good judgement in selecting advisors is the most important trait. Hail the Emperor.

  7. thinkingabout it says:

    Jim, I’d be very interested in your views on vaccines causing autism. I like to see us of the alt-right as a voice of sanity and reason in a hysterical left-wing world. But Trump’s views on vaccines make me doubt this self-conception.

    As a physician, I’m very pro-vaccine. I get flu shots every year, and I see the tremendous value vaccines have in controlling diseases in the third world. I also don’t see why there would be a big conspiracy to push vaccination. They’re not making anyone infertile, so it’s not for population control. I doubt there’s that much money in them, at least compared to all the other money spinning opportunities out there in Big Pharma.

    I think Simon Baron Cohen’s idea that autism happens when two nerdy people mate with each other is the most plausible. It’s not PC, it fits with the cognitive profile of autists, and it also matches with the old “refrigerator mother” theory. I feel like smart upper middle class parents can’t tolerate the idea that their desire for a “compatible” partner directly resulted in their child’s autism, so they try to blame it on something innocuous like vaccination.

    I agree that global warming research is overrated and exaggerated, but the topic of vaccination, to me, doesn’t seem quite as susceptible to scientific hysteria. Sure, post-vaccination neurological disorders have been reported in the literature, but I don’t see any evidence for a mass cover-up.

    Even if there were a minor link to autism, we should remember that the literature links anything and everything to autism these days.

    • thinkingabout it says:

      A major reason for the latter phenomenon of finding links to autism in all sorts of places is that kids are being overdiagnosed with autism. It makes them eligible for all sorts of special resources from the schools and city governments. It also makes pediatricians happy when they’re able to give a concrete diagnosis. Parents don’t like hearing their kid is retarded, but might be okay with an autism diagnosis, which doesn’t carry as much of a stigma.

    • jim says:

      1. It is plausible that if the immune system is slammed with a wide variety of antigens at the same time, it is going to get confused and alarmed. There does not seem to have been any testing on the effects of simultaneous vaccination with a wide variety of unrelated antigens.
      2. The amount of preservatives in vaccines adds up when you give someone a lot of vaccinations at the same time. It is the dose that makes the poison. I see studies proving that standard doses of preservatives are harmless, proving that the preservatives in one vaccination are harmless. I would like to see evidence on realistic doses. Not seeing it.
      3 The amount of immunological adjuvants in vaccines similarly adds up. I have not seen testing that would reassure me that the amount of immunological adjuvants in even a single dose of vaccine is safe. The testing on immunological adjuvants looks like global warming science, the outcome predetermined before the test is run, and if the test were to give the wrong result, they will change the rules till they get the right result. I am unaware of any testing that indicates that even standard adjuvants in a standard single dose of vaccine are safe.

  8. Steel T Post says:

    Simply allow businesses to administer IQ tests again. Currently, they cannot, because rayciss. Overturn Larry P. v. Riles, 793 F.2d 969 (9th Cir. 1984) via pro-business legislation, so employers do not have to use college degrees as a proxy for IQ tests.

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      Academia is just as bad in the UK where you are allowed to administer IQ tests.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Are you allowed to use them for anything relevant? IQ tests are legal for the US as long as you use them for useless stuff like Mensa membership. It is illegal to use them for employment considerations.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Sure. I have taken IQ tests when apply for jobs.

          • jim says:

            And I have used fizzbuzz type tests on job applicants, but an insufficiently converged Silicon Valley company is now being sued by Obama’s justice department because its fizzbuzz type tests produced unequal outcomes.

            IQ tests and fizzbuzz (domain specific) tests are not exactly illegal, but there is ample legal precedent that you can be successfully sued if the outcome is unequal, as of course it is.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Right my point being that I lived in the UK, where none of that is illegal. I have taken explicit, computerised IQ tests, in which candidates’ applications are automatically terminated for a too low score.

              Yet our academic system looks much like America’s, and there’s no sign of degrees being replaced by IQ tests.

              • Brit says:

                I’m in the UK too but this is not what I have heard. I know someone who was in quite a high position, she said they use “personality” questions in order to indirectly test for IQ, and that testing IQ directly is a no-go area.

                I think it is very likely that what you thought was an IQ test was something more specific to the job. Or maybe it was a specific field where you could legally get away with an IQ test? They are certainly not commonplace

                • Oliver Cromwell says:


                  This is the type of test I have taken. Sure looks like a non-domain specific IQ test to me.

                  I’ve taken these tests for a range of companies I didn’t end up working for, mostly banks, oil companies, and the like.

                  I also took an IQ test when I applied to Cambridge.

                  You are implying there is legal precedent in the UK against IQ testing – please cite cases.

                • jim says:

                  There is nowhere a law against IQ testing. There is however a law against unequal outcomes, which IQ testing is apt to produce. Example British equality act of 2010.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  The Equality Act does not ban practices that result in unequal outcomes.

                  Nor does US law, actually; it bans practices that result in unequal outcomes where they cannot be proved by the employer to have some practical justification. Even that wouldn’t be a big problem if courts hadn’t decided to impose an unreasonably high bar for what constitutes a practical justification.

                • jim says:

                  Nothing could have clearer practical justification than the fizzbuzz type tests. Indeed they were explicitly designed to meet the demand for practical justification. If they don’t pass the requirement for practical justification, and they don’t, nothing can.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Please cite UK case law that fizzbuzz tests are illegal, because it looks like not only are they not, but that explicit non-domain specific IQ tests are also not illegal.

                  They may well be illegal in the USA.

                • jim says:

                  Governments are furtive about what is illegal and what is legal. The bottom line is that using fizzbuz tests to get engineers that are white males does not protect you when the government sues you. I cannot cite case law in the US that fizzbuzz is illegal, yet it is, in the sense that if one rejects all engineers that fail fizzbuzz type tests, one will have a racially and sexually unbalanced workforce, and if the government decides to go after you, the fact that one used fizzbuzz type tests to get this result will not protect you.

                • peppermint says:

                  did you know that the US military doesn’t require physical strength? It’s not Agamemnon’s army.

                  Also being in tech is all about getting other people to tell you how to put things together, which women excel at through school and after, provided the proportion of women stays below like 20%.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Companies and universities were not being very furtive when they administered multiple IQ tests to me.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  “Also being in tech is all about getting other people to tell you how to put things together, which …”

                  In one engineering position I once had we had a female engineer who was not incompetent. The boss once privately spoke admiringly of her ability to get other people to do work. Of course, when I did the same thing I was lectured about being lazy.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  By the way, the IQ test I took at Cambridge was an interesting story.

                  The test was not used in that year to discriminate between applicants. It was being assessed to see if the IQ score correlated strongly with good performance in a degree. AFAIK, it did not strongly correlate with good performance in a degree. The reasoning seemed to be that pretty much all applicants were smart enough, and what distinguished them was work ethic.

                  That probably didn’t hold true in all subjects, like mathematics, but mathematics had its own special exams already.

              • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                I am a little bit skeptical because even China has AA but I don’t live in the UK so I won’t comment. Find it hard to believe AA doesn’t exist in any western country.

            • Glenfilthie says:

              I seem to remember a big stink about employer testing awhile back. If I remember a certain city in black run America was jonesing for a black chief of police but the qualification tests required for the position were too difficult for the black officers to complete. Since that was obviously racisss, they dumbed the tests down and then got their token into the spot through the back door.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            In the US or UK?

            IQ tests are legal if they don’t generate disparate impact. Which is to say they are illegal. Pretty sure this is the case for UK as well. Don’t they have affirmative action?

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              The UK does not have affirmative action (which may even be illegal) and disparate impact does not make a hiring practice ipso-facto illegal (explicitly racist hiring practices are illegal though).

              The situation in the UK is a bit different to that of the US, since low IQ minorities (blacks and Pakistanis) do not significantly outnumber normal and high IQ minorities (Indians and Chinese). So there’s not much call for US-type laws even on the left.

              • Brit says:

                Compare an Asda, Tesco, Ikea or cinema in Northwest London to one in the green countryside of East Anglia.

                NW London: Full of low IQ muds, rude behavior, litter over the floor, trollies etc not stacked properly, employees slacking about when they should be working, poor English

                East Anglia: High IQ whites, polite, clean shops, shelves neatly stacked, shelf stackers move out of the way when you walk pass, friendly smiles and small talk, fluent English

                There is money in London. If you were able to get away with testing IQ you would be able to hire mainly whites, and if you could hire mainly whites then you would get all the business, for the stores would be clean and friendly like in East Anglia and this will attract the people who work in the city and make lots of money. So itt is obvious that in these diverse areas that they are forced to hire muds, with the usual poor results

                • Brit says:

                  Similarly I have seen direct experience with companies forcing in homosexuals, lesbians and women, into positions clearly above their ability

              • Stephen W says:

                The UK does not have affirmative action, they are colorblind, but you can still be pilloried for hiring too many natives. So they are colorblind in such a way that they meet their “diversity goals”. So officially they are “colour blind” while unofficially they are using affirmative action. Theoretically a well qualified native could sue for discrimination when an employer hires a barely qualified invader instead but just as with “Hate Speech” laws you are unlikely to find a sympathetic judge when trying to use such laws to protect the laws intended targets. Some flimsy excuse will be found.

                • Stephen W says:

                  The british education system is also quite good at demoralizing white males from trying and giving any minority that can string a sentence together pass marks.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  How is that possible when, unlike in the US, high school “pass marks” are determined by results in nationally standardised exams that are marked centrally and anonymously?

                  Your American spelling suggests that you are not yourself British.

                • jim says:

                  How is that possible when, unlike in the US, high school “pass marks” are determined by results in nationally standardised exams that are marked centrally and anonymously?

                  Answer: They cheat, explicitly taking race and sex into account.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  That sort of claim requires evidence.

                • jim says:

                  Over representation of blacks and women in high status academic intakes.

                  Check your computer science class 101. It will with remarkable precision be fifty percent female, despite the fact that women are notoriously incapable of this kind of stuff, do not like this kind of stuff, and do not like that kind of career. Obviously that is not the result of impartial and anonymous examination.

                  Along the way to becoming engineers, almost all of these females will drop out or fail.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  I studied physical science. The course was about 20% female. Sex balance of different subject areas in the UK looks about what you’d expect given free choice and selection on merit:


                  It is not easy (or common) to switch degree subject in the UK.

                • jim says:

                  On checking those statistics, the distribution between subjects looks natural rather than affirmative actioned, with women taking women’s subjects and men taking men’s subjects, contrary to what I expected.

                  Except that: There were substantially more females than males getting into higher education, substantially more females than males getting higher marks. Which I find more than a little odd.

                • Cloudswrest says:

                  I remember back in the early ’80s in college I was in a digital design class. We had a digital simulator program where we hooked up generic logic modules like registers and gates, etc. (this was all pre-Verilog days). One of the assignments was to design and “build” an 8 bit sequential multiplier. It took me about an hour or two to design, “build” and debug. The women in the class had tremendous difficulty with this. I remember one woman being at a complete loss on what to do.

                • peppermint says:

                  » free choice and selection on merit


                • pdimov says:

                  “There were substantially more females than males getting into higher education, substantially more females than males getting higher marks. Which I find more than a little odd.”

                  Not that odd. Girls are more diligent and care more about getting high marks.

                • jim says:

                  They are getting higher marks on subjects where the scoring is subjective, and lower marks on subjects where the scoring is objective.

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  “Girls are more diligent and care more about getting high marks.”

                  Not true. Look at courses where your marks are based on concrete knowledge like finance, engineering and not where its subjective like English, marketing. Girls’ marks suck. It’s pretty obvious the marking in subjective courses is biased towards giving girls higher marks.

                  Girls are just generally unintelligent and creative. I’ve met some girls in university that were smart, but never one that could come up with new ideas. Even smart girls tend to become accountants and what not. It’s a massive waste of capital to educate them.

                • pdimov says:

                  “They are getting higher marks on subjects where the scoring is subjective, and lower marks on subjects where the scoring is objective.”

                  In this context I’d say that they’re getting higher marks on subjects involving rote memorization and lower marks on subjects testing cognitive ability.

                  Most school subjects are of the former kind.

                  “Not true. Look at courses…”

                  We’re not talking about university courses here, but about getting into university.

              • jim says:

                I see over representation of English Pakistanis and blacks, particularly blacks, at levels impossible to achieve without affirmative action. So I wonder if you are being deceived.

                I have enforced fizzbuzz type tests and gotten away with it, yet nonetheless, they are illegal in America and have long been illegal. It is just a matter of whether your company is likely to catch the eye of Sauron.

                The notorious progressivism of Silicon Valley reflects the fact that every single Silicon Valley company breaks the law to a greater or lesser extent, and is hoping for an unprincipled exception in its favor.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  How can you tell the difference between Pakistanis and Hindus and Sikhs? Anyway, Pakistanis are actually more Aryan than the average Indian, and would have higher average IQs if not for inbreeding, and not all of them are inbred.

                  In my experience Blacks are overrepresented in acting, where management seems to think that most non-White Brits are Black (which they are not). I have rarely encountered Blacks in high IQ pursuits. That said, I think British Blacks are also more selected than American Blacks (British Indians are less selected).

                • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

                  Second the point about British Indian blacks being far superior to American blacks. Even Spanish blacks (Dominicans etc) are way better.

                • thinkingabout it says:

                  As Oliver Cromwell rightly says, Pakistanis and Sikhs are hard to tell apart, but both of them are actually more Aryan-looking than the average Hindu Indian.

                  I’d disagree with the higher average IQ comment. Within India its generally considered that smart people live in the south and east, which are the farthest away from Punjab and Pakistan.

                  Perhaps because the northwest was historically being constantly invaded by nomadic tribes. They were more robust, but less intellectual. Sort of like Mongolians vs Chinese.

    • peppermint says:

      This. People with degrees who are smart will recognize that this doesn’t harm them, and people with degrees who aren’t smart don’t actually matter politically except to the degree that they infiltrate everything and make everything suck.

      Allowing IQ tests isn’t a full repeal of the Civil Rights Act, allowing hatespeech is. The media will spin themselves into contortions to say while not saying that they want companies to be forced to hire people who underperform if Trump’s DoJ starts not allowing civil rights suits against various non-IQ psychometric personality tests and non-accredited online tests and courses.

      He can spin online stuff as cheap education for the masses and watch leftists cry their eyes out about how openly anti-White studies is required to be a well-rounded individual. Colleges have abolished themselves by abolishing the core classical curriculum in form as well as in content.

      When the same employment-relevant courses and tests, but cheaper, are available online, while googlers buy their way in with government money through the jewniversities, everyone will look down on jewniversity degrees as paid for garbage.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        Academia is not practical. It is about social promotion, the cathedral equivalent of church attendance.

        People in 1800 did not attend church because the valuable knowledge gained from each sermon would help them in their profession. I am sure there were then, as now, some ancillary networking opportunities. But mainly it was about being seen to be part of the group.

        • peppermint says:

          …which is why it’s important that the only people to do legacy college are too stupid to pass the online courses.

          Harvard and MIT were once respected for the difficulty of getting in and getting through.

          No one will ever want anything to do with the rich or government connected but stupid people’s clubs.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            How to kill academia: make it mandatory for all universities to offer online tuition that can result in a degree that is indistinguishable from that offered to attendees. Make it illegal to charge more than cost. Give it some god-awful saccharine title like “Open Access to Education for All Americans (No American Left Behind) Act”. No social promotion, no value.

            • Salger says:

              You can also cut their funding and end all legislation stopping schools from keeping out women and muds.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Hard to name that “Open Access to Education for All Americans (No American Left Behind) Act”.

                • Salger says:

                  Seriously though, public education needs to be ended. It’s demonstrated to be a government teat sucking hotbed for Lefy antics. We should not let anything in America be bailedout.

            • peppermint says:

              » offer online tuition that can result in a degree that is indistinguishable from that offered to attendees

              Okay, online tuition is half of normal tuition, but the required coursework in anti-White studies and tests only hard for White men is the same. Meanwhile it makes universities “competitive with” no-nonsense online courses, because universities don’t have disparate impact.

              No, this ensures academia survives.

            • Dave says:

              I have a simpler solution: No government grants or loans for education, and private lenders cannot take a dime from the first $40,000 a student earns each year after leaving school. If he can’t land a job that pays more than that, the lender must eat the loss with no bailouts.

              That would re-orient the education system toward degree programs that lead to high-paying jobs and students capable of completing such programs. Schools would compete for the best students by promising not to waste their time on lefty fluff courses.

  9. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Still betting on the Trump coup in March / April Jim? My WN friend is telling me he is applying to a federal government position, but I’m still a bit skeptical. Don’t think the left will roll over this easily.

    • jim says:

      I predicted for March or shortly thereafter: “I would guess the purge starts in March at the earliest. First he has to get his key people into position. Then suddenly, wham, he gets his enemies out of position.”

      That is not quite a coup. A coup is what Hitler did after the Reichstag fire, though the Cathedral may well find the distinction a bit subtle. And if the purge goes all the way through academia, then the purge is indeed a coup.

      so rather than saying “a coup in March/April”, I am saying we will see the God Emperor’s true power level in a purge starting March/April. Which is likely to be pretty dramatic, and if we are lucky and virtuous might amount to a coup if it goes on and on steadily escalating, like Hitler’s salami slicer.

      • Steel T Post says:

        I’m still trying to figure out why the same people who says we have to bake cakes for faggots pounding each other in the poop chute aren’t inclusive of those with a fetish for piss. Fecal > Urine? Who knew? The purge of these raving hypocrites can’t begin soon enough, but I’ll settle for Eastertide.

    • peppermint says:

      Russian hookers.

      The Left is in free fall and currently being mocked by literally everyone who isn’t tied to it.

      • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

        Lots of people tied to it.

        Probably 90% + of Chinese supported Cathedral takeover in China in June 1989. Deng still easily suppressed it without a fuss.

        Of course the American left’s cohesion is low compared to the CCP in 1989. But you guys also have way less support than Cathedralites in 1989 China.

        • jim says:

          Our support in the armed forces is pretty good, except for the navy.

          As for the masses:

          1. Masses do not matter.

          2. Preference falsification. Pretty sure we have plenty of mass support. Probably around 20% of voters, 80-90% of gun owners.

          • Steel T Post says:

            Goddam squids. Well, support is good from the Men’s Department of the Navy (the Corps.)

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            At this point I think the army and marines corps might remain neutral, but in order to win you need their involvement because police are still under leftist command and rightists are dispersed. Trump does not have ability to gather 100,000 armed whites at a moment’s notice.

            • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

              “Masses do not matter.”

              Of course. Might matter if army stays neutral. Otherwise zero effect.

            • coyote says:

              the only police under leftist command reside in blue counties. take a look at the blue/red county vote map. trump could call us all out at a moment’s notice: the god-emperor calls, we will come.

Leave a Reply for Reactionary Oriental Libertarian