I have been ignoring Brexit, because the EU is just a provincial subject state of the USG State Department Empire – but Brexit in the age of Trump is turning into an independence movement from that empire.
The Turkish empire turned into the anti Turkish empire, and the Turks, not the provinces of empire, revolted against it. Purported provincial independence movements were a reflection and result of Kemal Atatürk’s central revolt of the Turks against the (anti)Turkish empire, and the ensuing lack of interest and will in imposing unitary government upon the distant provinces. Even before Trump was elected, I remarked on my hopes that he would be a Kemal Atatürk. Maybe he is.
Checking on Brexit, I see loud and strident agitation by the establishment, the mainstream media, and assorted thugs given license to intimidate and engage in violence, against no deal Brexit.
For example the mainstream media tells simultaneously tells Britons that no deal exit is going to ruin British farmers by forcing them to sell food at lower prices, and will also raise food prices in the supermarket, both articles appearing at the same time in the same newspaper. Much as they cover climate change. Any change in climate is supposedly going to be disastrous, though in fact the world has been steadily and rapidly getting greener, more pleasant, and more clement since the little ice age started to ease up two centuries ago. I can see with my own eyes the semidesert that I wandered as a youth is now grassy and forested, with forests of trees considerably younger than myself appearing. What you will doubtless read is polar bear habitat is threatened, and some poisonous desert dwelling lizard’s habitat is threatened. You will not read of new forests appearing, in lands that were formerly so barren that even sheep and goats had a hard time.
In the third world, we have repeatedly seen the nice friendly morally superior soft power of the Cathedral backed by the most terrible of hard power, the most brutal extreme being the recent repeat genocide of Tutsi in the Congo, a rerun of the Rwandan genocide. If Clinton had been re-elected, chances are that the Alawites would have been genocided also.
So, I think no deal Brexit is likely to go through, because the Alawites were not genocided. Soft power works on credit, and without hard power backing it, the bill comes due. The campaign against Brexit is losing its clothes, revealing itself as hostile to Britain and the British. Remainers talk democracy, while refusing an election and tearing the British constitution to shreds. To constitutionally enforce Remain they have to fire the prime minister with a vote of no confidence, and appoint a new prime minister with a vote of confidence, but are unable to do so, because they cannot unite behind one leader. And they cannot unite behind one leader because Clinton is not in a position to let them know who their leader is, so they are reduced to no end of increasingly desperate end runs around the constitution to delay Brexit indefinitely. Their disunity reflects the current Democratic Party conflict between the young, brown, stupid, and communist wing of the Democrats, and the elderly, decrepit, sick, but smart and white wing of the Democrats. They cannot get their act together, because the American Cathedral cannot get its act together. Brexit is coming because Trump has no desire to hold the (anti)American empire together, as Kemal Atatürk had no desire to hold the (anti)Turkish Empire together. Brexit is coming because Trump would not genocide the Alawites in Syria the way that Clinton-Obama genocided Tutsi in the Congo.
It will make Boris Johnson look very strong if a no-deal situation comes to pass.
And by extension, the nation as a whole. Can’t think of too many countries more desperately in need of strong, authoritative leadership than the United Kingdom at the moment. Of course I don’t expect much from BoJo overall, but no-deal Brexit would be cathartic at the very least.
Can’t speak to the quality of the author overall but I rather liked this piece from two weeks ago on Brexit by some fellow named Christopher Caldwell: https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happened-yet/
Brexit and Boris also relevant to Trump for another reason, a lot of the (poorly planned) coup was planned originally in the UK and other “5 eyes” countries to get around US law.
Boris can spill the beans on a lot of this information that Trump even were he to become Emperor outright could not get directly.
Every coup is planned originally in the UK.
We have sufficient information about the coup to know that it was planned in the US, and the operatives in the UK were merely tools.
Some of the most incriminating details were planned in the uk though basic conspiracy was planned in the us.
Our spy agencies like to launder stuff through the Five Eyes to avoid inconvenient US laws, much as the State Department launders criminal activity through “foreign†NGOs, including terrorist activity through “Palestinian†NGOs. Of the Five Eyes, the British are the most reliably servile. Maybe the Canadian is similarly servile, but they have sufficiently good operational security that we do not know, while the British leak like a sieve.
Our resident Paddy escaped from the bar to lecture his betters. Fucking joy.
A good reason to keep ahold of the British Isles is the continued existence of the Irish. Until we have considered and implemented a final answer to the Irish Question, we are going to have to deal with a hostile and traitorous foreign ethnicity that desires that we American Anglos turn on our English cousins. I suggest a couple of carefully placed hydrogen bombs. After the bombing of Japan at the end of WWII, they have been servile and compliant. Servility and compliance would be a marked improvement on current Irish behavior.
At least they have Conor McGregor. Oh wait.
I will give Conor McGregor one thing: he is beating up Irish, so he has that going for him.
😂
FWIW Donald Trump has no English ancestry. Martin Van Buren was 100% Dutch, I’m pretty sure he is the only other US president with no English ancestry. The “cathedral” is just the English, UK or US, running various scams. Trump’s lack of connection is significant.
If you look into it carefully, it is doubtful whether the British Queen has any English ancestry either. I actually have more in me. Must be a German conspiracy.
Clearly it isn’t, because you are being sarcastic. And since it is very important to get your approval, it therefore cannot be a German conspiracy.
[…] Source: Jim […]
OK this one is important to me and the iron is hot. Here we go:
“…because the EU is just a provincial subject state of the USG State Department Empire.”
You always say this. And as a cheap-seats ride-along here, how can I argue, exactly, other than with an honest “That just doesn’t seem right to me” or an entryist “Everyone knows it’s not that simple”.
I mean there’s more of “them” than “us” and they have all those mysterious forest castle “trust structures” that go back for centuries. Red Shields and Freemasons and Vatican Councils and Royal Families and Brussels Basement Butt Buddies, etc.
While meanwhile, when you say “State Department”, I imagine a glass building full of ivy league nerds with fancy shoes, MacBook Pro’s, Powerpoint skills and amazing 401K’s, but who have never wrestled, punched or stabbed somebody.
Is that all just “Euro man bad” Trooferism that I’ve picked up on “certain internets” to throw me off the scent?
Is the fact that they’ve never punched or stabbed somebody the proof that they really are on top? (Because their counterparts in Tel Aviv and Moscow and Beijing probably have all punched and stabbed somebody.)
How could the Euro’s be conquered by Harvard/State Department as completely as you imply, and so quickly?
Is it that those old country “trust structures” got busted up by WW2? Or rather, maybe they were decadent and decayed and irrelevant already — all big bucks and butt buddies but no trust and no teeth — as evidenced by the fact that WW1+WW2 even took place at all? While Harvard still had its firepower and that new time religion?
A stand alone post on just this subject would be great (and you still owe me that Tet Offensive one, remember) but I’d still be happy if you could expound some more here on why you feel so confident in this simplistic-looking assertion. I ask because I surely represent an incoming good-faith demographic to the blog here, who can handle thoughtcrimes like Priests vs Warriors and the Woman Pill, but just can’t “feel” the idea that a US State Department full of over-paid do-gooding weenies is really that dangerous.
So I’m stuck. I can’t prove my sense of things is correct, which is why I’m asking this here, but I can’t find my way over to your side either.
(What I can confess right now, though, is that when I try to think of all the people who I’m afraid of, personally, who it’s hard to bring myself to criticize IRL, and who can destroy me at a whim without fear of repercussion, Europe doesn’t enter my mind. Not Berlin, not Paris, and not Moscow. Maybe London and maybe even Tel Aviv. Maybe. But Manhattan and Massachusetts can squash me like a bug tomorrow and I know it, even if I’m unclear as to exactly how it would go down.)
World War II. US occupation. Political institutions in mainland Europe were creations of the US occupation.
One might suppose that Britain would have remained independent, but notice that the Royal Society fell to Harvard, abandoning the scientific method for the theological method, immediately after World War II, and that Britain has robotically and faithfully followed Harvard initiated requirements, such as affirmative actioning women and blacks into academia ever since.
Observe that Gay Parades are called “Gay” in all European languages, and were instigated directly by the US ambassador and State Department NGOs.
And the state department are not harmless gentlesofties. The US, through the UN, had the Tutsis in the Congo genocided, and was well on the way to having the Alawites genocided until Trump took over. They bombed Libya heavily and destructively.
When I was arguing with some guy who, in defiance of the statistics, claimed that British Universities were not affirmative actioning women, blacks, and browns, I said that if they were not affirmative actioning women, blacks and browns, the US airforce would be dropping phosphorus bombs on London, and I was not kidding. Looks to me that the trouble with Syria originated because Assad affirmative actioned women in education to exact equality with males, but failed to affirmative action them so that a majority of people in higher education were women. Seems to me that the State Department attempted to genocide the Alawites because Assad would go so far but no further on female education. And I figure that the reason no first world country has received similar treatment is that no first world country has resisted gay parades, majority female higher education, and all that.
Question about the collapse of the royal society, how did it happen and when EXACTLY.
My understanding is that England REALLY got its ball chopped off when Eisenhower (I’m not sure why) told them to leave the Suez canal.
“When I was arguing with some guy who, in defiance of the statistics, claimed that British Universities were not affirmative actioning women, blacks, and browns, I said that if they were not affirmative actioning women, blacks and browns, the US airforce would be dropping phosphorus bombs on London, and I was not kidding. Looks to me that the trouble with Syria originated because Assad affirmative actioned women in education to exact equality with males, but failed to affirmative action them so that a majority of people in higher education were women. Seems to me that the State Department attempted to genocide the Alawites because Assad would go so far but no further on female education. And I figure that the reason no first world country has received similar treatment is that no first world country has resisted gay parades, majority female higher education, and all that.”
Are you sure about this… I thought Japan had long resisted doing anything more then token measures in regards to affirmative actioning women the same way they generally refused to allow much in the way of 3rd world immigration (and what 3rd world immigration they did allow was generally from poorer country within Asia and the people they let in had to be working or they got kicked out).
Japan is at 1.4 TFR. Their resistance where it matters is weak.
In theory you can survive 1.4 TFR – as long as you don’t get invaded.
By the standards of any other Washingtonian country, Japan is frighteningly patriarchal. It’s well known on some level, but the extent is kept a little secret.
I have spent around three months in Japan in the past couple of years, and of course dated Japanese women in that time. The one I was most involved with had a professional job in a financial company, but was apparently paid a “woman’s salary” – women seemingly all earning the same while mens’ salaries varied and were generally higher – and told to make tea for her male coworkers who had the same professional job title.
If the US or UK had the Japanese social system, TFR would probably be what it was in the 50s and 60s.
Japanese, though, are more rules-based than whites, and cannot reproduce without the formal structure of marriage even after suppressing womens’ status.
If Japanese women gain the status of white women, their TFR might follow more closely the trajectory of South Korea or Taiwan, which are heading to 1.0 or lower.
Even recently, a good friend from Japan would tell me going to university is a good way for women to find husbands. He would say this openly, not just privately to me. Another friend and his wife would speak openly about hypergamy and the marriage market. I got a sense this stuff is just generally known there.
The only feminist chicks I met there had studied in the US.
I stand corrected: The Japanese professoriat is quite male, and the proportion of women in higher education in Japan is slightly lower than the proportion of men in higher education.
This substantially impacts my worldview – which was shaped by the fact that the Muslim countries all have about two women for every man in higher education, and a disturbingly female professoriat.
The gender differences in education set in immediately at primary school or even kindergarten, not in university. I live in a Muslim country, from what I’ve seen it’s because most boys just don’t care about official education. It isn’t cool to perform well in school and boys have the feeling that they are serving someone else by studying, girls just do what they are supposed to do. It’s not like boys were doing well in middle school, then doing well in high school, then mysteriously fail in university. They were failing from the start but artificially propped up because going to school is mandatory, going to university is not.
Personally, the only reason I’m still involved in official education at all is because I’m delaying my conscription. If we got rid of conscription we would have even fewer males in higher education.
To the extent education is box-ticking, women really are better at it. As it becomes more widespread, it inevitably becomes more box-ticking, because of lack of highly able students, and lack of highly able teachers.
What is notable in NYC and London is the huge number of white women who have masters degrees from good universities and jobs that require no education at all, or only vocational education. Increasingly there is a large population of Asian women in both places who have some mathematical skill and use it at work, but education of white women seems to be a conveyor belt to nowhere.
Men are obviously much better at box-ticking, but recognize it’s imposed on them and resist it. What I’ve seen isn’t men performing worse, it’s men not performing at all until it’s too late. Don’t see how that is notable, they go where high status men are. Apparently East Asian women actually do work while getting dicked on the side, congratulations to them.
For the sake of fairness, the boxes must furthermore be made easier to tick. We can see the end result in education generally becoming ever easier and ever longer, over time transforming every degree into an exercise in patience. (An issue that was noted even in the good old days when I came up.)
How did State have a dog in the Rwanda fight to begin with anyway?
Was it because the Tutsi (who had the worst of it) had collaborated with the European colonial governments? Some other reason?
It is because they are of Satan, degenerate, meddlesome, worthless to an ordered society, and subconsciously aware of this; and must therefore destroy any who might be of God, lest their worthlessness become immediately apparent through comparison.
The Tutsi are whiter than other blacks, their women are, to white eyes, way cuter than other black women, who look like they are half gorilla. (Ethiopian women are, like Tutsi women, OK, but the rest of black Africa, distinctly ape like).
The Tutsi are smarter than most other blacks, though the ibo are also quite smart.
As a result, they tend to rule, and everywhere are a market dominant minority. Being an agricultural market dominant minority looks mighty like being feudal lord or landed gentry, and often they are feudal lords or landed gentry. Europeans have been trying to impose equality on them at gunpoint since contact – the story about them being the same race as the Hutu, just the wealthy class of Hutu, is a lie that does not survive simply taking a look at them – and in particular taking a look at their women.
The story that Europeans made them unequal and superior to the Hutu is also a lie – Europeans attempted to impose equality with the Hutu on them from the beginning, but found it hard. So the genocide was just the natural and inevitable escalation of the effort to make unequal people equal, an effort that goes back all the way to first contact.
>While meanwhile, when you say “State Departmentâ€, I imagine a glass building full of ivy league nerds with fancy shoes, MacBook Pro’s, Powerpoint skills and amazing 401K’s, but who have never wrestled, punched or stabbed somebody.
You probably need to include the CIA into your mental image.
Other than that, what Jim said. Post-WW2, western Europe was largely an American province.
Nobody is afraid of Ivy League nerds coming to physically beat them up. They are afraid of Ivy League nerds launching drone strikes or inciting color revolutions.
People who have never experienced violent conflict yet have their heads filled with violent fantasies are precisely the sort of people whom you never, ever want to be in charge. They are capable of far worse atrocities than warriors and bandits, who actually understand the human toll.
Most of the world’s murderous tyrants were (are) people who didn’t (don’t) like to get their own hands dirty. They’ll hire or order someone else to do the killing, and once that’s done, hire or order someone to kill the killers, and so on until in their fantasies, they’ll be the only ones left with power, but in reality, have a very tenuous hold on power. Stalin had no one he could rely on, thus needed never-ending, ever-escalating crackdowns in order to stay in power. Stalin wasn’t a scary-looking, physically-imposing guy, he was a gimped, geeky-looking newspaper editor and “community organizer”.
So yes, world leaders do fear this apparently mild-mannered, innocent-looking State Department bureaucrats, because not only do they have access to real hard power, but their sharp disconnect from the physical reality of war makes them capable of far greater evil than common thugs.
Well, Stalin (“Man of Steel” btw) also was a bank robber in his youth.
Stalin had a bad arm; I don’t think he would be doing leg work. Note the robbery killed 40 people, the sort of body count that matches Not Tom’s description.
“I mean there’s more of “them†than “us†and they have all those mysterious forest castle “trust structures†that go back for centuries. Red Shields and Freemasons and Vatican Councils and Royal Families and Brussels Basement Butt Buddies, etc.”
Europe has maybe twice the population of the US, slightly more economical power, an apparently almost entirely aligned cultural and political sphere. At the same time as it has this vast potential, it has perhaps 10% of the military strength of the US, with US troops in most of its major industrial and population centres, while it has no troops in the US. This is not a natural equilibrium. This is an occupation.
The last most successful attempt to unite Europe under European leadership for the sake of European objectives was Nazi Germany.
The argument against Brexit is that the EU is too big for the US to control, and that when it’s really unified enough to attempt a breakout it will turn out that the Eurocrats were more Napoleons and Hitlers than Washingtons all along.
Seems mightly tightly controlled to me.
And I don’t believe that Europe has even ten percent of the military power of the US – or even the military power of Serbia. Recall Europe’s hilariously bad performance in the Yugoslav wars, and Britain’s shameful and contemptible performance in Basra and the Persian Gulf.
“Seems mightly tightly controlled to me.”
Today, this is true.
Generally, though, it is not advisable to consolidate all your puppets into one huge puppet with a self-government with a great degree of Asabiyyah. And the Franco-German elites have Asabiyyah, including among one another. The more usual maxim is “divide and conquer”.
The EU will perhaps remain controllable if its elite becomes largely non-European, the non-European elites being loyal to NYC over their home countries by default. But, apart from the UK, European countries are only getting underclass immigrants, a distinction the cathedral doesn’t allow itself to directly notice.
Every Gay parade suggests otherwise.
Recall Merkel shrinking from the German flag in fear and disgust. That did not look like Asabiyyah to me.
The EU is notoriously anarcho tyrannical, which is another indicator of lack of asabiyyah, as was Europe’s hilariously poor performance in the Yugoslav wars.
The elite has Asabiyyah within itself as an elite, and are still separate from the NYC elite.
They are defeated, and submissive. But they are not destroyed.
Maybe.
Invisible intangible Asabiyyah. How do you know?
Not seeing much elite Asabiyyah in the British elite.
Seems to me that if there was elite Asabiyyah, their military performance would be less risible.
Being priests, they think war and fighting is shameful and low status. It shows you are not as convincing as you think you are and need to use force to compensate for it. Having enemies shows there are people who disagree with you and are competent enough to threaten your life. If it must be done, fighting is outsourced to third parties.
Besides, Western elite imposes gay parades, female authority, substance use, etc. on the rest of the world and gets pretty much nothing but total enthusiasm like the crowd applauding Stalin. Seems like they are very good at their job. If there are significant differences within the West, what would northwestern Europeans do if Americans lost relevance?
>Not seeing much elite Asabiyyah in the British elite.
Opposition to Brexit. The aforelinked
https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/why-hasnt-brexit-happened-yet/
is a good summary.
British elite is obviously less than entirely united on brexit.
The German, and the coming European, elite, has a sense of itself as itself, and a separate character to the American elite.
That does not mean it is loyal to its nationstate or to its non-elite countrymen.
That does not mean it is not trying hard to do what the American elite wants, and even trying hard to want what the American elite wants.
But it is only defeated, not absorbed.
The EU is a way out in the way that Japan’s “economic miracle” was something of a way out. It depends on circumstances: American weakness coinciding with a desire to break away. But it’s possible, and even likely, in the course of the next century.
Which separate character is proudly demonstrated by proudly and abruptly adhering to the latest line coming out of the Cathedral and announced by the New York Times with even greater enthusiasm and abruptness that American elites.
Does not strike me as all that separate. It is like Roman provincials being proud because they celebrate the cult of the emperor with greater enthusiasm and sincerity than is done in Rome.
If separate, their line would not abruptly follow every twist and change announced by the New York Times. The
RomanAmerican proconsul organizes a gay parade, and they demonstrate their separateness by attending the proconsul’s gay parade with twice the obscenity and added demon worship – but the gay parade was organized by the US embassy and State Department NGOs, and it is called “gay” and not a word in their own language.“Look how separate we are. When the US proconsul tells us to jump through hoops, we jump twice as high as Americans do and set the hoops on fire!”
If they had a sense of themselves as separate, they would celebrate their cathedrals and the greatness of their past. If the British had a sense of themselves as separate, Newton would get a mention in British shows. If Europeans had a sense of themselves as being separate, they would call the gay parade something in their own language.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=7go-2MMeILY
oh well, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=9Qmwsg2pyEc
I am not sure I am expressing my meaning very clearly.
The EU elite does not have any policy independence, but it has a separate character.
By analogy to the British Raj, Maharajahs would carry servile titles like “Loyal Ally of the British Government”, but that did not make them Englishmen.
Unfortunately, if it has a separate character, it wants its character to be as purely Harvard and New York Times as that character can be. Merkel does not want to be German, does not want Germans to be German.
“Europe… with US troops in most of its major industrial and population centres, while it has no troops in the US. This is not a natural equilibrium. This is an occupation.“
So refreshing. Thanks for the obvious. Seriously.
Let me guess: Poland and Hungary: No NATO bases.
Well… https://www.armytimes.com/news/2018/05/29/why-poland-wants-a-permanent-us-military-base-and-is-willing-to-pay-2-billion-for-it/
The Eurocrats are dirty leftist Cathedral fanatics, these are the people who let in Muslims. They must become part of “The Final Helicopter Ride”.
[…] Jim with quick thoughts on Brexit. […]
Reading your post I realized it is ironic that Kemal Atatürk himself genocided thousands of Alawites to keep hold of his new empire. Somebody has to pay the price, I guess.
Not that I know of.
The pre Ataturk “Young Turks” genocided the Armenians (Ataturk was not the ruler when it occurred just a division general) I know nothing about the Young Turks killing the Alawites at all. Given the Turks problems with the Sunni Arabs in Syria it wouldn’t make sense for them to kill a local group hostile to the Sunni Arabs.
Ataturk was a truly great man in that he faced down the satanic Wilsonian coalition of the 1st world war which destroyed all of Christendom and told them to go fuck themselves and won. Its just too bad he came from a Muslim country.
Nobody genocided the Armenians. It’s a lie by that same satanic coalition. Nusayris are secularists because they are not powerful enough to take on Muslims yet.
Mustafa Kemal(and other officers, let’s not forget) did repulse the Westerners but Mustafa Kemal then immediately forced everyone to adopt whatever was the leftist fashion of the day. Female suffrage, socialism, drinking, etc. To this day secularists see drinking alcohol and promiscuity as high status. It’s all downhill from there. If Trump was like Mustafa Kemal, he would expel the Mexicans then put on a sombrero and start cutting out a guy’s heart out to show to the crowd.
The Islamic priesthood was in league with hostile forces – not the west, but the (anti)Turkish Empire. Kemal Atatürk was correct to cut the Islamic priesthood down to size.
Not just the priesthood, there is a certain demographic that is uncomfortable with nationalism, because in all likelihood their grandparents couldn’t speak Turkish. We call them “ummahists”. They are completely open about transferring the country’s resources to the wider Muslim world. They are the reason Turkey has the most refugees in the world. As the Western leftists import foreign voters hostile to Westerners, Islamists import foreign Muslim voters hostile to Turks. Needless to say, many of them turn out to be not so Turkish after all, and vehemently deny this has any effect on their hostile behavior to Turks.
Anyways, the West has been supporting Islamists against nationalists until very recently. Less than a decade ago. Recall Time’s “Erdogan’s Way”. Back then they supported the Caliphate against the nationalists.
This just in https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/boris-johnson-in-retreat-over-delay-to-brexit-h8xbc5cf2
Looks like Brexit is delayed again.
Maybe, but beware of the standard Cathedral tactic of announcing victory in order to create victory.
Your post from 2008 is still relevant:
https://blog.reaction.la/war/caplan-bets-europe-will-survive/
Caplan’s bet seems pretty safe.
It seems that in 2020 we will reasonably interpret him as having won his bet.
I think, however there is a good chance that in 2030, people will retrospectively interpret his bet as having been lost in 2020, in the sense of Brexit, rapidly expanding nogo areas within Europe, and the woman of Europe rolling out the red carpet for rapeugees.
oh yeah 2008
> Real mortgage interest rates are high and rising in the US, because the the future value of the US dollar is uncertain… We may therefore expect the proportion of people who own their own homes to fall, resulting in hostility to capitalism and enthusiasm for socialism… Ordinarily, the crisis would surely mean low home prices, which would be a good thing for the strength of the people, for the core of society is young married people planning to have children, or having children, and without such people, everyone loses hope and confidence, people despair of the future, and despair of their way of life… I sadly regret to report that I think housing right now is a very good investment, the only better investment being subdivided land with secure building approval.
Right after the financial crisis hit I withdrew a couple bucks from my savings account and bought some booze and cheetos and had a party before the dollar became worthless. Prices have been stable but cheetos and Coke are unhealthy now so we need chicken tendies and less sugar in our drinks.
Elite assabeya would allow them all to have a party with coke and underage hookers and get sentimental about the good old days, they can’t because the only thing they can agree about is that White peasants are too comfy, probably the best they can think of is to want it to stay 2010 forever and maybe on some level they expect that to be the result of getting rid of online political speech. At some point they’ll kill all the White peasants for not being unhappy enough and bring in Samsung teams to maintain Samsung Galaxy S power plants so Alexa can tell Winston to do his push-ups.
Anyway The Beatles had a song asking where all the lonely people came from. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle says
> You look at these scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their isolation and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there.â€
> “Good heavens!†I cried. “Who would associate crime with these dear old homesteads?â€
> “They always fill me with a certain horror. It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautiful countryside.â€
> “You horrify me!â€
> “But the reason is very obvious. The pressure of public opinion can do in the town what the law cannot accomplish. There is no lane so vile that the scream of a tortured child, or the thud of a drunkard’s blow, does not beget sympathy and indignation among the neighbours,
Maybe the countryside emptying out, maybe projection from a townie. Now the word townie is as opposed to cosmopolitan but they don’t call themselves cosmopolitans and jet-setter is vintage.
Read up on “anarchy tyranny” before telling us what we think about British bureaucracy.
Stop calling it the “Cathedral” It’s obviously the “Synagogue”
We need a name for jew-obsessed state-department sponsored nutjobs. What about… Joofers.
Why not just Fed?
Because not all joofers are feds, although all feds are joofers.
Chico, you is a joofer.
That’s a great point – we should change the term that Moldbug used in long, well-thought out ground breaking analysis to the one you suggested in a throw-away comment.
Wow guy who’s never commented here before, thanks!
moldy should have called it polytope and said lol simplex, it would have remained funny as the éļįťè stop pretending to be interested in math
Nuts.
Jews don’t rule, they are ruled.
White men are required to:
– Hyperbolize the suffering of jews as individuals and as a group, and downplay their transgressions.
– Speak of the importance of preserving the jews as a religious, ethnic, and cultural group, as well as protecting the state forcibly established for the sake of this group.
– Never question how many jews may have perished in an event that is one of the very roots of our current state religion.
If they do not do these things they will:
– Be fired from their jobs.
– Be fraudulently sued for defamation or incitement to violence, costing them exhorbitant amounts in legal fees even when they win.
– Be extradited back to their home countries because it is a de jure crime there, rather than just a de facto one like here.
– Completely erased from the internet due to collusion by monopolistic Silicon Valley companies that are invariably headed by jews.
How many jews are defending the interests of White people? Are White members of the Cathedral subject to the same de facto legal limitations as the common folk? Do jews not then rule the Cathedral?
Fake and gay.
You might want to make it less obvious that you’re shills, like not capitalizing the word “White” every time you write it.
It is a lot safer to say bad things about Jews, than to say bad things about women intruding into the male sphere, or transexuals.
You can find the real data on the gas chambers a whole lot easier than you can find the real data on women in the workplace.
He says not being allowed to disrespect Jews is an indication of being ruled by Jews, you counter by saying you aren’t allowed to disrespect trannies and women even more. But that is not an indication of being ruled by trannies and women.
If we assume that this is because trannies and women are protected by someone else, we might also assume that Jews are being protected by someone else. Who are these people? I say it is boomer Westerners like yourself. Why do you(plural) protect Jews? This looks like some bizarre BDSM ritual to outside observers.
Joofer.
Terrible meme.
You’ve got nothing, absolutely nothing.
If the world was ruled by Jews, the US would’ve invaded Iran.
If America was ruled by the Jews, Bernie Sanders would’ve been the democratic presidential candidate.
If political events such as 9/11 were secretly controlled by the Jews, evidence for it would not have need to be fabricated by Mueller’s FBI.
You got nothing. You’re a brainless joofer.
That’s a classic. Not everything goes to my liking, therefore nothing goes to my liking.
I still don’t understand why Westerners protect Jews. Why not just get rid of them like you would any other foreigner? Not like you are strangers to planning genocides. Add Jews into the undesirables pot along with blacks, browns, etc.
Restrictions in criticizing Jews just do not impact my life, and plenty of people criticize them. Restrictions in criticizing women intruding in the male sphere have massive and serious impact, in that no one is allowed to notice how disruptive and damaging they are in the workplace.
I don’t know about that – American Jews in public life in the US are divided into the anti-white camp and the pro-Israel camp. They don’t step on the other’s rackets but they don’t really agree. The fake pro-Israel camp wanted Iran invaded (of course, they’re not so pro-Israel that they actually *move there* but they’re eager to signal loyalty to it). The anti-white camp just wants whites wiped out.
The point is that the elites are predominantly Jewish (look at the numbers out of Harvard) but Jewish doesn’t mean Israeli.
9/11 troofers are pretty obviously either direct FBI psy-ops or dupes for FBI psy-ops – making excuses for an FBI that missed it because it didn’t want to see problems caused by Muslims preferring to look for problems caused by “white Christian extremists” – (of course that in itself has a Jewish element to it).
Jews are excessively hostile because our culture and institutions are weak.
Allah –
Resorting to extreme measures to solve problems that aren’t actual problem has really terrible consequences – like uncontrollable escalation of violence as the measures taken don’t actually solve the problem.
WQ #1 by far.
JQ is real but down the list (possibly as high as 2nd if you think they will resist efforts to solve other problems as a cohesive group but not even close to #1).
Because they are useful? Medieval european pogroms often happened when jews pissed off the local peasants much enough so it was easier for the lords to get rid of the jews, but until then, lords had some use for them. This is seen clearly when different countries abolished restrictions on jews: every lord wanted his set. Presumably this is due to some combination of economic savvy, academic scholarship, high average iq, and the network effects of having a semi-hostile minority to do dirty work.
Now, when degeneracy, demon worship, insane sexual deviancy and talmudic recursive scholarly suicidism are goals in and of themselves, who wouldn’t want as many jews as possible?
There are quite a few examples of people messing with the Jews and meeting with severe punishment thereafter. Just off the top of my head:
– Bronze age Egypt
– Babylon
– Canaanites, Jebusites, etc, etc (when is the last time you saw a Jebusite?)
– Nazi Germany
Plus, as the Soviet experience shows, Jews are more than capable of wiping themselves out if given half a chance.
Steve, why is it that violence will escalate if you Gas The Jews, but not escalate when you genocide blacks and browns? Jews have always been hostile to goyim, no amount of holding frame is going to make them come around, and why would you want them to come around anyway? Plus, in what cases do you invoke NAXALT besides when it comes to Jews?
Jim, you just asserted the same thing.
ten, in what world is it a good idea to give away critical niches in society/economy to foreigners? Or do you judge people based on their individual merit, and not on their origin? I don’t think you think it’s a good idea, you think it’s a good enough excuse to protect Jews. Preferring foreigners over your own people should tell you there is something terribly wrong going on. Come to think of it, East Asians might be better at laboring than whites so they are more useful, replace lower class whites with East Asians, upper class whites with Jews, and just mix up the middle class with yellows and Chosenites. What could go wrong?
Anon, are you afraid of Jews? Exactly what do you think will happen to the West if you try to get rid of them?
By the way I don’t actually know how to quote text in this place so that’ll have to do for now.
Jews are a problem, but they are not the problem. They are the matador’s cape. If you pay too much attention to the cape, the matador’s sword will get you. You say Jews hate us, and there is much truth in that, but Muslims not only hate us, but are apt to murder us, while Jews merely get creative in interpreting agreements. Muslims are a way bigger problem, blacks are a way bigger problem, and feral women intruding on the male sphere are way bigger problem.
Jews get litigous at Christmas time, while Muslims drive trucks into shoppers at Christmas time.
Jews also are positive IF tightly controlled.
Other minority groups much less so, and I’m not generally in favor of genociding them anyway.
My genocide categories are ideological: leftists and muslims. True believers in leftism and (Sunni anyway) Islam should be exterminated.
As to why violence will escalate…
Anti-semitism is rarely a purely right wing phenomenom because the jews are a market dominant minority.
Unleashing mobs on market dominant minorities tends to both empower leftists and be very bad for the economy. Jews who are leftists (most of them) can be persecuted and killed as leftist (as my position on leftists is I endorse near total extermination and this will get jews far more heavily then the rest of the population) but it is a bad idea to persecute and kill them as jews.
Jews should be excluded from state and quasi state jobs (with the king making perhaps a few exceptions for the likes of Stephen Miller) as jews, but not persecuted or killed.
I really don’t mind criticizing Jews. They did invent communism after all.
But this nonsense about Jews secretly ruling the world has to stop. It’s boring. It’s obvious misdirection, purported either by feds or idiots.
Good answers by others on this but I’ll add a few.
1) We don’t want to genocide the blacks and browns – we want to restore law and order which will require some executions of criminals but certainly not genocide. In the ideal long run, civilization + Darwin will win and men will be reproductively successful and leave descendants in proportion to their ability to cooperate and be productive rather than the reproductive system we have in place now which selects for the near opposite of that.
2) “Gassing the Jews” will escalate harmfully because it doesn’t solve specific problems. It won’t correct TFR because Jews aren’t the cause of low TFR, leftism is. Low TFR is the biggest problem – solve that and it will cascade outward to other solutions. But when TFR doesn’t rebound after you’ve empowered men with horrible predilections they’re going to cast about for more horrible solutions because those are going to be the men in power. Power is a Schelling point.
No invocation of NAXALT at all.
He said that already. Heard it the first time.
I am shocked and surprised that a Mohammedan would suggest murdering all the Jews rather than moving them to their homeland, Israel.
No one could ever have predicted it.
Nah. I’ve met a few Israelis and they are pretty nice fellows (pun intended). Those diaspora fuckers on the other hand… well if they’re still voting Democrat when Jihad Barbie gets into power then may God help them because I sure as hell won’t!
If we get rid of the Jews, the next thing that will happen is that we will get rid of the half-Jews, then the quarter-Jews, then everyone who is married to a Jew, then people who look like Jews, then people who act like Jews, then people who follow religions that are derived from Jews (this is you by the way, my friend), then people who did not enthusiastically kill and torture any of the aforementioned groups, then anybody who is still alive (because if still alive, hoarding).
Yes, I am not afraid of the Jews, but I am afraid of us. Whites are wolf to whites. We are the apex predator.
A poster with the name “Allah” and apparently from a Muslim-majority country asking why the west doesn’t just get rid of all of its Jews. Totally didn’t see that one coming.
Tell us, do you think the west should tolerate Mohamedans, or should they also be expelled “like any other foreigner”?
Jim, I say you are the one who is paying too much attention to Jews. Not many people here spend much time thinking about say blacks, because the solution for them is clear. I say the same thing for Jews.
The Cominator, Jim claims it creates a conflict of interest in that people will be awfully quick to declare others their enemies to take their stuff, but why is it not coveting if you want to kill Muslims, take their land, maybe take their women, take their oil, etc. but it is coveting if you want to kill Jews and take their wealth? And surely market dominant minorities are even worse than underclass minorities.
Steve, you mentioned Good Jews(pro-Israel) and Bad Jews(prog).
“but it is coveting if you want to pillage and plunder [insert foreign tribe here]?â€
No. It’s one of the most honourable activities in the realm of man. It even forms the foundation of the origin of the joint-stock corporation. There is little that is or could be more virtuous and capitalistic — even gallant — than to (exempli gratia) keep China British.
When you don’t have a fertile elite, conquest and empire is counterproductive, and is going to be disastrous.
When we have a fertile elite and eugenic reproduction, the grandchildren of the elite can pursue empire.
Sorry for doublepost.
Turg, I’m not Muslim but probably culturally Muslim the way you are culturally Christian. Jim’s teachings encouraged me to look at my ancestors in a different way.
Anon, if you had gotten rid of Jews long ago you would not have this problem. Now you have to clean up the mess your ancestors made. That’s how it is. Why is the killing of hybrids not mentioned when it comes to black/brown genocides?
Tom, the West should tolerate Muslims because that would be good for me and my people.
Yes, but it is mighty bad for me and my people.
Allah, if you had gotten rid of Muslims long ago you would not have this problem. Now you have to clean up the mess your ancestors made. That’s how it is. Why is the killing of hybrids not mentioned when it comes to black/brown genocides?
Let’s not think too much about Muslims here. Maybe if you hold frame Muslims will be Useful and Positive like Jews. Well, even if they aren’t it’s still coveting anyway so just think about other things.
Allah: Why doesn’t the west just get rid of all its Jews?
Also Allah: No, actually it’s Jim who is too focused on the Jews.
Allah: Also, the west should be tolerant of Muslims.
Also Allah: Look, let’s not change the subject to Muslims here. We should be talking about the Jews!
Subtle. Real subtle.
Loss of intelligence is inevitable when you breed with animals.
Yes? I’m more interested in the psychology of Westerners than Jews themselves. Obviously the answer to Jews is gas, case closed permanently.
You asked my why you should tolerate Muslims, I gave you your answer. I was obviously being sarcastic with that quoted part, demonstrating how ridiculous Jim’s excuses are for protecting Jews. You are being disingenuous.
When confronted with a direct question, you refused to give a direct answer, instead choosing a statement you could later claim was flippant sarcasm, but which the average Muslim would answer identically without sarcasm.
If that isn’t taqiyya, it sure looks a lot like it.
“Yes, but it is mighty bad for me and my people.â€
It is not logical to care about foreigners, aliens, pagans, kabbalists, and so on, unless one is oneself a foreigner, alien, pagan, kabbalist, or so on. With this in mind—
Assuming a racial definition, are you or your people descended, in whole or in part, from Ashkenazim, Sephardim, etc.?
If not, why do you care?
Assuming a theological definition, do you deny Christ, to include a willingness to defend those who would do it again?
If not, why do you care?
Please note: Judæo-Christianity is not a real thing.
If I was unclear, Muslims outside of Dar al-Islam are bad for everyone outside of Dar al-Islam. At ten percent we have a crime problem and no-go areas. At thirty percent we have low level civil war with sporadic outbreaks of high level civil war.
My answer to you was not sarcastic, my answer to Jim was. Why is it improbable that I would think Westerners should tolerate Muslims because it’s likely to be beneficial for me and my people, given that I am from a Muslim country? Is that not the most direct answer possible? You’re probably just not used to people telling the truth, among so many ‘tactical’ statements you have to crawl through.
I also did not get an answer to my question as to why gassing Jews is a slippery slope but killing blacks and browns is not.
Dafuq? It said my comment was awaiting approval and what I was seeing was a preview now it’s gone. At least let it go through then delete it, Jim.
That’s probably because literally no one else here is talking about killing blacks and browns. Either you made that up out of thin air, or you’ve confused this refuge with the TRS forums.
Come the reaction, physical relocation of blacks and browns will likely occur as a result of free association being restored, along with police crackdowns on thuggish behavior. The same may happen for Jews, minus the police crackdowns, because Jews generally do not engage in thuggish behavior, but they do meddle in the legal system, and therefore may be excluded from many governmental and judicial roles. There’s no inconsistency here, save for the obvious racial differences.
First it’s ambiguous, then it’s a joke, then it’s not important, then it’s the truth but we can’t handle the truth. Make up your mind already.
For me it’s very simple: your statements are clearly motivated by ideology and self-interest, rather than any relevant facts or logic, therefore can be disregarded, whether intended as a joke, an unvarnished truth, or – and this is the most likely – a burst of static from someone who hasn’t given the issue any serious thought.
The Cominator says he wants to genocide “true believer” Muslims.
How is “Tom, the West should tolerate Muslims because that would be good for me and my people.” ambiguous or a joke?
Of course my statements are motivated by ideology and self-interest. Logical, no?
Can’t coexist with muslims because they are like the borg if the borg were retarded.
The problem with being culturally Muslim is Islam is a code of laws and a total way of life as well as a religion and the religion considers ethnonationalism to be evil, in Islam there is only the Ummah. Also Islam’s creed mandates near perpetual war against all non-Muslims.
As such I liken it to the Borg if the Borg were retarded.
You can’t move the goalposts and then blame us for moving the goalposts. Well, you can, but it’s transparently dishonest.
It was you who made the declaration, then claimed it was sarcasm (i.e. joking), then said it wasn’t important, then said it was honest but we reacted wrong. All of this within a span of maybe an hour or two.
More specifically, it’s motivated by a foreign ideology and the self-interest of an outgroup member.
Thus there is no productive debate to be had. Either you are falsely representing yourself as a member of the ingroup and seeking to subvert from within, or you flat-out admit to being outgroup and expect us to accommodate your preferences anyway.
Both tactics, I might add, being part and parcel of Islamic doctrine, whether you are “actually” Muslim or just “culturally” Muslim. I, for one, don’t believe the latter exists; Islam recognizes only brothers, infidels, and apostates. It would be even more ridiculous than someone here claiming to be “culturally Jewish” – which would already be a bit ridiculous, as either they’re lying or they’re a bit secular but still of that ethnicity and identify with it.
If you really were on board with Jim’s philosophy then you would admit that the west should deport all of its Muslims long before it even thinks about deporting its Jews – even if both may happen eventually. Several of us have made similar statements against interest. But you can’t – you just can’t do it, can’t get the words out. When you talk about Jews, supposedly you care about what’s good for us, but when we talk about Muslims, suddenly you can only talk about what’s good for you. After half a dozen posts, it’s already becoming dull and predictable.
Show us that you know how to reason from consistent principles, and thus can contribute more than self-interested statements, or stay out of other people’s business (and the business of other cultures).
I can believe hes not a sincerely religious muslim for one reason, a religious muslim would not represent his name as Allah.
Wait, which part do you think I said was sarcasm? I’m not claiming to be your friend. I would harm you very much if I could get away with it, same as what you would do to me.
You really believe that, don’t you? That each and every one of us is ready to stab the others in the back and step over the corpses for a grasp at power. “Male cohesion” and “large scale social cooperation” are just empty words.
We don’t care about you. We just want you to stay in your lane, on your side of the fence. Enjoy your weird traditions and sectarian violence over there, but stay far, far away from here.
This is why, as our host has pointed out, Reaction is incompatible with Islam despite Islam getting the WQ mostly right. “me against my brother, me and my brother against our father, my family against my cousins and the clan, the clan against the tribe, the tribe against the world, and all of us against the infidel” is not a recipe for large scale social cooperation. It’s actually the epitome of defect/defect.
Looking up that supposed Bedouin proverb you mangled, it goes more like “I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world.” or “My Brother and I against My Cousin; My Cousin and I against the Stranger.” Where is the problem here? You prefer it was you and the world against your brothers and cousins?
We have already established that we are enemies, but apparently your enemy attacking you is bad because that would be duplicitous and harm large scale cooperation. Of course you can take our land, take our wealth, take our women, because reasons and we should just roll over and die.
Westerners will never leave us alone, we have to restrain them from killing and enslaving us.
If you are aTurk the West got along fine with secular military controlled Turkey before Turdogan.
We prefer to put up a fence and have you stay on your side and mind your own damn business. That works pretty well for peoples who respect boundaries.
Projection. Westerners do not want your women, except I suppose the thirsty betas who are desperate for any woman, and they’re no threat. And wealth? What wealth?
No, progressives will never leave you alone for the same reasons they’ll never leave us alone. If we had a reactionary government, and you decided you wanted to be left alone, you’d never hear from us again.
But history and theology suggests that the Islamic world is no more capable of leaving the outside world alone than Progressivism, despite protestations to the contrary. There will always be some offense, some insult that must be remediated. You’re straight-up admitting as much here. You claim we’re your sworn enemies, yet we basically never talk about your people at all except when you’re massing at the border, or already within the border.
We – by which I mean the average non-progressive man of European descent – would happily agree to mutual apathy and non-interference. It’s called Westphalian sovereignty. Would you?
Westerners will never leave us alone, we have to restrain them from killing and enslaving us.
The gall. The projection.
Assuming you are a turk, you wear the skinsuit of the half of europe you murdered, pretending this necromancy and grave robbery to be proof of your greatness when it proves your diseased destructivity.
One and a half millennium of permanent assault, millions of us enslaved, depraved brutality unheard of in europe – and you wish to flip the script.
We do not want you as slaves, be certain of that.
Westerners aren’t leaving us alone regardless of what you want. From Jim:
“If we really must intervene in the Middle East let us steal their oil and ravish their women. Three hundred thousand vets have suffered brain damage from explosions. It is not worth it unless they get their wicks dipped.”
Not coveting though.
What wealth? Pray tell, what is going to happen to my properties after you torture me and my family to death?
You were dishonest from the start, but you are just barefaced lying at this point. Right wing Europeans brag about genociding my people all the time. They hate that leftists stopped them in Bosnia and Kosovo. They’re just looking for their next opportunity. May they never get it. And what’s this about leaving others alone? Earlier you tried to justify betraying your own kin for the sake of “large scale cooperation”. Now you’re advocating leaving your enemies alone as if that’s a good thing. Surely, if the enemy is taking his ease, give him no rest.
10, imagine if the government had instead killed your ancestors and forced my ancestors to settle down in a nice fertile European valley instead of the post apocalyptic looking arid plains they were actually forced to settle down in, wouldn’t that be so much nicer? All they wanted was taxes and no rebelling. How dare they? That’s not Equal!
This is precisely why I oppose Jim’s solution to foreigners. He thinks he can just cut a deal with them where he takes tribute and in exchange protects them and keeps the order. This is far worse than killing them, because it makes them low status. Every single time they have to appeal to you for something or forced to bow when you’re walking past them, they’ll grow more resentful. He’s sure his clear military superiority will prevent foreigners from rebelling, but sooner or later they’ll come to collect. Ottomans did 600 years, can Jim do better?
Projection.
Which projection tells us we can work with reactionary nationalist Jews who want to rule Israel, and work with reactionary nationalist Hindus who want to rule India, but we can never work with Muslims, because Muslims are always going to do what they have been doing since the days of Mohammed: Terrorism and betrayal of allies. Mohammed got started by terrorism against a stronger power, then, when he got stronger, double crossed his allies, and wrote down that Muslims were to do the same. And they have been doing it ever since.
Muslims, like social justice warriors, always project. It is an inherent characteristic of a faith that commands people to do obviously wicked things.
I have believed for quite some time that the vocalization of the Arab is not that of a human but is instead more akin to the barking of a dog. Allah’s continued yowlings have done nothing to dissuade me of this belief.
>Right wing Europeans brag about genociding my people all the time.
Give three examples.
>They hate that leftists stopped them in Bosnia and Kosovo.
Right wing Europeans had nothing to do with Bosnia or Kosovo.
It’s theoretically possible that at some point Germans will remember that they’re German and will kill all Turks in Germany, but it’s not very likely, and even if it happens, they won’t genocide Turks in Turkey, or anyone else.
I’d prefer to never hear about Muslims or the Middle East again but Islam like Progressivism is a universal religion at perpetual war with all nonbelievers and like progressivism incompatible with higher civilization.
Hence as I advocate extermination for progressives (believers only) I also do so for Muslims (believers only).
“I have believed for quite some time that the vocalization of the Arab is not that of a human but is instead more akin to the barking of a dog. Allah’s continued yowlings have done nothing to dissuade me of this belief.”
The Arab’s big problem is the Islamic religion. I’ve had almost universally good experience with the Lebanese Christians I’ve met, of course the Islamic Arab’s blood is also more mixed because of centuries of slaving in Africa…
They tend to have chips on their shoulders – case in point, NN Taleb. On the whole, though, you’re probably right that the Arabs who explicitly adopt Christianity are manageable in small numbers, more or less like the non-progressive Jews.
As for the rest of the thread, it’s certainly been an interesting window into the mind of the un-Christian Arab. No matter how many times we say we just want a permanent divorce, there will always be someone, somewhere, somehow, who has done something to anger him, and he’s eager to take it out on all of us, because we’re all just one billion-headed tribe. I can see why the conquest option becomes attractive to some, but I maintain it’s not really a threat from outside the national borders.
Does make a strong case for raising those 30 ft walls up to 300 feet. I’d suggest anti-air defenses as well, but the odds of them getting off the ground without outside help are not high.
Oh come on, don’t tell me you’ve never felt the call of the East, Not Tom.
“They tend to have chips on their shoulders”
Well one thing I noticed with the women especially is the complete lack of CULTURAL influence of progressivism among them.
No Lebanese girl “dressed feminist” they wore their hair long and dressed attractive… it seemed like the progressive memeplex was something they were completely immune to which is why I liked them.
And it occurred to me… they lived behind the lines of another awful universal type religion for centuries without adopting it… so maybe they had a certain immunity to adopting bad ideas from bad religions.
“Oh come on, don’t tell me you’ve never felt the call of the Eastâ€
*turns yellow, wipes sweat off of brow*
EA which of the flashman books was those?
Anon, you’re being anti-Semitic. Remember that attacking Arabs can create a slippery slope which can easily lead to another holocaust. That would be leftist.
Pdimov, you can be my example right here. Do you think it was bad that we were genocided from post-Ottoman territories? Anyone else? Very interesting claim about Yugoslavia also, were the Serbs progs all along?
Jim, why do you mention Muhammad’s adventures, are you saying I’m a Muslim? If we are to talk about what a certain religion has been doing since its start, we can mention Christianity starting with a woman cuckolding her husband. Indeed, Christians have been the undisputed world champions at self delusion ever since.
We have lived side by side with Christians for nearly a thousand years, but as soon as they get the opportunity they start purging us. This shows that one cannot “work with” Christians and that we are just too kind and merciful for our own good, wouldn’t you agree? You want to “work with” Jews for poorly defined and contradictory reasons. Surely, every proper Jew should smash your Christian idols and punish such a blasphemous people. I’m guessing what you have in mind is a cynical alliance in which you pretend to be Christian and they pretend to be Jewish in pursuit of some undefined Greater Good that you really believe but do not reveal to people outside the inner party.
“Terrorism” is a 20th century buzzword. I have my own problems with Muslims and it’s not because they are too mean to their enemies. It’s mostly because they have no quality control.
Tom, you lie. You do not want “permanent divorce”. You want us to drop our guard. Anyways, I also got a peak into your thought process and I find it bizarre. What is your ethnicity? Mischling?
“there will always be someone, somewhere, somehow, who has done something to anger him, and he’s eager to take it out on all of us, because we’re all just one billion-headed tribe.”
Projection. This is exactly what you do.
Nuts.
Muslims are always at war with everyone else. Ten percent Muslims is a crime wave, thirty percent Muslims is a low level civil war which from time to time breaks out into full on civil war.
Prosecuting war to final victory is how white people fight wars.
Jews are not literally at war. They are just frequently irritating. Now if we started gassing people for merely being irritating, that could easily get out of hand, but if we fight a war till the enemy is crushed, it ends when the enemy is crushed so decisively that he ceases to be a problem.
Islam is okay on the WQ and the BQ (I hate niggers), but I wouldn’t shed a tear if Mecca were hydrogen nuked, tbh fam.
I’m somewhat disturbed by Mohammed’s sexuality, though. No, not his “pedophilia,” which I wholeheartedly support, and which puts a big smile all over my face. Rather, it’s his low status MILF fetish that rubs me the wrong way: That poor dude monogamously married a 40-year-old widow, Khadija bint Khuwaylid, when he was 25! Truly Macron-tier cringery.
Best regards,
Does the Islamic religion call for perpetual war against all the non-islamic world. That is the special problem with Islam is its militant universalism.
Please, Allah, you expect us to believe that you can imagine a world where you are not at war, but we cannot? You could not even imagine a world where you are not at war with your own brother. Your default setting is war with every other man in existence, and you only cooperate insofar as necessary to prosecute your omnicidal urges.
You picked a fight with people who are so much better than you in every way that you can scarcely comprehend it. We could conquer every Muslim nation in the world in a week, and your response is to drive trucks into children. You are too dumb to live, and we will take care of that state of affairs once we get our own house in order.
The unmarked grave of the last Arab in the world will be a most fitting monument to European superiority. And it will be the ultimate testament to your utter inferiority.
We, not if, we genocide you, you will have it coming. Not because what you did, so much as to whom you did it. You are weak, you are stupid, you are offensive, you are irritating, and the sentence for these crimes is death. In Jesus Christ’s name, we pray. Amen.
“The unmarked grave of the last Arab in the world”
I must moralfag in objecting to genociding people merely due to race.
Leftists and Muslims should be killed and no they aren’t innocent not at all… Arabs (who aren’t Muslims), bog trotters bastards even naggers should not just be killed.
I deleted the part where I talked about the first baby born in a world without Muslims to a Crusader’s concubine also being a monument to our superiority. I thought it was self-evident, but apparently not. We take the virgin women, kill the rest, and end the problem by fucking them out of existence after killing anyone we dont want to fuck. Christian Arabs will be permitted to exist, or course. Brothers in Christ, as long as they stay in their own lands.
Also, stop moralfagging. You dont need to pull the trigger. You just need to look away when I pull it, and not think to much about it. Just explain to the conquered people that they are being saved and ignore the gunshots. Talk about the glory of God and the Kingdom of Heaven, and let me do my job. Do not counter-signal the warrior class. Fucking a nubile Arab slave girl will help you sleep at night if it really bothers you that much.
I found a choice comment in a decade-old post. You should read it Allah. It concerns a rather amusing solution to the notoriously high Muslim TFR.
https://blog.reaction.la/war/losing-to-islam-2/#comment-35656
You keep doing this Jim. I said Arabs. Not Muslims. Are you copy pasting that stuff? Why do you care to separate the Good Jew from the Bad Jew? You say gassing people so you can blur the difference between your own people and foreigners. Obviously Jews are more than irritating. Gypsies are irritating. Jews are something else. Your entire defense of Jews rests on the allegation that they are not as powerful as Muslims. It is not that they aren’t hostile, but that they are too weak to do too much damage at this particular point in time. Tolerating foreigners is one thing but tolerating hostile foreigners is downright bizarre and indicates military subjugation or mind control rays. You have a strange soft spot for Jews that I do not get. Some of your disciples begrudgingly accept your position and the rest keep quiet but it’s just not compatible with my mental software, or perhaps hardware.
Knight, conflict is a fact of life for men, like getting old. Sooner or later one has to accept it and if possible, come to like it. I can imagine not fighting my brother perfectly well. For example if I’m fighting my cousin. Yes, fighting other peoples is the foundation of human cooperation. What else did you expect? If you are so superior how come you’re reduced to raging on an Australian weight loss blog?
“We, not if, we genocide you, you will have it coming. Not because what you did, so much as to whom you did it. You are weak, you are stupid, you are offensive, you are irritating, and the sentence for these crimes is death.”
Finally. And Tom here was saying you just wanted to be left alone and Jim said I was projecting when I was calling out Tommy’s lies. It’s refreshing to be answered with the truth.
Anon, you messed up the quote but thanks for showing me how to do it.
But you tell us we are enemies. Are we enemies of Christian Arabs?
We don’t care about Arabs, except that almost all Arabs are Muslims. Arabs are far away, and non Muslim Arabs do not cause us problems, while non Arab Muslims do cause us problems.
> Pdimov, you can be my example right here.
No, for two reasons. First, I’ve never called for a genocide of any kind. Second, that’s not how time works here. Your deliberate misinterpretation of my comment can’t have informed your position because my comment didn’t yet exist when you wrote that.
> Do you think it was bad that we were genocided from post-Ottoman territories?
You weren’t genocided from the post-Ottoman territory where I live. Who’s “we”, by the way? Turks? All Muslims? Do you know what “genocide” means?
> Very interesting claim about Yugoslavia also, were the Serbs progs all along?
So the mythical “right wing Europeans” in your sentence were the Serbs?
> We have lived side by side with Christians for nearly a thousand years, but as soon as they get the opportunity they start purging us.
Not true as well. Yugoslavia had the opportunity to purge its Muslims and didn’t. We know that it had the opportunity because the post-Ottoman territory where I live did purge its Muslims at one point.
The eternal victims, always being genocided by the evil Christians (and atheist Communists, and Hindus, and anyone else in contact) for no reason whatsoever except irrational Islamophobia.
@The Cominator
The 2005 edition of the original Flashman novel. One of the most reactionary images of all time, I should think.
It will soon be time for the pound, little doggie. Yap yap.
“Also, stop moralfagging. You dont need to pull the trigger. You just need to look away when I pull it”
I have no problem with doing it to leftists and muslims myself should the need arise because they deserve to die.
>Does the Islamic religion call for perpetual war against all the non-islamic world. That is the special problem with Islam is its militant universalism.
Not really a special problem. Catholicism is also militantly universalist – the differences are subjectively minor for a modern man. This is a better analysis:
https://bonald.wordpress.com/2015/12/01/is-islam-a-religion-of-peace/
Leftism is most dangerous not just because it is militantly universalist, but because it knows no peace even in victory, has universal murder-suicide for its telos.
Nuts
“Islam is not historically distinguished as scrupulous or unscrupulous in this regard. ”
Islam proposes terrorism as its path to conquest. Islam requires its adherents to doublecross their allies. Catholicism at its worst forbids such means.
Actually I’m consistent on this, I’m probably the most anti-catholic NRxer.
Catholicism was a big problem before the Thirty Years War its been less of a problem since because most Catholics haven’t been willing to go full retard since the 30s year war. But still the Papacy up until Francis was a big soft power problem in that it was innately subversive since it was always scheming to destroy nations and claw its way back to the its pre 30 years war power level.
I would not plan to let the Papacy long term either, though ordinary Catholic Churches would merely be converted to Orthodox ones.
That is something like saying Rome was full retard until the barbarian invasions. In Christendom, the height of civilization, religious war and suppression of religious rebellion was successful, honored heaven, and kept the peace. The defeat in the 2nd Smalcald War invented “religious tolerance” and social and religious disintegration has proceeded in a straight line from then through the 30 Years’ War till now. Religious tolerance and homo tolerance, for example, are effectively the same.
Analyzing the papacy as merely one more “power center” among “nation states” – certainly before the 18th century, but also since – just misses the point entirely. Not only is that not what it really is, the medieval actors did not think it was that, either, not even the politically anti-papal. Read Before Church and State, or something like that. There can be no understanding of this issue by those who reduce the supernatural order to the natural order.
“There can be no understanding of this issue by those who reduce the supernatural order to the natural order.”
So you are a Papist?
Papism is heresy. The Bishop of Rome should be appointed and deposed at will by king Salvini (or Berlesconi) of Italy.
“Islam proposes terrorism as its path to conquest. Islam requires its adherents to doublecross their allies. Catholicism at its worst forbids such means.”
Counter-reformation era Catholicism (ie after the Council of Trent and before the Peace of Westphailia) kind of was like Islam, Catholicism theoretically forbids terrorism and rebellion but the exception was for “deposed” governments.
Well in this era the Catholic Church held that all governments not ruled by Orthodox Catholic princes were deposed and that faithful Catholics should act essentially as Muslims towards them.
Well it was, but the peace of Westphalia quelled it. Muslims have been the way they are since Mohammed, unless crushed by impressively brutal means, and as soon as the brutality eases up, they unsurrender.
Further, even in that period, were not terrorist. They attempted to blow up the British Parliament, but did not blow up random people in the streets.
Ha, I missed this one. I don’t think their women look like that anymore, not in general. Maybe it’s just temporary uglification due to ridiculous clothing and poor hygiene.
I do have a fondness for belly dancing, which looks ridiculous when white women do it. But not enough to pick up a sword.
Pdimov, too bad. That’s how it works here. I asked you a simple yes or no question, and it was addressed to everyone else also. That no one could answer it without shamelessly and unconvincingly lying shows I have provided countless examples.
If Yugoslavia shows that Christians do not purge us at every opportunity, a random Muslim country not being at war with a non-Muslim country somewhere in the world at some time shows Muslims are not constantly at war. Both of these are nonsensical and show how disingenuous you are.
You claimed “Right wing Europeans had nothing to do with Bosnia or Kosovo”, do you admit you lied?
You can’t decide whether you want to be left alone in your little corner or conquer the entire world, so that’s hard to tell. What does Judaism tell Jews to do to goyim, by the way?
Also, I just read your 9 year old comment about winning against Muslims Anon linked. Can you elaborate on the effect on themselves and their own societies? What effect did their genocide of Muslims have on Spain, and what effect would it have on Israel, assuming leftists weren’t holding them back?
Typical Muslim. You are supposedly arguing that Christians are all savages that will genocide you at the first opportunity. You have two examples: a set of people clamoring that they will kill you and your sons and fuck your daughters in the name of God so help me you fucking desert rat come at me, and a set arguing that if you could just learn to leave them alone they are willing to live and let live. What do you do?
Studiously and pointedly ignore the people offering justifications for a Final Crusade and try to twist the words of the people that are willing to avoid a war to prove that they are actually hidden enemies. If you needed proof that Christians will kill you if they have the chance, you had it, but you went after the one who you are pretty sure won’t kill you. Arguing that the well mannered opponent is secretly planning on murdering you while acting obsequious towards the armed and armored killer whispering in your daughter’s ear all of the terrible, wonderful things he is going to do to her body once he kills you and her brothers.
Your people are cowards, murderers, thieves, scavengers, and worse. You worship a demon. It is our Christian duty to stain the sand red with your blood, and then stain the sheets in your homes with your daughters’ maiden blood. You need an example that we are going to kill you all, you have one, right here.
> Islam proposes terrorism as its path to conquest. Islam requires its adherents to doublecross their allies. Catholicism at its worst forbids such means.
Granted. What the author says is close enough from a progressive reference point, but what you say is the elaboration it’s missing.
> Catholicism theoretically forbids terrorism and rebellion but the exception was for “deposed†governments.
“Rebellion” (you have your scare quotes, I have mine) on the table. Terrorism and revolution quite off the table. Excommunication was generally used justly, in answer to worse crimes.
> Counter-reformation era Catholicism (ie after the Council of Trent and before the Peace of Westphailia) kind of was like Islam
Yes, and in this aspect the Muslims are correct and stole it from us.
Yes, and in this aspect the Muslims are correct and stole it from us.
Not correct, we need to be intolerant to Islam and Progressivism because of both their militant universalism and the fact that they impose civilizational failure. We do not need to kill non-progressive buddhists, agnostics etc. Thats stupid. Though those not willing to publically conform to the state religion should in almost all cases be excluded from state and quasi state jobs.
Also religious discipline should be national not international. Orthodox Church good by this standard, Catholic church bad.
The faith is coerced on the baptized – once you’re in, you’re in. For the rest, only the soft coercion of generations based on constraints like the one you suggest.
> religious discipline should be national
The modern concept of “nation” was invented as an attempt to imitate what had been lost in Christendom, which owed its virility to its common religious authority in Rome despite local differences. White became wolf to white when the nation of Christendom broke down.
Peace of Westphalia, many white nations each with their own state religion, worked great for white people. We need to return to the Peace of Westphalia.
White greatness started with the Hungarians defeating the Mongols and stealing the secret of gunpowder: the Hungarians did that, not the theoretically universal Holy Roman Empire, and from that day forth, the writing was on the wall for white universalism.
>You claimed “Right wing Europeans had nothing to do with Bosnia or Kosovoâ€, do you admit you lied?
Of course not. No right wing European (to the extent there were such a thing at all) outside of Serbia had anything to do with Bosnia or Kosovo, or even supported the Serbs. Everyone applauded when Serbia got bombed.
If you want to prove me wrong, name three such “right wing Europeans.”
I had pointed out something similar but it looks like my post got eaten (not moderated, just literally blackholed). Anyway, at this point I’m no longer inclined to counter-signal. Congratulations Allah, you’ve exhausted my considerable patience, as your people (sorry, “culture”) in general so often manages to do to both the Christians and Jews at large.
Come the reaction, Muslims will be treated exactly as progressives, with the notable exception that they will not be allowed to convert in order to keep their jobs and status, because their faith and their inner nature compel them to lie about that too. America and Europe will cooperate to physically subdue the Turkish Caliphate ambitions, bring back the Iranian Shahs, and conspicuously ignore everything else happening in the rest of that shithole land mass while Israel follows the Russian strategy of quietly expanding settlements and annexing neighboring land in order to create buffer zones.
The problem with Muslims and Progressives both is that they’re not content to merely crush their enemies. They must also crush the dissenters, and the disaffected, and the insufficiently-enthusiastic merchants, and Havel himself for being insincere, and all of his customers and business associates, and everyone who provided service to them, and their brothers and sons, and their extended families and friends, and so on and so on, until only one person is left standing amidst the bloody ruins. If humanity is going to survive, we cannot ever let such ideologies become popular, and cannot ever let their followers have a voice.
I’d give Muslims some chance to convert but they would have to outright blaspheme their old religion (they would have to deface a Koran with haram material, piss on it, then burn it) and then would be obliged to help participate in the extermination of their fellows.
Islamic clerics and such on the other hand would be treated like women’s studies professors and the like with progressives, they would face automatic death with no chance to save themselves.
Knight, I’m not Muslim and you do not want to “live and let live”, you’re trying to get us to drop our guard. I’m not a desert rat either, I live in a perfectly green former Greek town.
Well mannered opponent, yes.
Pdimov, you said “Right wing Europeans had nothing to do with Bosnia or Kosovo”. This statement was wrong from the beginning. Since you aren’t going to admit your lies, are you going to say you were confused? I could accept that. How else are you going to explain away making such a ridiculous statement?
Tom, you just thought you could embarrass and intimidate me into silence and after failing to do so, bitched out. Now you’re spinning this into being patient.
It’s interesting that there is this bipolar tendency within the Western right. Sometimes you get depressed and despair that you’re going extinct, then when you are in your manic state you make all these grand declarations about not just world conquest, but taking to the stars. I’m sure alcohol and other drugs are involved in this process. You think being cynical liars is so clever, I violently disagree. I’m not lying for any reason at any time anywhere. If that makes me a true believing holiness spiraling zealot, so be it. You seem to be holiness spiraling in cynicism yourself.
Reminder that progs are related to you, not to us. Progs are your fault.
And I bet the Greeks are not happy about the fact that it was formerly Greek. Terribly racist of them.
You are culturally Muslim, in the same way reactionaries are culturally Christian.
I was in the Philippines some time ago, and the Muslims blew up a mall – not while I was in it, but I had been in it. Muslims have been doing this stuff starting with Mohammed, and this is what pisses people off.
The Yugoslav wars were nationalist wars on the bloody borders of Islam – it was a local issue. Right wing Europeans who were dealing their local Muslim problem indeed had everything to do with it, but we have no plans to go to Constantinople and restore the altar of the Hagia Sophia. Lacking a fertile elite with eugenic reproduction, that would be as disastrous and counterproductive as the Iraq war and the Afghan war.
We do indeed intend containment on the bloody borders of Islam, but that is not an anti arab or anti middle easterner animus – it is response to an expansionist and universalist religion, and our biggest problem is not Islamic expansionism and universalism, but progressive expansionism and universalism, and to the extent that the West is bothering middle easterners, it is a clash between two expansionist and universalist religions. It is progressives, not rightists, who are bothering you.
We don’t like universalist religions, and stopping progressivism will mean the middle east gets left alone. It will not mean that Muslims on the bloody borders of Islam get left alone. On the bloody borders, I like the Chinese solution.
Allah you ever notice how nobody (except you people) ever wants to wipe out buddhists but everyone who isnt Muslim or an ass kissing progressive considers the.Islamic religion a pestilence.
Did you even bother to read what I wrote? I have no interest in letting you live. I think I was very clear on that point. Furthermore, I cannot see any way that you could think I was trying to get you to drop your guard by threatening to murder you and rape your daughters. That sort of thing usually puts people on edge. Not that it matters, as Iraq and Afghanistan have proven that we can do pretty much anything to you that we want.
I am so sorry that you are offended that we are going to wipe out your demonic religion and its adherents. It brings a tear to my eye that a Muslim disapproves of my behavior. My heart bleeds that people who run over children and wipe their asses with their bare hands think that I am crude and violent.
You can take the rat out of the desert, but you cannot take the desert out of the rat. You live in the ruins of a superior civilization that you destroyed and act as if that is an improvement. You are squatters on Christendom, and the only reason we will not immediately sanitize the cancerous infection that is your existence with the hydrogen bomb is that some Christians and Christian churches have survived your savagery. Killing you is going to have to be done by hand, and while some collateral damage is inevitable, we will not sacrifice our brothers and sisters and the history of the land to avoid a job that needs doing.
TL;DR for you, Allah, is that we are going to wipe out your people and your religion, and we do not care if you know it and are guarding against it or not because you cannot do anything to stop us once we get stuck in.
>Pdimov, you said “Right wing Europeans had nothing to do with Bosnia or Kosovoâ€. This statement was wrong from the beginning.
I am awaiting with great interest your examples of right wing Europeans who had something to do with Bosnia and Kosovo.
You sure are awfully defensive of the Mohamedans for someone who supposedly isn’t one. None of us are even half as defensive of Jews, yet you’re prepared to accuse us all of being Jews, or Mischlings, or Philosemites, or whatever other epithet you can manage to dredge up.
What’s interesting is that you are consistently unable to distinguish between statements made by one person and statements made by another person. Moreover, like Progressives, unable to distinguish statements collectively made by Neoreactionaries from statements collectively made by White Nationalists. To you, every single white or white-ish person in the west is just part of one amorphous blob, and cannot be different individuals speaking their own minds.
I’m sure low IQ and inbreeding are involved in this process.
I actually agree – mostly. I think you are lying about not being a Muslim. However, no rational individual would pretend to be violent and stupid in an exclusively male environment.
You’re wrong about nearly everything, and your ideology leads to bloody sectarian violence and total global chaos, but you’re telling us what you believe is true. That’s precisely why I’ve responded seriously, not written it off as trolling.
In two short sentences, you manage to blame the father for the sins of the son, and blame the son for sins of the father. Astounding.
As for people with lingering doubts about the Final Helicopter Ride of the leftists (and later the Muslims) keep in mind they aren’t real people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hNoP8cmuFU0&t=6s
When Comey got fired the leftist NPCs were happy and Colbert the “late night comedy man” had to immediately correct their programming.
Generally they have no more real consciousness or feelings then an ant, they don’t have souls and they aren’t people.
Jim, we’ve been at constant war with pretty much all of our neighbors even before we were Muslim, while we were Muslim, and probably after we are Muslim. It’s hard to see where nationalism ends and theology begins.
I agree the random bombings are absolutely retarded, they should stop being random. However, you say Muslims have been doing that since the start but I’m thinking they are more copycat attacks similar to American school shootings.
Yes, the only reason you “intend containment” as opposed to world conquest is because you lack the means to do the latter. You tell us to stay put while you lick your wounds, and then spin this as cooperation or goodwill.
Knight, it’s just funny that Tom said he just wants to be left alone, then immediately after that you joined in and said the exact opposite of what he said.
Tom, wasn’t your considerable patience exhausted? Your patience recharged right back up and you responded seriously because I insulted you and you want to get back at me.
From time to time the press drinks its own Koolaide, and after some act of Muslim terrorism goes to the mosques of the sect of the terrorists, looking for a preacher to say that the terrorists were sinners and heretics and are going to hell. They never get what they are looking for, and usually they get a list of grievances backed by veiled threats.
If the terrorists are misunderstanding Islam, the preachers don’t seem to be in any hurry to clarify.
This is another one of your copypastas. I’m not saying they are copycats for attacking their outgroup, I was referring to the randomized and suicidal nature of these attacks. I doubt this has been a specialty of Muslims historically.
Has been a specialty of Muslims. Christians were complaining about this when Mohammed was still in living memory.
“Islam†(whatever that means) isn’t much of a problem really. The trouble in the Middle East comes down to, in the words of the great General George Patton, that the Arab is “the mixture of all the bad races on earthâ€.
Not seeing random attacks by Middle Eastern Christians.
Perhaps his patience was strained because you were so focused on getting him to admit that he secretly hates you and wants to kill you that you basically ignored me openly stating that I hate you and want to kill you. You tried to use him as an example of how the West is out to get you, when I would have been much better for that. You ignored the one who sounded strong and went after the one who sounded weak, proving Jim and I right, that you cannot be trusted. Since we aren’t faggot progs, when we get such obvious evidence so close in our faces, we can learn from it.
Jim is old, and he is not an American, so he lacks the hate I do. He thinks it is reasonable to contain you, and that live and let live is a possible end state with you. I know better, and so I argue that you should be wiped from the face of the earth. However, I am merciful, so the virgin women will be permitted to exist. If God should command me otherwise, they will die, as well.
If Jews were in charge, Jewish girls would be marrying Jewish boys at young ages and having eight kids. They would be mysteriously unscathed by the sexual revolution and the cultural degeneracy they promote.
But Jewish girls slut it up and don’t reproduce and Jewish boys walk small and don’t get laid very often.
If Jews were in charge, Orthodox Jew neighborhoods in New York would be mysteriously free from feral black violence.
But they can’t get away with organized thuggery to keep the blacks out, are fleeing the cities just like whites are.
In the interest of advocatus diaboli, let’s construct a hypothetical. First we absolve the most enthusiastic and relentless Jews of all their crimes, real or imagined. (Or any other identifiable caveat emptor group, for that matter.)
Now suppose it’s 1916. You’re in a trench. The other side is shooting and shelling relentlessly. It’s true: those fucking frogs on the other side of that trench didn’t choose to be there. They don’t have much control over their situation. And many of them will fail to reproduce.
Do you thus refrain from shooting the most enthusiastic and relentless Frenchmen?
If War is Hell, then is Hell also War?
When we take progressives on helicopter rides to the Pacific, a lot of Jews are going to be wet – that is the equivalent of the “most enthusiastic and relentless Frenchmen” in your analogy.
But in 1916, you do not kill every Frenchman, and come the reaction, not going to kill every Jew. What has pawnbroker or a distiller done to you? The Jews of Hollywood are going to get purged – but they are all conversos, who have converted from Judaism to progressivism, and when we are in power, most of them are going to convert to reaction, and remember themselves as always having been reactionaries. They don’t have Jewish grandchildren, they are already getting rid of themselves. Some of them are going to go for a swim, but most of them will swear on a bible in the name of Jesus that they were always secretly adherents to the State Religion, just acting as Havel’s greengrocer, and believe themselves to be swearing sincerely.
“but in 1916 you don’t kill every Frenchmanâ€
Why not? It worked for the New Englanders. The alternative is Indo-Aryanism, in which you create a half-breed mutt aristocracy in, inter alia, India, North Africa, Sumer, and arguably Ancient Egypt. To say nothing of Central and South America. Where are those places metaphorically now? Even the Greeks are bastard babies of their former selves, the ancient and glorious race of Homer dead and all but forgotten.
It’s working flawlessly for [the unnamed entities] who have so tirelessly promoted mass immigration of progressively inferior races to those once-virgin American shores. The American stock was endangered in Lovecraft’s day; the man himself, in full consciousness of this fact, wooed and wed a Jewess; that the union produced no issue is beside the point.
Contra Jewish law, a child born to a Jewess is not itself a Jew.
“We’re white males. We’re not going to lose. We’re going to divide into tribes, and I’m in my tribe, and I’m not going to get all guilty and lose. I’m going to get all cruel and win.†— Jordan Peterson
War is Hell. When going through Hell, keep going.
Every white gentile is not engaged in physical, life-or-death trench warfare with every Jew. If you want to argue from analogy, pick an analogy that actually makes sense without having to accept a hundred other analogies and exaggerations as the literal truth.
The difference between the Jews and the Frenchthings is that I like every Jew I have ever personally encountered. In fact, I just purchased a very old book from a Jew. Great guy. I’ll probably purchase the sequel from him also.
You’re quite right that martial and financial wars are very different. No one is literally shelling Paris. And yet Paris is literally turning black. Who saw that coming? Only a certain Austrian corporal….
Something must be done. Something will be done. Judæo-Christianity, a slave cult to the Jews, will be purged of its Noahide sludge, and Greco-Christianity will take its rightful place in the sun. Every schoolboy will imbibe Homer with his mother’s milk, and at his bedside will rest his Macaulay.
It’s high time to give the Eternal Nerd an eternal wedgie.
Ancient Greeks were a bunch of degenerate, pussy-worshiping boy-buggerers, and modern Greeks are a bunch of indolent mongrels.
All civilizations, including the Greeks, the Romans, and the European Christians, go through cycles of greatness and decline. Once the decline happens, those civilizations are done. We can and should commemorate and perhaps on occasion imitate their high points, but venerating the ancient Greeks over medieval Christianity is just dumb.
None of these civilizations are coming back from the ashes; let them rest in peace. Our job is to build a new one, incorporating the best elements of the old – like the Romans did with the Greeks, and the Christians did with the Romans – not wallow in nostalgia for a fantasy version of the past.
Read the accounts of the depravity, slovenliness, and vice of the medievals. It’s enough to make your skin crawl. Their cities were foul and even their art was atrocious. Gothic architecture, while technically impressive, often strays into being clearly the work of a dark and diseased mind. Things didn’t start getting good again until the Ancient Greeks got their spiritual revival in the Renaissance. The printing press spread Protestantism amongst the worthy, and with it, Greek mythology. Anyone who would dispute the role of the classical pathos [connotation: neutral] in the Republic (or elsewhere) need only look at the great government buildings, all of which are built in the classical style, or to read the intro to Bulfinch’s Mythology.
https://postimg.cc/fS4MQ59W
Renaissance art isn’t remotely related to classical art. Classical work was painted while the Renaissance idolized bare marble.
Our buildings also don’t look like Greek ones as the Greeks both painted and had murals on their buildings.
> Read the accounts of the depravity, slovenliness, and vice of the medievals.
Read the accounts of how Russian neets used to bash the brains of pawnbrokers to steal their pledges back and English police would have done more harm than good without some thoughtful private assistance, that’s why we needed to build this overwatch grid.
No idol worship, cursing God, adultery or sodomy, murder, theft, gnawing on living animals, and if the government is going to go after someone they should be able to face their accuser. I would prefer to live amongst or do business with people who follow those rules too, the peasant complaint about Jews is that they don’t follow those rules.
Boomer peasants were taught that social security obligations and 401k’s were worth something and Boomer lords refuse to retire. We need to transition to a postapocalyptic wasteland where the Noahide Laws are observed, with hard money, where lords retire and peasants have children.
As professional women on retainer don’t smoke in the stairwell, if the English elite had been professional Kipling’s poem about the White Man’s Burden would have embarrassed them into stopping the dogooding, but now all the peasant women are doing the freelance amateur thing.
Jefferson defended fiction on the grounds that speculative fiction could rally people around lunacy, story of the Enlightenment. Peasants should go bowling instead of playing the videogame version of the Iliad.
The weird thing is the classical world had slavery displacing the middle class but the modern world sees it as all democracy and Socrates, and replicates the classical mistakes while systematically ignoring the poets and philosophers, so Tolkien just means elves with +dex and orcs with +str and Lovecraft means Cthulhu, the alien that wants to eat you, and Moldbug is just a fascist calling for the merger of corporate and state power, and Jim isn’t a nazi because he hates white people and likes Jews and basically just has an ax to grind about women because some were affirmative actioned into his company, and so probably we need professors to encourage the lords to think! like in that carpe diem movie with the weird suicide kid.
Speaking as a Socrates-, Tolkien-, Lovecraft-, and Moldbug-completist…
What?
I’m still a noob here, so forgive me asking an obvious question. Even if the Joos Are In Charge, wouldn’t they still have those problems since progressivism is self-destructive?
We need a post series on all these arguments against the JQ. It is a brain parasite that seems to have affected far too many people. I know Jim has his “not the Jews” series but a big compilation similar to the gay one just done would be useful in deprogramming the alt reich. I can start to compile it if people are interested.
The “JQ†is irrelevant because the Jews are irrelevant. The opposite of love is not hate: it is indifference. Therefore, to argue EITHER pro or contra the Jews (or, in your terminology, the “JQâ€) is an act of equally disgusting and disreputable philo- or anti-semitism, respectively.
The future is neuter-semitic.
Well seems like I got my first convert.
Wait a minute Allah, I thought you were only culturally Muslim. Would you care to explain?
I expect he worships Gnon, and believes his people should worship Gnon in the manner of his ancestors. Much as most of us do. Indians should be Hindu, Americans should be Christian, and Turks should be Muslim. Jews should be Jewish, and should go to Israel, at their own time and with their assets. And they should rebuild their temple, over and enclosing the Dome of the Rock, because they will always have a chip on their shoulder until they do.
I made a joke about how he seemed to have adopted my position on Jews.
Oh, a joke? I have a joke too! Would you like to hear it?
—
A Muslim attends a seminar on the supernatural. The professor is asking questions. He first asks his audience “How many of you believe in ghosts?†About 80 people raise their hands.
“That’s a good start I suppose. Those of you who believe in ghosts, how many have actually seen a ghost?†About 30 people raise their hands.
“That’s good. I’m really glad you’re taking this seriously. Ok, has anyone here ever talked to a ghost?†About a dozen people raise their hands.
“That’s a great response. Has anyone ever touched a ghost?†Two people raise their hands. “That’s fantastic. But let me ask you one last question… have any of you ever made love to a ghost?â€
The Muslim raises his hand. The professor is astonished. He removes his glasses, takes a step back, and says, “Son, in all the years I’ve been giving this lecture, no one has ever actually claimed to have slept with a ghost. Why don’t you come up here and tell us about it.â€
The Muslim replies with a nod and a grin, and begins to make his way up to the podium. The professor says, “Well, tell us what it’s like to have sex with a ghost.â€
The Muslim replies, “Ghost? Oh… I thought you said ‘goat’!â€
I don’t think it’s a joke and I’m not inclined to take it as a joke. Furthermore, I posit that it’s cowardly to retroactively excuse a serious comment as a joke. I’m perfectly willing to accept the Mohemetan’s statement of good will as good will, and find no valid reason whatsoever why I should be obligated to pick a side in the internecine conflicts of inane desert moon cults, and experience an unnameable vicious burning emotion when I reflect that the daily goings-on in the Armpit of the World are treated as somehow relevant to the interests of Americans. I am willing to accept, as a show of good faith, the Mohemetans’ support in ridding the foreign policy establishment of these alien influences, as they are nearly as negatively affected as we.
That’s mostly correct, but we’ve been doing what Jim advocates for a thousand years and it brought us a lot of trouble in the long term. I agree that one should kill their enemies, bash their sons against the stones, and take everything they have. The only reason not to do this is if you’re afraid of the response, which is fair.
I AM, I’m not Muslim.
Just to be clear, I don’t actually want to raze cities and salt their earth, although I sometimes say such things for rhetorical purposes. I don’t really care for pillage or plunder, although I admit it’s a historically romantic notion. What I truly want is to be really fucking rich, have three smoking hot wives, and not have my country be involved in any more Interminable Disastrous Foreign Entanglements.
And I want to die, four hundred and twenty years from now, on my own personal Space Station Elysium.
(If not Mohametan, then what are you, anyway?)
Any discussion on (((this blog))) of the JQ is hugely curated.
Remember the blog owner reveres King Solomon above all else.
You’re only ever going to see *parts* of the so-called discussion, and when the administrator decides to withhold comments, you won’t see what that person said: instead you’ll see a response to what the host CLAIMS was said, which is quite often, frankly, the diammetric opposite of what was *actually* said.
This whole blog is one big gay-op Judeo-reactionary gaslighting exercise.
At best, you’re being deflected from asking inconvenient questions; at worst, you’re being fed outright disinformation to turn you against your own when in fact you should be shining a light on your ancient enemy.
It is not in the slightest bit curated. I apply the same standards to discussion of the JQ as everything else. You are not allowed to argue from fake consensus, not allowed to argue from mote and bailey, and when your claims are challenged, you have to defend them with evidence and argument, not just repeat them without acknowledgment that they have been challenged.
This tends to primarily affect entryists and fbi agents who pretend to be racists, who attribute to identitarians the beliefs that the left attributes to us and pretending to our beliefs.
If you actually held the views on Jews that you imply you do, you would be able to acknowledge the racial character of acid attacks in Britain, knife attacks in Britain, and street drunkenness.
No one here has been censored for arguing for gassing the Jews, or for expelling them abruptly and without their assets. They have been censored for mote and bailey.
Feel free to argue for gassing the Jews. But you will not. You just think that we must hate Jews for no sane reason, so calling us Jewish will sow dissension.
And I don’t “revere” King Solomon. I quote King Solomon as evidence that capitalism is ancient and divinely ordained, and that the enlightenment was an attack on Christianity, capitalism, and the divine authority for capitalism. To which evidence, you have no response except to lie about what I said and what King Solomon said.
I am quite aware of the possibility that I am being used as a riding pony in a two-thousand-year-old battle between rival Jewish sects. Highly unlikely, but a possibility nonetheless.
There are no Jewish mind control rays, but Jews are the most priestly of all races, and there is a non-zero probability that one of them has slipped some sort of Trojan horse into the Bible, as a trap for young players. But this is why we study such things.
On the other hand, the probability that someone has slipped a civilization-destroying Trojan horse into progressivism is exactly one.
If this whole blog is one big gay-op Judeo-reactionary gaslighting exercise then argue this point. If I need to worry more about Jews than about progressives then argue this point.
But you won’t do it.
Chicken.
Somewhat related. Re PewDiePie.
Was he kowtowing to the ADL, or was he playing 4-D chess and committing one of the greatest antisemitic trolls of all time. I read the Youtube censors are working overtime deleting thousands of antisemitic comments from his video.
Both.
Jim you’ve previously spoken about “allying with far against near”, with regards to White leftists allying blacks, homosexuals, muslims, etc. The Hong Kong terrorists are the most recent example of that: They are allied with the US State Department against their own government. But consider the inverse scenario: The Chinese are somehow able to influence and fund some kind of coup, installing a General with a view identical to your own. The new leader, the perfect reactionary hero, would also in a way be a traitor to his people (white leftists) by using China to crush them. Not that he could be accused of anything his enemy didn’t do first, but still questionable. Worth it to establish himself, since he’s the good guy?
I don’t mean anything by this comment at all, by the way. Just think it’s an interesting thing to discuss.
Not seeing it as useful tactic. White leftists allying with blacks, Muslims, etc, are looking for coercive power under their priestly control. A reactionary General taking power in the US does not need outside coercive power. He needs priestly power, which the Chinese cannot supply.
Jim, is this a direct challenge to the authority of the court of the kind that you have been expecting? I am not a lawyer, but this reads like, “Stay out of this if you know what is good for you.”
https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/COMMITTEEONWAYSANDMEANSUNITEDSTATESHOUSEOFREPRESENTATIVESvUNITEDS/7?1568145596
Seems like a direct statement that the court lacks the power to dictate political outcomes.
Paraphrasing: Don’t intervene in politics because you lack rightful authority.
Well of course they lack rightful authority. That is absolutely obvious. Suppose the courts decree that they have rightful authority anyway?
In the Philippines, the courts suddenly adopted a humble demeanor on matters of internal civil war, in the face of a president with death squads and willingness to use them.
In Australia, the courts the courts suddenly adopted a humble demeanor on the “refugee” question in the face of prime minister backed by the military, by the parliament, and the public, and a willingness to use military and mercs to bypass the courts.
But in both cases, the courts did not back off until the ruler just flat out defied the courts. (Whereupon the courts retrospectively ruled flat out defying the courts perfectly legal and every court everywhere in the country proceeded to stonewall lawfare to avoid further embarrassment.)
So, this is not a warning shot, but it is a hint that warning shot might be forthcoming.
What’s the “Jimmian” take on the “controlled opposition” concept?
I know I’m attempting to hijack the comments now (“entrying” them perhaps?) but I’ve been meaning to ask this one for some time:
One could say that we’re here developing an intellectual toolset called “Jimmian Analysis”. It’s a set of measurements and coordinate spaces — status, entryism, warriors vs. priests, the woman question, the gay question, purity spirals, crimestop, etc — with which we can evaluate a person or situation so that we can make judgments and predict the future.
I want to know what Jimmian Analysis has to say about “controlled opposition”, as a concept.
The first tool I reach for is “entryism”, where the enemies of Structure X infiltrate it with the intention of “reforming” it, so that it never functions as originally designed again, but they still collect the social status and 401k’s for a generation or two until the endowment craps out.
If it’s any more than just a nonsensical anti-concept, my best guess (emphasis on “guess”) is that controlled opposition is a flavor of entryism, only here it’s not the “entrying” of an established bureaucracy like the New York Times, knitting club, Harvard or the Trilateral Commission, but rather of a concept or a schelling point.
But more aggressively strategic, underhanded, dishonest and mean-spirited than “normal” reformist entryism. Entryist Special Black Ops type shit.
Take the Daily Stormer for example. They’re funny and venomously addictive. OK fine. But I’ve always had a suspicion over there that I’m being fucked with somehow. Piped into a dark alley. But I’m too slow to notice it happening in real time.
(Please don’t make winning an argument about whether I’m judging the Daily Stormer correctly in particular be what this comment-thread is about. I’m only suggesting it as an example of what many today call “controlled opposition”. If you have a better tutorial example of controlled opposition upon which to demonstrate J.A. in action then please go right ahead.)
Under J.A., perhaps I can “detect” a entryist-type character in the Stormer if I can notice myself being shunted into a “crimestop corral”. In this example, the “crimestop corral” would be their conventionally progressive prescriptions of “eat the baddies and take their stuff” and “I am in no possible or conceivable way a baddie myself” and also “but that guy over there, I’ve got a bad feeling about him.”
Eh?
Anglin is indisputably one of the finest propagandists ever to grace our mortal coil. There’s also something seriously shady going on. I’m still trying to figure it out, but it definitely has something to do with reality inversion. In one notable instance, a SpecOps “finishing†event that has taken place every year since the 70’s was portrayed as a “special police†org preparing to sweep through, disarm, and oppress the country. It probably isn’t a good idea to consume any amount of such a poison, even in the pursuit of knowledge, but some can’t help themselves.
Writing in general is, I think, a kind of hyperreality.
I have not done a study on the Daily Stormer. I don’t know about them.
But their position, that Jews are the only problem, is a classic fallback of a treasonous ruling class. They hire Jews to do their dirty work, and when the proverbial hits the fan, throw their servants to the wolves. Mueller’s dancing Israelis was a move in that direction coming straight from the center of the deep state. (When the photos came out, decades later, they were not dancing or high fiving, and there was nothing inappropriate in their demeanor to the occasion, contrary to what Mueller’s FBI claimed about the photos.)
The most critical problem of the white race, and all the higher races, is subreplacement fertility, dysgenic female fertility, and failure of elite reproduction. The WQ, not the JQ, is the biggest issue.
Troofers are obvious entryists, because they tell us “Don’t look at the man behind the curtain” – they will blame the US military, but never mention the at best grossly negligent, and at worst actively conspiratorial, misconduct of Mueller and the FBI, deep state central. And they are obviously enemy controlled and supervised, for they will never commit a thought crime.
Controlled opposition is controlled, in that though it will flirt with the Red Pill and thought crime, it will never actually go there. That is control. Jordan Peterson is controlled opposition. Cleaning up your room and standing straight with your shoulders back is not going to make you a man. Owning a woman is going to make you a man. He is just Scott Alexander and Slate Star Codex on steroids.
Real opposition commits thought crimes.
The big important redistribution is not the redistribution of wealth, but pussy. We need to ensure that every man who supports order and prosperity by working, paying taxes, and fighting enemies internal and external, gets a young virginal wife, and gets to keep her and his children, and gets property enough to raise those children on. Redistribution of wealth never works, because it is the merchant class that is most vulnerable, and if you keep them down, you have to interfere grossly with production and distribution, and wealth, instead of sticking to the fingers of those organizing production and distribution, sticks to the fingers of those disrupting production and distribution.
The most drastic and intrusive censorship is that no one gets to accurately depict the courtship dance. In real life, men conquer and women surrender, but men perform and women choose. Every movie, every television show, where men and women get together in an egalitarian fashion is hostile propaganda. Every marriage ceremony with symmetric vows is a hostile psyop. Which goes all the way back to the eleventh century and the Romance movement, as Dalrock is fond of telling us, but only took a turn for the worse, much worse, in the twentieth century.
“Jordan Peterson is controlled opposition. Cleaning up your room and standing straight with your shoulders back is not going to make you a man. Owning a woman is going to make you a man.”
I continue to assert that you are taking Vox’s Day very biased and unfair view of Jordan Peterson too seriously…
Vox Day is right that Jordan Peterson is no hardcore right winger and that in his view of nationalism he is hostile, but I’m almost 100% sure he is with us on the woman question and has stopped just as short of saying so as he can…
Part of the whole fundamental tenets of Jordanetics is in fact being with us on the woman question “The Feminine Represents Chaos”, that is a fundamental tenet of Jordanetics… and that is not typical Cathedral cunt eating bullshit.
So it is not that Jordan Peterson is entirely controlled op, its just that there is a limit to what he can say and still preach his heresy within the cathedral without the cathedral’s inquisition being able to convict him and throw him out… And he has gotten so close to speaking the redpill on women that you have to be a complete idiot not to get it.
Exactly. Jordan Peterson has just stopped short of saying so.
That is control, hence controlled opposition.
Yes, there is a limit to what he can say. That is the literal meaning of controlled opposition. People in China can criticize the party within limits, and those limits are quite relaxed compared to Jordan Peterson’s circumspection on the Woman Question.
The distinction between jp and say ben shapiro is that the former is with us in reality but has to limit what he can say, Benji otoh is a willing tool of the establishment. I dont consider people like jp controlled op.
My view of what makes someone controlled opposition is that his statements are specifically calculated to push his audience away from the truth and that he plays the role of opponent of the system that he’s supporting. Not speaking the full truth doesn’t qualify. Keep in mind that the system needs these men because giving 0% of the truth is what drives men away from the mainstream in the first place.
Scott Alexander – not controlled opposition because he’s rather openly on the enemy side and doesn’t play act at being opposition. Knows part of the truth, keeps quiet about it due to a combination of fear and because it hurts his side.
Ben Shapiro – controlled opposition. His goal is to channel opposition energy into harmless pursuits (that incidentally let him burnish his ethnic clout).
Jordan Peterson – not familiar enough with him to know. The interview where he points out why women wear lipstick and blush and the implications that they wear both of these in offices says he’s red-pilled to a degree that someone like Vox isn’t. No clue if he walks that back or if the “clean your room” is more of a wink “here’s something that so obviously can never solve the big problems that me suggesting it so absurd that no one should take it seriously”.
Vox Day – does real opposition stuff but getting paid is important to him so he’ll drift into grifter territory because that’s the mass market and the mass market has money (if not influence). Can’t fault a man for getting paid for building alternative platforms that might allow real opposition.
Come on. Cleaning your room is metaphor for getting your shit in order. In logic space, where relations and influences are central instead of physical proximity, your room is the part of the greater cosmos that is under your direct influence, more so than anyone elses. Cleaning it is tallying your resources, taking care of them and putting them to their best possible use.
While not making you a man, and not letting you own a woman, being in control of this “room” enables some natural frame which helps in owning a woman. More than that, having this metaphorical room in order is exactly what lets the womans father enthusiastically let you own her.
Vox is right in JBP being well versed in occultism, maybe this is why i find it very easy to understand him and find him very compelling while many others seem rather confused by what he says.
But since Vox’s mode of thought is easy mode cop out thought, he thinks this is a gotcha that is to JBPs detriment.
Vox’s shit is all retarded and he talks like a fag.
You will not see anything about getting your shit in order on Heartiste. And when I have dispensed advice on handling women, which I do infrequently, I did not specify getting your shit in order anywhere.
I have never literally cleaned my room. A woman has always cleaned my home. If it is a metaphor, what it is a metaphor for is slippery.
Wrong. The whole clean your room thing is meant to increase self-awareness. When you try and fail to keep your room clean, you are forced to ask yourself the question: Why can’t I keep my room clean?
Asking this question is a slippery slope.
This is stupid. There are completely reasonable arguments to support the possibility that JBP is red-pilled on women, wants to say more but can’t. There is also evidence that JBP is absolutely terrible on race, borders, executive authority and the culture war in general. The data is inconclusive, but I can grant that it supports the idea of a fairly red-pilled liberal, but given his family situation, more likely a bitter and disaffected omega, more or less in the MRA or MGTOW camp.
So he’s okay on women. But the rest of his philosophy is garbage, and while we do dump on Vox Day from time to time here, Jordanetics is very important to read for anyone who thinks JP is worth following. I see people here who clearly know it exists, clearly know why it exists, but clearly haven’t read it and are using Vox’s less desirable qualities as an excuse to dismiss it with prejudice.
If “clean your room” is really some insanely clever, 180-IQ tier mind control for getting the everyman laid and in control of his women, then point us to where he actually says or even hints at anything like that. You can’t, because it’s all useless cliches embedded in impenetrable word salad.
That is controlled oppo. Knowing the truth and hiding or distorting it, if he does indeed know the truth, is worse than being merely ignorant. Regardless of his reason for doing so, he is leading people away from the truth, and away from their salvation, hence controlled oppo – he is exactly who the Cathedral wants to be leading dissidents.
Besides, the guy is repped by CAA. If that doesn’t scream controlled oppo, I don’t know what does.
You’re preaching to the choir m8. Peterson is contemptible. ten’s explanation of what Peterson meant was just silly, so I offered a more likely one.
He and you both talk about frame.
To a small but not insignificant degree being in control of your general shit enables frame, that is, it is easier maintaining it when you are consciously using power over other matters, compared to never using power. Cleaning your room is consolidating your power (over the smallest possible space where you will not be challenged).
Perhaps you disagree on this? I do not see why that would be, it is a quite minor and natural thing.
Is your point that JBP sneakily is trying to make men fall down the slippery slope and that the self awareness is bad?
No, it is not. It is a very basic mantra with the end goal of initiation of aquisition of power, from a position of great weakness. Actually doing the room cleaning or similar tasks is a basic building block of a mental retraining where positive steps in line with will are at all taken.
This is completely in line with the entirety of JBPs thought.
Please note i am here defending/discussing the “clean your room” meme/mantra, which according to me is commonly greatly misunderstood by the right, almost like the lobster meme by the left, not any other part of JBP thought, nor am i endorsing him
My comments are going into moderation?
We know that President Trump isn’t controlled opposition because of the Access Hollywood tape.
Public figures in high places must publicly walk the line on the RedPill, but in private, they may or may not be controlled opposition.
If Jordan Peterson understood the truth about the WQ, he would understand that he is currently undermining young men, not helping them. Why then would he do what he do?
The simplest explanation is of course that he thinks he is helping young men; his crimestop prevents him from understanding WQ. Purple pilled in behavior, purple pilled in thoughts.
I’ll also add that for someone who wants to genocide all leftists, you are not the best judge of character Com 😉
“And he has gotten so close to speaking the redpill on women that you have to be a complete idiot not to get it.”
MPAI
Also most men will do everything they possibly can to avoid taking the red pill on women. I agree with Vox that JP targets midwits. Men who can see the contradictions in the bluepill, but don’t have the emotional strength to face the full realities of the redpill on women. JP keeps them in a nice little holding pen where they can avoid the full-frontal cognitive dissonance of the bluepill, but never have to confront the reality that women prefer a blood-stained t-shirt to a suit and briefcase.
The cleaning your room thing also seems like obfuscation. If Edward Dutton is correct, IQ is negatively correlated with conscientiousness. So intelligent men are often very disorganised and untidy. It’s a women’s role to clean and keep things organised.
JP represents the optimal level of redpill in an ideal society as most men don’t need or want a full redpilling. Rulers would need to be redpilled and protect men from women. But the bluepill is helpful for male motivation and productivity, and I think most men are simply unable to accept the realities of women anyway. JP would offer happy medium for the average man.
But we don’t live in an ideal society, and those in control don’t protect men from women. So JP can be quite dangerous for men.
Nonsense. Men can easily accept the red pill when raised to it, which their fathers have a duty to do. That’s just Goldilocks conservatism – the “center” that contingently exists right now just happens to be the ideal.
In essence you’re saying “men who are already red-pilled are easily red-pilled”. That doesn’t contradict Oak’s point at all.
Most men do choke on the red pill. It’s not merely that the ideas are hard to understand or accept; it’s that the ego, or brain stem, or however you conceptualize the base instincts, lash out against it.
A lot of men manage to see the red pill, accept that it exists, have a near-encyclopedic knowledge on its effects, but don’t actually take it, for the same reason a man can know that walking barefoot across broken glass won’t hurt if done correctly. When attempting it for the first time, and often several times afterward, the reptilian brain is screaming, pumping out huge amounts of cortisol, knowing that if you do it wrong, it can be extremely dangerous or even lethal.
I’m not talking about fear of rejection, I’m talking about fear of social consequences. Even the anticipation of that level of stress is enough to cause flight.
Sure, in a reactionary society, or even a reactionary household, men would be trained from birth to rule women, as princes are trained from birth to rule societies and warriors are trained to rule the battlefield. Men who have not been trained, however, do not make that transition with a snap of the fingers, and most do not make it at all.
Jordan Peterson represents superficial knowledge about the red pill, without daring to take or even touch the pill.
I agree with you. Oak said “JP represents the optimal level of redpill in an ideal society.” That’s what my response was towards.
‘Oak said “JP represents the optimal level of redpill in an ideal society.‒
…for the average man.
Political leaders will need to be completely redpilled. Men wouldn’t actually get the purple pill from JP in an ideal society. He’s an extremely bad role model for men. Just a good education based in the classics and lots of male-spaces and freedom to talk about women with no policing or shaming from women. About 20% of men will come out fully redpilled. The rest will be purplepilled. This is about all most men will ever accept. You can spoon-feed them the redpill and they won’t accept it. Too emotionally difficult. And probably not good for society, as beta-male motivation is bound up with providing for a ‘good’ woman.
Most people don’t believe things on the basis of what is true. Vox has highlighted this with his rhetoric vs. dialexctic stuff
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHpalC3WaXY
And this has little to do with intelligence. Some very intelligent people will believe things on the basis of what is psychologically comforting. Some less intelligent people will accept hard truths without resistance.
When I was a child, a very long time ago, every male in our social circle was reasonably red pilled, but refrained from saying so too loudly and plainly, so the next generation failed to get the joke.
Centuries ago, before female emancipation, they said, perfectly clearly, accurate things bout women. Optimum is that everyone says accurate things about women, and we silence the Romance story about women.
The Romance story is an attractive lie. It is not optimal for anyone to believe it at all, and, absent pressure to believe it, I don’t think anyone would.
If our elite is entirely red pilled, everyone will be entirely red pilled. We have to unemancipate women, and it will be necessary for everyone to believe that the nature of women makes it necessary to unemancipate them, that female demands to the contrary are merely a shit test, and that will get frustrated if we fail their shit test.
By redpilled I mean understands things like:
– Hybristophilia
– The nature of female consent
– That women are anti-territorial
– That if a husband is murdered in front of his wife, along with her sons, the wife is capable of falling in love with the murderer and having his children. In fact the murderer will more than likely be the no. 1 object of her desire thenceforth whether he is interested in her or not.
I don’t think your average normie needs this or would accept it.
Perhaps it’s wrong to call the optimal view purplepilled. It’s more that normies won’t need or want to go into specifics. Things like ‘women are chaos’ or whatever other midwit stuff JP goes on about is probably enough.
Tales like Pandora’s box get the general idea across without going into specifics.
Everyone needs to understand the nature of female consent. Observe that all sexual harassment complaints are either women shit testing alpha males, or women who have hit the wall and are pissed off because they are no longer being “sexually harassed”, and that female rape outrage is focused on highly desirable men who fail to rape them (fraternity boys and athletes) and totally relaxed about highly undesirable men who do rape them, for example the female lack of outrage about Cologne and Rotherham “We are not your women”.
The problem is that we want to suppress some male sexual behavior, and that women are unlikely to cooperate in our suppression of it, so sex rules that make the women the complainant fail to work. This is a male versus male conflict over access to women, and women are going subvert it and fail to cooperate. The complainant has to be the husband or father, and female consent or lack thereof has to be irrelevant to the complaint. (Old Testament rules). Whether the woman cooperated in or triggered the bad male sexual behavior has to be entirely irrelevant for the broader society, has to be a private matter between husband and wife, or father and daughter. Her complicity has to be irrelevant to the issue of suppressing the male misbehavior, because female complicity is always furtive, ambiguous, complex, and contradictory.
At a horrifyingly early age, girls are apt to mysteriously and inexplicably wander off into situations that enable bad male sexual conduct and you have to keep an eye on them. Everyone needs to know this. The problem is not men predating on women, but women wandering off to be predated upon.
I don think it is the base instincts. We instinctively know the red pill even when we do not know it.
Rather I think it is lifetime conditioning. Every single person we see on television shows is totally blue pilled. Even Indiana Jones was blue pilled most of the time, though he had his red pill moments.
This also explain the curious blindness to gross female misconduct in the workplace. No one else sees it, so I must be some crazy having hallucinations.
Without a doubt, it’s conditioning. Get a few drinks into people and they’ll often admit the truth.
Conditioning does affect instincts, though. A toddler doesn’t understand that the stove is hot, that high-speed traffic doesn’t always stop for pedestrians, or that sticking paperclips into electrical outlets can electrocute him. But when we get older, avoiding these situations becomes instinctive, and being near them triggers a fight-or-flight response.
Maybe we are saying the same thing, but in my mind, “base instinct” does not mean “fundamentally biological instinct”, it just means a physical reaction over which we have little to no conscious control.
The red pill is actually more serious than that, because it involves ego destruction. Most blue-pilled men are low status, and the red pill means, at least in the beginning, becoming fully aware of one’s initially low status in the eyes of women. So those men have to go through a period, often a very long period, of realizing that the problem is them, not knowing exactly how to fix it, and not really having a safe environment in which to experiment.
Reverse the conditioning and create a safe environment, and no doubt red-pill uptake will be much faster; but as things stand now, it is by no means “easy” for most men to take it.
‘Rather I think it is lifetime conditioning. Every single person we see on television shows is totally blue pilled.’
Conditioning is more effective because it helps them believe what they want to believe.
Everyday experience with women is a redpill. This should easily override societal conditioning.
Point of order: Harvard was not entered, Harvard is the entryists’ homeland.
There was exactly one forum that allowed almost complete free speech AND allowed you to be an idiot and blow off steam. It was called 8chan. It is now gone, most likely because it was too effective, or because it was run by the FBI, who are now on the decline.
Jim’s Blog allows almost complete free speech but, for good reason, does not allow you to be an idiot. You can say literally anything here as long as your words are backed up by evidence.
The reason I say “almost complete” is that, even if using TOR or a VPN, if you were to use personal examples in your arguments that were too specific to yourself, and your arguments were too abruptly upsetting to the status quo, the various TLAs would triangulate your position and shut you down.
The NSA can most likely determine who you are and what you say even if using TOR. TOR also has and has had proven vulnerabilities that the CIA or FBI can use.
The closest we can get to truly anonymous free speech will most likely use ring signatures similar to those used by Monero and communicate over always-on I2P using open hardware and software. Even this falls to analysis of writing style unless contributors use a consistent voice, the voice of anonymous, to write in.
Truly anonymous truth benefits the king who would rule forever. A wise king would sponsor a truly anonymous forum.
This is great stuff I love you guys.
Your critique please:
So the point is that even the best controlled opposers have controllers who they must serve and are afraid of. Like Napoleon’s good soldier, a controlled opposer is more afraid of his controller than of anyone else. Otherwise, someone else would have gotten the job.
And the way we detect this controlled-ness is his inability to publicly commit thoughtcrimes. Because committing thoughtcrimes (and getting away with it) is very attractive and great for recruitment, so why wouldn’t he? Why not? Because his controllers disapprove. Thus revealing that there IS a controller somewhere.
I find it hard to believe he and conservatives like him have a literal human controller. More like a Ceti eel controller, like Moldbug’s metaphor. They were able to bring themselves to make minor thoughtcrimes, but cannot bring themselves to make major thoughtcrimes, without the need for coercion by anyone in particular.
I agree with Cominator that “controlled opposition” is not the most apt name for that type. Unless it truly makes no practical difference, but surely it does.
“I find it hard to believe he and conservatives like him have a literal human controller.”
Bro I hear you. My best guess is that it’s also an “emergent” phenomenon, like how no single bee is in charge of the beehive, or even knows what a beehive is really.
Like Jordan Peterson getting tons of Patreon money and stage time, for example. Are some of those contributions “illegitimate”, from Jason Bourne’s credit cards in Virginia somewhere? Well maybe. But he wasn’t grown in a lab from scratch. He was already who he was before, but now he also gets donations from the whole spectrum
from “This guy’s helping me improve my life and I want to express my appreciation” (“I love this guy.”)
to “This guy’s getting traction while still cock-blocking his own thoughtcrimes and therefore other people’s too, so let’s ‘Spencer’ this guy and cement his position at the front of this thing.” (“We can use this guy.”)
and everyone in between.
So it’s N% “murmuration of starlings” and (100-N)% “occult cabal of championship sociopaths who understand starlings really really well and get off on steering them around.”
(I sense that N is very high, while David Icke senses that N is very small. So there’s that spectrum too. Hilarious.)
So if I suddenly blasted off into well-compensated public acclaim (and I won’t) even if no one ever mailed me gun-sight polaroids of my kids at the playground, I’d still be thinking of my “status market” as a personality with tastes and preferences, and I’d know that “it” could switch to another vendor at a moment’s notice.
Here’s one to chew on:
Vladimir Lenin into Russia via the Finland Station and all that. Surely he knew that anti-Russian people were helping him. Somehow. But surely he also thought that he was the clever one. Surely both he and his ticket-buying “handlers” saw themselves as the clever side of the equation, manipulating and using the other.
(And did Lenin commit thoughtcrime? I’m no expert but I sure doubt it.)
Ironically, Lenin is a distraction. Trotsky was arrested in Canada carrying $1m (inflation-adjusted) in cash.
Thoughtcrime is like law. Only plebs have it.
My reading of their material leads me to believe that they have a specific individual controller capable of drawing a bright line – while a non specific collective opinion would be unable to draw a bright line.
Wouldn’t a rhetorically precise mind like Peterson’s draw bright lines for itself?
Peterson’s mind is not precise. Read Maps of Meaning, even just a few pages of it, and you’ll clearly see that it is not precise – that he in fact finds it very difficult to formulate precise thoughts, make precise statements or even stay on a precise topic.
So if he demonstrates precision in other areas, then I’m inclined to agree with Jim that he has a handler, or multiple handlers. Currently those handlers are probably at the CAA. He was a nobody until they picked him up.