Time to discuss the nature of capitalism, because fake Nazis on Gab are spouting Marxist history, economics, and theory:

The Marxist sees bread on the supermarket shelf, and thinks this a manifestation of a central plan. He thinks we already live in a socialist economy, with big capitalists giving marching orders to little capitalists.

And that is why they refuse to acknowledge that Musk is the great rocket scientist of our day, as Wernher von Braun was the great rocket scientist of his day.

The man who favors equality hates better men and hates great men more, and wants to tear down and destroy what they create, for he is envious of the excellence of anyone superior to himself.

They will not acknowledge that entrepreneurs create value and capital. If suddenly the world has a whole lot more lift to orbit capability, supposedly it must be because Harvard assigned the rocket technology to Musk, and the Rothschilds allocated the necessary resources and commanded it to exist. Supposedly that technology was granted to Musk by Harvard. “Where is Musk’s degree in rocketry?” they sneer. If Musk owns Starlink and two thirds of civilizations lift to orbit capability, he must have stolen it somehow from someone.

All the technology of industrialization was created by entrepreneurs like Musk.

The Marxist who calls himself a Marxist names the center from which the central plan comes as “wall street”. The Marxist who lyingly calls himself a fascist says “Rothschilds” (Before 1930, the Rothschilds had a great deal of wealth and power, which they used for evil purposes, but in 1930, they lost most of it, and anyone still saying “Rothschilds” in this day and age is usually a Soros shill. Everyone whose last name is Rothschild dropped off the bottom of the Forbes 400 long, long ago, usually with creditors hunting him and his assets.)

These guys who call themselves fascists and Nazis while spouting Marxist theory and Marxist economics are enemy entryists. If any of the original Nazis were fans of Marxist economics and Marxist theory, Hitler took care of that lot in the night of the long knives.

The Marxist thinks that all the wealth and value of the modern world was stolen, that value is not created, merely distributed. When the fake Nazis praise Hitler’s socialism, they imply that they will distribute all this value back to proletariat, but they are Soros shills (we know they are working for Soros because strangely unable to notice what Soros is up to), and Soros thinks that all this wealth and value was stolen, not from the the disturbingly white proletariat, but from the brave and stunning warrior women of subsaharan Africa, and plans to ship it all back to Africa to be buried in the fertile African soil, from which it will supposedly sprout anew.

(Why you might ask would Soros and Zelenksy fund and protect third positionist national socialists? Well in the Ukraine, they are fighting for a globalist Jew installed in power by Soros and Victoria Nuland, and are the only force that Zelensky can rely on to shoot conscripts who attempt to run away from the front.)

It logically follows from Marxism that all wealth is stolen, so it logically follows from Marxism that if you are better off than fly blown maggot infested half starved subsaharan Africans who are eating each other, you must be oppressing them, and need to be punished. That punishing you makes the Marxist holy, and punishing you more makes him even holier.

The huge increase in lift capability to orbit that Musk created is a demonstration and reminder that science, technology, industry, and wealth is created by entrepreneurs. Thus Marxists want us stuck on earth forever. They think we are all kulaks.

Industrialization and Tech

We have had three hundred and eighty years of corporate tech innovation, starting with the canal and water power companies that appeared under Charles the second, and tech innovation is always performed by a tech CEO, and the innovation always spreads via engineers whom that CEO trained. Corporate tech innovation always depends on a techie in power. Always has, always will. He is soon replaced by bean counters, lawyers, and suchlike, as Jim Clarke frequently and loudly complained – and then tech innovation by that company ends. As Jim Clarke frequently and loudly complained

You can buy existing tech by hiring an engineer who has trained under someone who was implementing that tech, but new tech always needs power, authority, and status for it to be created in the first place. This corporate formula is centuries old.

When Wernher von Braun was a prisoner of Nasa, with war crimes charges pending for bombing London and employing slave labor, he told them how to build rockets, but they could not build them. To build them, had to put him in charge and compel everyone to treat him with respect. To build them, had to give him power and status.

It is just not practical to develop significant new tech unless you are the CEO: Bessemer and steel, Shockley and transistors.

Bessemer tried to teach other steelmakers his method of making steel, but they were unable to learn, while engineers under his command were able to learn. Shockley wrote the book on how to build transistors, but every transistor everywhere is built by an engineer who trained under an engineer … who trained under Shockley. The book just did not work, just as Bessemer’s licenses and patents did not work. Knowledge needs power to be implemented.

Smart guys, knowledgeable guys, are not enough. You need a really smart and knowledgeable man in charge, and the people implementing his vision have to treat him respect, or else stuff just fails to work.

Academia bears the same relationship to technology and industry as niggers bear to civilization. Someone builds a civilization and niggers say “We build dat. We waz Kangs” and proceed to smash it up. Someone builds a technology, and academics say “we taught you how to do that”, then they meet behind closed doors and establish an official scientific consensus on the basis of secret evidence that they will not show anyone, a consensus that makes the technology stupid, impractical, expensive, and dangerous. Academia inherently and naturally applies the theological method, which is great for establishing consensus on matters of faith and morals, but disastrous for matters of material and effective causation, for which we need the scientific method. The inherent nature of academia makes it very difficult to apply the scientific method if the university is signing your paycheck. This has always been the way that it was, and it will always be the way that it will be. It is just the wrong form of social organization for addressing matters of material and effective causation. Academia just cannot do it, any more than you can hammer nails with a screwdriver. Wrong tool for the job. It is stupid to attempt to train techies in academia, though today HR forces us to only hire those with “good” degrees. Trying to do science and tech through universities is like trying to innovate technology in a company with a bean counter or a lawyer as CEO.

Until Musk, all American rockets, including the moon rocket, were the same basic design as Wernher von Braun built at the rocket club.

After Wernher von Braun built those rockets at the rocket club, he then went to university and got a degree in rocketry, the very first degree in rocketry, as if there was some professor who knew more about rockets than he did. And then he got kidnapped by the Nazis to build rockets to hit London, then kidnapped by the Americans.

After Wernher von Braun retired, American rockets went steadily downhill, implementing that same basic design, but less and less well.

Then Musk decided we need better rockets if the human race and technological civilization is going to survive. So he hired an existing rocket scientist who had trained under someone who had trained under Wernher von Braun, who had some sketchy recollections on how to build rockets. Then Musk built a few Wernher von Braun type rockets, then proceeded to rapidly improve the art of rocketry.

Definition of Capitalism

A Marxist will never define capitalism. So, we get to define it.

The word “capital” is derived from “head” as in “head of cattle”. If you want to count a herd of cattle, easiest to count their heads, so “head” is a synonym for how many cattle you have.

Capital is a generalization of how much cattle you own. Cattle produce milk and calves, and it is a generalization from counting up cattle to counting up assets that you use to produce value, milk and calves among that value.

Cattle being the original form of wealth, wealth that produces milk and produces more cattle, if wisely and competently husbanded. So “capital” is wealth that is like that, wealth that can produce more wealth, if wisely managed. So capitalism is doing that. The primary original form of capital, back in the days when Aryans conquered the world, was cattle. And cattle are still to this day a significant and important form of capital.

Capital is well managed cattle, also mines, oil fields, trucks, factories, ships, and so forth. That is capital, using it well is capitalism, and a capitalist is someone who uses it well and uses it to create more capital.

The capitalist creates capital and applies it wisely and productively:

Proverbs Chapter 31
13 She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
14 She is like the merchants’ ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and strengtheneth her arms.
18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good: her candle goeth not out by night.
19 She layeth her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff.

The capital that she creates in part is her savings from spinning, in part that she “considereth” the field – meaning she invests her savings wisely, so the field is more capital than her original savings, for it embodies not just the work of spinning, but the work, ability, skill of judgment, and in part that she directly creates capital, by planting vines.

She is was little capitalist, a kulak. A commie talks about Rothschilds, Wall Street and such and such but if you scratch a commie you will find it is really the kulaks he hates, because we feel the status competition with people close to us, not far from us. He really hates the man who owns a pizza shop, and the small family farm. He explains that by killing the cows of the peasant with two cows, you are actually striking a blow at the Rothschilds and doing a big favor to the peasant with two cows.

But the merchant who wisely applies capital is apt, in time, to wind up with a lot of it, so will hire other people to work it. The good wife Solomon spoke of is likely to eventually find her family owns a bigger vineyard than they can harvest.

Mathew 20:
2 And when he had agreed with the laborers for a penny a day, he sent them into his vineyard.
3 And he went out about the third hour, and saw others standing idle in the marketplace,
4 And said unto them; Go ye also into the vineyard, and whatsoever is right I will give you. And they went their way.

And eventually his assets become so great that he needs other men to manage them and invest them wisely for him:

Mathew 25:
15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.

So the lord was a bigger capitalist. Where do big capitalists come from? They come from little capitalists, kulaks.

So a capitalist is someone who owns a lot of value that he uses competently and effectively to produce more value. Not quite the same meaning as entrepreneur. He might be a speculator or an investor, but an entrepreneur is the archetype.

Capitalism is what such people do, and to ask whether a society is capitalist is to be distracted by Marxist flim flam. Those people are capitalists, and what they are doing is capitalism.

Those who rule do not produce wealth and value directly, so in this sense no “society” has ever been or ever will be capitalist, but those who rule have to produce a social order that permits such people, or they will be conquered by rulers who do have an adequate supply of such people and thus have the logistics, provided by capitalists, that enable them fund and equip armies and to move those armies over distance.

A society is capitalist to the extent that those who rule attempt to foster capitalists and succeed, but to ask if a society is capitalist is to ask the wrong question. Soviet Russia depended on capitalists as much as every other society. It thus had to tolerate the mafias, and invite in foreign businessmen, so capitalism was illegal, but widely practiced and quietly tolerated. If you want to argue Soviet Russia was capitalist, look at the mafias, international investment, and the private plots. If you want to argue it was socialist, look at laws, enforcement and official documents, but both arguments are irrelevant and unimportant, distracting you with what is irrelevant to capitalism and capitalists. All societies are capitalist, or else they are starving and about to collapse and/or be overrun by foreign enemies. No societies are capitalist, because capitalists never rule, never can rule, never will rule. Thus it is always stupid to ask if a society is capitalist. A government can be, and often is, anti capitalist. But after Lenin hung the capitalists with the rope he purchased from the capitalists, Lenin and Stalin found that they still needed rope.

Marxist (and fake Nazi) history

Marxists and fake Nazis sneak in an implicit definition of capitalism by Marxist history. Which implicit definition is too obviously stupid for them ever to say it outright. Instead they tell a story about our past that implicitly presupposes that everyone already accepts that Marxism is true by definition and completely uncontroversial, much like the troofers arguing from the assumption that everyone knows and agrees that building seven fell straight down like a demolition, that there was no airliner sized and shaped hole in the Pentagon and that molten steel was pouring out of the Trade towers.

Marxists will never ever tell you their definition of capitalism, because if said plainly, their argument would sink like a stone. Instead they ramble around saying stuff that assumes that everyone already agrees with their definition.

Thus the point and purpose of Marxist history is nothing to do with history. It is to sneak in a definition of capitalism that no one would buy if proposed explicitly and overtly. They do not give a dam about history. They actually want you to accept as the universally accepted and uncontroversial definition of capitalism, a definition that nobody in fact believes – not even Marxists, for if they genuinely believed it, they would be willing to actually state their definition.

Marxist history is that capitalism is new – that previously there was feudalism, then the capitalists took power from the lords. Which implicitly defines capitalism as a system of government, which is transparently silly and which no one believes for a moment.

So, a little discussion of what feudalism was.

Feudalism and knighthood is exemplified by life and career of William the Marshal, who is the type specimen of knighthood and feudalism.

Feudalism was a very direct form of warrior rule, in a time when highly trained warriors when with extremely expensive equipment mattered, and hordes of peasant conscripts mattered not at all, when one or two highly trained expensively equipped warriors could slaughter a mob of peasants like sheep.

Any knight could make another man a knight, which is to say, any man with the right to keep and bear arms could give another man the right to keep and bear arms, though they only cared about expensive arms involving a great deal of training. Possession of land was power and nobility, and since it was power and nobility, could not ordinarily be bought or sold. In unstable times, generally acquired at sword point. In stable times, inherited through primogeniture.

Typically this was by the granting of fiefs. The possessor of a fiefdom would grant a portion of his fiefdom to a knight, in return for fealty, in a contract binding on the parties, and also binding on their descendants by primogeniture in the male line. Kings and great lords tended to be generous in unsettled times in granting fiefdoms to land that they did not in fact possess, to men that they suspected were capable of taking possession of it at swordpoint, but in more settled times, it led to a quieter life if one only granted fiefdoms to land that one did in fact possess, about which they were apt to be more tightfisted.

Not much point in making a man a knight, unless you could give him armor and a warhorse capable of carrying a man in armor. And there were two ways of acquiring armor and warhorses. One was by taking them off another knight at swordpoint, which William the Marshal did quite a bit of in his younger days, and the other was by buying them from people who produced such things, which he did quite bit of in his older days.

(In principle you could also take them at swordpoint from people who produced such things, but such people tended to be hard to find if they were at risk of losing their stuff at swordpoint)

Land was nobility, but it was not warhorses and armor. William the Marshal acquired quite a lot of land at sword point, but land does not in itself produce warhorses and armor. For that, you need wealth and a market economy that can generate elaborately transformed goods. And if there is nothing on your land but a rather small number of half starved peasants, which was the condition of much of the land William the Marshal acquired, not going to produce much in the way of wealth. So, William the Marshal, aging warrior, went into the real estate business. To persuade productive people to settle on his land, and thus to subject themselves to his power and his taxes, he had to grant them security – that no one else would shake them down, and that he would only shake them down within certain predictable limits. Which deal makes capitalists and capitalism possible. In going into the real estate business, in developing his land, he became a capitalist, and created the conditions that made it possible for people who were not knights and not noble to become wealthy capitalists.

The power of the lords was ownership of land, which depended on ownership of war horses and armor. They did not own the means to produce warhorses and armor. Which meant that those who could produce advanced goods, armor being among those advanced goods, tended to wind up owning some substantial amount of land after there had been peace for a while, and nobility flowed from that peacefully acquired land.

To the extent that lords were able to convert swordpoint ownership of land into money ownership of warhorses and armor, feudalism was capitalist. To the extent that lords were unable to convert swordpoint ownership of land into money ownership of warhorses and armor, not capitalist and not very feudal either, since the life expectancy of lords was apt to be short. If goods are always transferred at swordpoint, no one is going to produce warhorses and armor. The methods that William the Marshal applied in his youth to acquire warhorses and armor led to a rather chancy life for the nobility.

Land was never the primary means of production, because no one cared all that much about land, but about obtaining warhorses and armor, which land does not spontaneously bring forth. They had to acquire warhorses and armor, advanced goods, through the capitalist economy.

Land was the measure of nobility, and land ownership predominantly acquired at swordpoint. We are always ruled by priests or warriors, and usually something of both. Capitalists did not rule then and they do not rule now. Those who owned land ruled, but they had to provide the necessary conditions for capitalism, or die.
And to the extent that they failed to maintain the necessary conditions for capitalism, they frequently did die.

Land was power. But it was not wealth. And wealth provided the means for power and land. So when feudalism was less chaotic and violent that it frequently was, we saw both wealth and nobility. Wealthy men who were short on nobility would marry their sons and daughters to nobles who were short on wealth.

Capitalists have never ruled, never will rule, never can rule. Any time capitalists have ruled, they have been warrior capitalists, like the pirates of Hong Kong, or the pirates of the Venetian Republic, or the bandits of the East India company. Clive of India was an armed and dangerous corporate accountant arranging corporate mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers between businesses with armed and dangerous boards and armed and dangerous CEOs. His primary skillset was bookkeeping and accounting, though another important skill was keeping gunpowder dry.

If you look at who rules and who fights when discussing capitalism, you are not looking at capitalism. Which is the Marxist sleight of hand when they deny that feudalism was capitalist. They “define” capitalism by telling you “look at this shiny thing over there”. Don’t look at the shiny thing. Look at capitalism.

Wealth got you warhorses and armor. Land was not the measure of wealth, but of nobility and authority. But to keep land, nobility, and authority, needed warhorses and armor. So had to obtain wealth. In stable times there were a lot of people who were wealthy, but lacked land and nobility, and lot of people with land, nobility, power, and authority, who were mighty hard up for wealth, though mighty good with a sword and a horse. Nobility short of wealth tended to marry wealth, and wealth short of nobility tended to marry nobility.

Feudalism is a form of warrior rule, the most naked, direct, and simple form of warrior rule. Rule is irrelevant to whether a society is capitalist or not. What matters is security of property rights, and thus the opportunity to use capital to create more capital. Property rights were not very secure during feudalism, but to the extent that they were insecure it was a problem that the lords had no choice but to attempt to fix, that William the Marshal, the defining exemplar of feudalism and knighthood, did fix. To the extent that property rights were insecure, not only did capitalists not dare become to wealthy, but nobles were short of warhorses and armor, and thus the sons of nobles were unlikely to inherit land and nobility.

Feudalism was warrior rule by warriors with expensive elite equipment. Expensive elite equipment is elaborately transformed goods, and you do not get elaborately transformed goods without capitalism. A suit of armor, a warhorse, and a swordarm like lighting got William the Marshal land, but warhorses and armor failed to spring spontaneously from that land. In order to obtain armor and warhorses without the rather dangerous activity of chopping up other knights, had to foster capitalism on that land.

482 Responses to “Capitalism”

  1. Steven C. says:

    Wernher von Braun built on the earlier work of Robert Goddard; but when he mentioned this to his American hosts, they were all like “who dat?”

  2. Awoke says:

    Jim, what is the definition of “rent seeking?” Is it a fake concept? Some forms of capitalism seem intuitively more admiral than others, for instance creating an enterprise that meets unfilled needs seems worthier than sticking your money into a rental property and paying an agency to manage it, or just parking it in a interest bearing savings account, but I can’t see where a clear line to define rent-seeking activity exists.

    • jim says:

      The definition of “rent seeking” is generally applied to restricting some activity to that one needs government permission to do it, and then someone rents out permission to do it.

      Thus, for example, you create the the need for a government license to cut someone’s hair, and then a quasi state entity such as a university charges people for the the necessary license, that is rent seeking.

  3. TheDividualist says:

    Hi Jim

    More precisely the Marxist believes only physical labour creates value. Because materialism. Marx was 100% clear on this. Strictly physical labour theory of value

  4. Neurotoxin says:

    The future for MAGA Republicans?

    Brazilian politician Roberto Jefferson, identified as “a Bolsonaro ally,” is sentenced to house arrest for saying things that “offended” a Brazilian judge. He did not comply adequately with his house arrest, so two police officers were sent to his house to have words with him. He attacked them with a grenade and rifle, wounding them, and has now been extra-arrested.

    Reading this I have to laugh a little, because of the delightfully madcap Hunter S. Thompson vibe… though I know I really shouldn’t, because Brazil is probably only about 3.8 minutes ahead of us.

  5. Red says:

    Hilarious if true:

    I was wondering why they were both in their underwear and why the glass was shattered going out instead of in.

    • Hesiod says:

      I wager the shouts of “where’s Nancy?” concern being paid prior to rendering service as you know she controls the purse-strings in that house.

      Details are turning out to be much more entertaining than I hoped.

  6. Red says:

    DeSantis continues to impress me despite being buddy buddy with the RINOs:

    Former candidate for Orange County commissioner describes widespread vote trafficking operation in Orlando area, authorities see enough evidence to warrant criminal probe.

    You don’t see that happening in other Red States. 10 bucks per black vote.

    • Red says:

      To be clearer you don’t see other Red states exposing this vote rigging. I’m sure it’s going on in every state.

      • jim says:

        Vote harder. I am sure it will work this time 🙃

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        If one is inclined to engage with Bommercons and cuckservatives, this sloppily written article could be used to great effect to demonstrate the “visible cockroach” scenario (for every one cockroach you see, assume many more you don’t).

        It also illustrates how pointless voting really is. This is a bitter pill to swallow for many of us, I know. But it remains the case that this type of fraud is widespread and regular, it wasn’t in epiphenomenon of 2020. Both sides know about it, but the RNC side tolerates it while the DNC side indulges in it. Thus, we can confidently state that the RNC is going to fight harder to maintain the status quo than it ever will fight to dominate the DNC, as they have had ample opportunity to flip the relationship and have never once attempted to do so. I’m not talking about exposing the fraud, I am talking about utilizing it.

    • The Cominator says:

      DeSantis ability to work the corrupt GOP elite and masses both while still being hardcore against the left is an asset not a liability… taking over the state without insider support is extremely rare putting it mildly…

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        This is a good point. He has to engage with the corrupt if he wants to work from within the system.

      • Red says:

        Exactly. Trump shows ever signs of not getting it. I think DeSantis sees the shape of things coming and shows a lot of competence. Trump is the rightful President of the Republic, but the Republic is dead and DeSantis is operating within that knowledge.

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      I can’t get behind a guy that is in bed with our explicit enemy. As Jim says elsewhere, maybe he knows the score and is playing them, but we won’t know that objectively until he gets put in the position where he either cucks or breaks with the RNC types. Until that happens, Desantis carries the implicit risk that he is at best a dupe and at worst a sleeper agent for the RNC. This is not restricted to Desantis, he’s just the most prominent of a whole crop of supposedly “outsider” republicans who portray themselves as such but have yet to be tested.

      If he opposes a viable Trump in 2024, that would be conclusive evidence that he’s in dupe/sleeper territory. Likewise conclusive would be him going ultra-MAGA in some way. But something about Desantis feels off, though that could just be the lack of camera charisma that TC has pointed out.

      • jim says:

        > If he opposes a viable Trump in 2024

        Our enemies are of course enthusiastically pushing for that scenario. I think they are suffering from normality bias.

        In the event that sufficient normality still prevails in 2024 for there to be somewhat credible primaries, I think it unlikely that DeSantis would oppose Trump. In an honest primary, would get hammered hard, because people would reason as you are reasoning. In a blatantly fake primary, a rino gets nominated. Your reasoning is that DeSantis may well be a covert rino, and could win in a rigged primary, making the primary less blatantly fraudulent than if an out and out open rino won. But this presupposes that democrats will care about election credibility in 2024.

        We shall see if they still care in November 2022. I expect a blatantly fraudulent 2022 election outcome, rendering the 2024 presidential primaries uninteresting and unimportant.

        Obviously any halfway honest 2022 election would be a colossal Republican landslide. People vote peace and prosperity, we have war, inflation, and recession. Democrats are not acting as if they expect votes to matter.

        • Red says:

          I wonder, could the Dems split the difference? Let the RINOS win while rigging out MAGA republicans? Probably not, once you’re using a super weapon like mass ballot stuffing, every Dem is going to use it to their own gain.

          • Red says:

            Mass Ballot Stuffing*

          • jim says:

            The plan is to let the rinos win while frauding out the magas. But, as you say, that plan is probably not going to be followed.

            Republicans in every state but Florida have bought into the plan, and maybe Florida also. But leftism endlessly betrays, and the insufficiently left are endlessly betrayed.

            It is likely that in the end every rino gets tortured to death for insufficient leftism, while a substantial proportion of magas survive, because prepared to run, hide, or fight.

            • Red says:

              They’re not going to have any pretense of voting legitimacy left in that case. Men are going to voting with bullets in 2024 rather than ballots.

              2026 looks very much on track.

        • Neurotoxin says:

          “Democrats are not acting as if they expect votes to matter.”

          Indeed. They’re acting like the last thing that matters is votes. The MSM articles about “What will happen in the mid-term elections?” have a rote vibe; they’re obviously just phoning those in to keep up the pretense.

          Here’s a related data point:
          A few days ago the Associated Press ran a story with the headline “Illegal border crossings to US from Mexico hit annual high.”

          The reason I’m calling this related is that if they thought votes had a chance in hell of mattering, they wouldn’t report this story at all, let alone with that headline.

          (Here’s a link; warning, I’m too lazy at the moment to follow Kunning’s advice on links:


      • Neurotoxin says:

        “If he opposes a viable Trump in 2024…”

        People! There is no chance that Trump can be viable ever again because the decentralized electoral fraud will keep him out. It doesn’t matter if orders come down from some central authority to not engage in fraud; the lefties on the ground will just ignore those orders. After all, Trump is SuperHitler. And why would anyone in the Establishment give such orders anyway? They hate and fear Trump, and they know from 2020 that they can get away with blatant fraud.

        • Red says:

          Trump’s going to be in jail not long after the mid terms and Epstined by 2024. Even allowing the possibility that the rightful President of the Republic can be re-installed into office via military coup is too much risk.

          • Neurotoxin says:


            Around the time of the 2020 election some MSM rat actually called Trump a “Romanov.”

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          Pay attention you little shits, I’m tired of repeating this. Insert the gay clapping between each word if that helps:

          Elections don’t matter; campaigns do.

          We don’t need Trump to win (though the salt mining would be glorious), but we desperately want him to run.

          Campaigns are a legitimate cover for right wing organizing, networking, and fund raising. Elections are a viable cover for covert shmiolence against easy tlargeps.

          National campaign season skyrockets the profitability of leaks, doublecrosses, and betrayals. It also puts 24/7 media under immense pressure, causing massive increase of unforced errors, outbursts, and mask slippage.

          Trump, Desantis, Lake, Masters, Vance, and others drive the intelligentsia mad, and they overreact wildly to polls and reversals.

          All of these factors are in our favor. They strip the mask off the uniparty, marginalized crypto-dissafected elites, and promote & increase passivism and parallelism. Just as capitalism leverages personal greed and selfishness into social utility and capital creation, campaigns and electioneering *can* leverage pride and busybodiness into fertilizing society for Restoration.

  7. King Lizard Intercourse says:

    [*deleted for rectification of names*]

    • jim says:

      You are using the word “externality” in a non standard way.

      An externality is an appropriate ground for the sovereign to interfere in the free market in respect to that particular externality, by valorizing a positive externality or penalizing a negative externality. See my discussion of National Capitalism for examples of correct usage. It cannot be a general argument for or against capitalism, nor a general argument for intervention in general, nor a general argument for replacing the authority of proprietors with the authority of judges and bureaucrats.

      • King Lizard Intercourse says:

        Stop deleting my shit


        • jim says:

          You are deliberately and manipulatively violating the Gricean maxims. This makes conversation unprofitable.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          “Your Honor, I should be allowed to say whatever I want for whatever purpose I want and be held to no standard and face no consequences.”

  8. Kunning Druegger says:

    In other news:

    Fox Affiliate in AZ accidentally airs a lower thirds watermark showing the final results of the Lake/Hobbs election… 12 days before the election. The affiliate explained that the graphics package was received from AP and that it was a mistake to show it.

    That graphic was inserted intentionally. Someone at the affiliate leaked it after they found it. I base this on a number of things from my personal life experience, and I could be wrong. Very simply, lower thirds are graphics, subtitles, or any additional layer added to a stream by a technician that is mixing the final signal. They are preloaded onto a laptop which is then connected to the video mixer, with the lower thirds and any other overlays added to the signal coming from the camera. The segment was unrelated to the election, so it wasn’t like the tech chose the wrong one. The correct graphic is on the other side of the screen, so an accidental inclusion would probably be there. From my perspective, someone discovered foul play and couldn’t let it stand. This is pure conjecture on my part.

    • Red says:

      The weird thing is the media’s talking like the GOP is going to win. It’s very confusing. Jim thinks it going to be more blatant than 2020, but it’s so odd that they’re not prepping the ground for it. I’m still betting they have a false flag lined up to give an excuse, but time is getting awfully short to use it.

  9. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    An acquaintance once described foucalt’s discipline/punish as ‘the first time i read a non-fiction book with a plot twist’. The ‘twist’ of course being that it starts with a discussion of permutation of imprisonment systems over the centuries, and various methods used to keep inmates under control, and then suddenly turns to identifying those same methods in describing modern society as a whole as a prison.

    The work of mid twentieth century continentals was often funny in a way since, in trying to explain why the fated historical determinism of global communist revolution keeps failing to happen, and ‘fascist capitalism’ keeps seeming to stick around no matter what, franco-german leftists basically ended up describing the system that anglo leftists were setting up around them.

    Of course it was all too clever by half, and in later days noone in the contemporary state church even pretends to understand Derrida anymore. Althusser who? Whatever, dead white men, who cares. The wokist children of whiggery have no need for clever rationalizations, the raw voice of Power is all that is necessary and sufficient. The pronouncement of charge, sentence and punishment all in one breath, all that is required.

  10. Red says:

    Outstanding Gab post from Jim on the Ukrainain war.

    The Polish Mercs shooting the Azov Nazi faggots is one of the best things I’ve heard all year.

    The Ukrainian army is done and even the PMCs are done. American units have to move in soon or Russia will probably roll up all the Ukraine during the winter.

  11. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    >’You have a right to free speech, but you don’t have a right to tell lies.’

    Very well, then you need an official office of officiating truth, in order to give effect to socially actionable definition points as to whether a party is telling truth or lies; and what do you know, looks like all roads lead back to theocracy after all.

    • Red says:

      What’s the quote from?

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        You can hear variations of the same talking point all over broadcast news and bluechekist mockingbirds nowadays. You can see a few crop up under the Elon tweet too for example. It’s how they’ve fallen back on justifying themselves.

        • Red says:

          Gateway Pundit was pushing the idea that the DOJ was going to prosecute people for telling lies that influence the election as election tampering. GP is often full of shit, but that’s consistent with what you’re describing.

          They have a real problem with twitter being made a free speech zone and they’re lining up banks(paypal), the DOJ, and the rest of the levers of power they have to quash it. It’s a hard sell though, having official truth from the government isn’t something we’ve ever had in the US. The more they have to exercise unprincipled power the more that power loose legitimacy.

  12. Cloudswrest says:

    Tucker overtly states the war in the Ukraine is about “World War Trans” at 2:58.

  13. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    comment held for clarification

    • jim says:

      This sounds somewhat like rational right wing argument that deserves to be allowed through and deserves a response.

      Or is it?

      There is distinct ambiguity. Are you perhaps arguing that meat should be banned, private individuals banned from air travel, and we should be forced to eat bugs?

      When commissar Carlylean Restorationist tells the pizza shop what is going to be on the menu, what the ingredients will be, and and how to cook it, what are you going to tell them?.

      I think what pizza shops serve is good, tasty, healthy, nutritious, and balanced food at a very economical price, albeit too heavy on the carbs. You disagree. What do you then plan to make me eat? Are you attacking pizza from the right (it is not red meat and cheese) or from the left (it is not rice, soy, and bugs)?

      • Milosevic says:

        I’m finding it hard to believe Communist Revolutionary is still waging faggot jihad against Domino’s…

      • Fidelis says:

        All major francises use rancid soybean oils, mycotoxin filled chemically bleached wheat, cheese from cows stuffed with grain agriculture byproducts and hormone injections, and fake meat that is a decent proportion soymeal.

        I have been thinking deeply on how to fix food, because it doesn’t pay well to farm well, it pays well to grow cash crops and cut corners. The only good food comes from what is effectively voluntarism by the producers; those like the Amish whom food production is tied to their religious practice, or just people with strong preservation instinct for the old ways and will not bend to cash incentive structures over healthy farming and husbandry. The state driven overcorporatization and subsidization distorts things deeply, but I see similar destructive patterns across many very different economies.

        • Red says:

          Banning oils that require bleaching to remove the rancid odor would go a long way to improving people’s lives. People naturally won’t consume something that smells bad and removing that odor is directly fucking with the senses we evolved to keep ourselves and our families healthy. Death penalty level offense.

          As for the rest, proper studies need to be done on nutritious food and people need to be informed about what’s good to eat, but that won’t happen with the Cathedral around. Good food needs to be made high status instead of the soy crap the left pushes as high status food. Once good food is high status farmers will grow it.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            If [high status figure] on [high status broadcast] does a nice program where they film going around a grocery store talking about the ingredients in different things, and how they can be good bad or indifferent for you, and the network of preachers gets the message and boosts it, things like seed oils or petroleum dyes or synthetic preservatives would crater in market share just like that.

          • jim says:

            As you say, any oil that needs bleaching is probably unsafe to consume. If it naturally smells bad, that means our senses were designed to detect it as dangerous or harmful.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          >The only good food comes from what is effectively voluntarism by the producers

          Which is, generally speaking, how all good things come from; they can be spiritually validated, and materially incentivized; they cannot simply be commanded. It must, like many things, come from inside first and foremost, the chief logistical hack of all earthly logistical concerns. And how do you get situations where you have people with good coming from inside them?

          Nancy Pelosi’s beard can get good medical care in clownworld, because in the back of their minds the doctorcrats know that if something bad happens to their patient, something bad will happen to them. Far from preventing bad things happening, regulatory checklisting in fact protects bad actors from just desserts; creates an environment where they are in fact even more prolific than good actors attempting to make good decisions in response to the vagaries of the universe, which can never be fully dissolved inside of a checklist that is within itself. ‘How can it be good if its not on the checklist?’ ‘We followed the checklist, we are not at fault.’

          Things like billable logic and tortuous logic defines whig economic regimes. Hospicing environments that are not depressive hellscapes with shitty food, shitty beds, and shitty nursing would produce dramatically better outcomes on literally every single dis-ease possible, but these are also difficult to represent in requisition forms to a committee. Someone dying because you lacked some special machine or some obscure compound is easy to demonstrate in court by lawyers, but someone dying because they were weakened by insufficient recovery on account of higher quality consumables not being used in their care is very easy to dissumulate by lawyers in court; so huge sums become tied up on things like the former at the expense of things like the latter under ‘rationalized’ bureaucratic administration, irrespective of the ‘cost benefit ratio’ in reality being catastrophically against it.

          An old man can go to a pill dispensary (sometimes known in later days as a ‘doctor’) complaining about something like a shingles outbreak, and the effusively licensed ‘academy trained’ regulation approved pill dispensaries will just start randomly throwing chemicals at the wall to see what sticks. ‘Heres a one month supply of prednisone, have at it’. And what the hell would an immunosuppresant have to do with helping to recover from a virus infection? One of the patient’s symptoms is inflammation, and the label on the box says ‘can be used to reduce inflammation’, insert tab A into slot B, job done. ‘Irrespective of the fact that the patient’s conditions not only do not improve, but in fact got even worse, i followed the checklist. I am not at fault’.

          This approach defines how pretty much everything is done under a proceduralized environment; purely superficial cargo-cult style thinking with little to no reference to what the actual physical properties of the thing in question are, and how this may actually interact with the situation in question. The proceduralization *drives out* any space for actual world-formation in decision making. An obvious symptom is removed; and yet, health and well-being in general gets worse, not better.

          • alf says:

            It’s a sad truth that many doctors are essentially high status drug dealers.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              What many people have a hard time grasping is that, unless it’s a field they specialise in, the average GP is effectively just another random guy no more informed about some particular matter of health and wellness than you might be.

              • alf says:

                You’d expect that years of experience for a gp would yield a similar level of experience with the human body as, say, a bricklayer has with laying bricks. But does not seem to work that way. In many ways our knowledge of healthcare hasn’t really advanced all that much since the days of the four humors.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  If anything, it’s regressed. I think the high water mark was when having a local doctor that walked with a community cradle to grave was the norm. There are no simple fixes, but a potentially disproportionate solution would be to reduce hospitals to emergency rooms, ICUs, and morgues exclusively, and all for profit.

            • Karl says:

              The only physicians still around and practicing are evil, incompotent, or liars.

              The evil ones knew that the clot shot was harmful and administered it anyway.

              The incompetent one thought that the clot shot was beneficial.

              The liars knew the clot shot was harmful, forged their own vaxx pass (otherwise they would no longer be allowed to practice – at least in Germany), and told anyone that of course they were vaxxed.

              Some of the liars are decent physicians that counseled (some of their patients) not to get vaxxed. They are very hard to find – the German police is looking for them and some are already in jail.

          • Fidelis says:

            I do not believe you are making a subtle accusation of favor on my part towards regulation on food production, but just in case: the food problem will never be fixed by a regulatory mandate handed out.

            The small details of a nutritious food item, how it comes about, where it comes about, the lineage, the method, the material, it is innumerable and in many cases ineffable. You must somehow get the higher among the human animal to use their senses as the goods move along the chain. I doubt people would be feeding cows grain byproducts that make them visibly sick and force you to nuke the milk in order to drink it, if they themselves were to feed that milk to their children. Bring in a few milking machines, some laborers so you don’t have to even look at the animal yourself, someone who shows up to collect the indiscriminate white fluid collected in a big vat to be processed miles away, and a fat paycheck… its easy to see why there is no connection. It is not easy to see how we go from our current state, to a healthier state. It doesnt pay well to sell good food, relative to other pursuits at least, and doing it yourself is actually fairly time and energy intensive. So, how do we stop the machine, as the mechanical process introduces the blindness necessary for poisoning, but still keep the energetic efficiency such that we are not back to pre Industrial modes of being wherein a huge glut of human time and attention is devoted solely to agriculture and husbandry?

            Or maybe we should go back, and just have the dumb ones do it. While farming isnt easy, it is honest and rewarding work.

            • Red says:

              >It is not easy to see how we go from our current state, to a healthier state. It doesnt pay well to sell good food, relative to other pursuits at least, and doing it yourself is actually fairly time and energy intensive.

              It’s quite easy. Make good food high status. Japan does it.

              • Fidelis says:

                Japan is a nation of autistic craftsmen and even more autistic warriors. They don’t even need the high status, they will make good food for their own satisfaction. They are a special case, and should not be used as an example for something like this, because most humans are not like the Japanese.

                • Red says:

                  Japanese people who move to America get fat eating our garbage food. It’s not something special about the Japanese, it’s what was made high status in Japan.

              • jim says:

                This is a descendant of their program of opening to the west. Having been forced to open at gunpoint, they realized they had better compete by copying that which made the west strong. And they noticed that westerners were bigger and stronger than Japanese. They investigated why this was so, and correctly concluded it was mostly genetics, but partly beef.

                So, healthy beef was made high status.

                The program to make us eat bugs and soy is the demonic inversion of the Japanese program.

                • Red says:

                  That’s interesting. I’d never considered how they went from mostly rice eating to eating a lot of good meats.

                • Frontier says:

                  The Japanese also encourage drinking milk; a common gag in popular media will be a male character, who is the butt of jokes for being short, whining that they don’t like milk when it is served to them. A female character will then chide them that they won’t ever grow tall if they don’t drink milk. The male then quickly chugs it down.

                • jim says:

                  Biological fact: Milk actually does help you grow big and strong. The Japanese researched this when they were forced at gunpoint to open to the west, and their research was far more accurate than modern consensus “science”

                  And that is how you get people to eat healthy, the way the Japanese did it. Not by having the department of health and safety tell pizza shops how to prepare pizza.

      • Arakawa says:

        I, too, used to be a eschaton-immanentizing bore who thought deplorables should be forced to eat tasty and nutritious organic food against their own preferences. I cured myself by contemplating the CR-pizza-shop version of the parable of the kulak with two cows, which goes something like this.

        CR, who only eats organic grass-fed cows, goes to the peasants who eat regular non-organic deplorable cows and preaches that the peasants are being oppressed by capitalist kulaks who feed them garbage meet from non-organic deplorable cows and teach them to like it. If they only ate organic cows, then they would all gain 20 IQ points and cast off their chains of mental oppression. Therefore, it is necessary to eradicate the deplorable cows and the kulaks who farm them, to force the market to provide everyone with superior organic cows.

        After the non-organic cows have been eradicated, CR can no longer afford the remaining organic cows and neither can the peasants. As there are insufficient organic grass-fed cows to feed everyone the peasants switch to eating each other and CR.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        [*Marxist account of how capitalism works deleted yet again*]

        • jim says:

          Do look up “franchisor” and “franchisee” before giving us another rant about the evils of pizza.

          • The Cominator says:

            is he ranting about the evil restaraunt owners again lol, even other marxist aint that gay.

            • jim says:

              He explains that he is not ranting about evil restaurant owners because everything belongs to a tiny handful of super rich – presumably Rothschilds. so when you kill the cows of the peasant with two cows you are actually doing him a favor – you are liberating the peasant with two cows from capitalist oppression. But strangely, he venomously denounces and bitterly hates the people he intends to do this great favor to. Odd that.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              No you spastic, the jew is deleting then responding, as always.
              Nothing whatsoever about my anti-egalitarian, capitalist-realist analysis is remotely ‘Marxist’ or even ‘Marxian’.

              Literally all I have EVER said is that Domino’s Pizza is an evil woke capital corporation that hates normal people and uses jew advertising to guilt poor people into impoverishing themselves further for food that sucks.

              Our host, of course, insists that franchise-holders bear ZERO responsibility for that and are boot-strapping entrepreneurs, gleefully selling their overpriced garbage under the rainbow flag in the name of Ayn Rand or whatever.

              I don’t care, I only came back because he started on about ‘the pizza shop owner’ once again, and I see nothing’s changed.

              • jim says:

                Hail fellow peasant. You are oppressed by the kulak with two cows, fellow peasant. The party rightful Czar will liberate you from this horrible oppression by shooting those cows, fellow peasant.

          • Arakawa says:

            The Jeff Varasano’s Pizza Recipe page informs me that a quality pizza pie involves yeast, flour, water, cheese and tomato and requires skill to knead the dough and an 800F oven to bake it quickly. Of course you are not going to see this feat replicated too often outside of (a) places where the cultivation of the technique is embedded in the local culture or (b) large metropoli like New York where there can be a lot of competition over quality.

            That an approximate substitute to this traditional recipe is sold on every street corner and frozen food aisle is not a capitalist oppression.

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      Loool the embedded proggy entryist had to call daddy out of retirement! What’s good, you filthy gay nigger fucking faggot?!? Deprive any dominoes franchisees of their wealth lately?

    • Starman says:

      @Communist Revolutionary

      I will not eat the bugs.
      I will not live in the pod.

      Gas the kikes.

      And I will enjoy my Meatlover’s Stuffed Crust Pizza.

      • jim says:

        I have not seen a pizza ad for a very long time, but the last pizza ad I saw, several years ago, depicted a patriarch summoning his dispersed family for a family meal, and ordering pizza delivery to sweeten the deal. So I am reasonably happy with the owner of that franchise, and very happy with the his franchisees (Meatlovers thin crust for me). Pizza capitalism seems to be working fine for me. Carlylean Restorationist tells us that he is a right winger, and that pizza is insufficiently right wing, and socialism is going to make it more right wing. What improvements does Carlylean Restorationist have in mind?

        If I was going to improve pizza capitalism, would add pulled smoked chuck roast toppings to the optional toppings, and butter in place of oil in the pastry. Croissants are great, croissants being made of alternate thin layers of butter and pastry. Maybe croissant style pizza crusts in addition to the thin, medium, and thick options? Butter makes everything better. Moar butter!

        Pretty sure that CR’s ideas are more along the lines of forbidding meat and cheese, and requiring maggots on rice.

      • alf says:

        This topic sure rattles the shills huh. Glad we are reclaiming pizza as a right wing symbol!

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*Commie and progressive lies that despite their transparent point deer make horse absurdity are repeated endlessly deleted yet again*]

  14. Kunning Druegger says:

    St. Anglin has declared King Ye the leader of American Christian Nationalism. He has declared a jihad on the Cathedral with an omerta on the jews and a crusade to reconquer America. The Riders of the Right are being called to war [in Minecraft]. What say we? Shall we unleash the Snobs of War?

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      I swear html hates me. Here’s the link i tried to embed. It’s an excellent meme.

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      And another:

      I know I am feeling recklessly optimistic, but in January of 2022, who was expecting a hot war against the GAE? Who was expecting Kanye “King Ye” West to name the jew? Who thought Musk was actually going to takeover Twitter and declare freeze peach? Who thought NY Supreme Court was going to countermand vaxx firings?

      There’s going to be counter moves, but Anglin made an interesting point: if Twitter does become less ban happy, there’s going to be a lot more coverage of the Little Steals going on during Midterm Mayhem. I always assumed it would be likely lads in private kit patrolling the polls, but it may very well be zoomers in masks with smartphones, a bit of domestic IEW.

      The ground is shifting, and many actors will have opportunities that were not at all apparent previously.

    • Red says:

      Would someone explain this Ye stuff to me? What does a black rapper have anything to do with us? Blacks have zero combat power. They have a shitload of religious power because of the Cathedral but if we achieve our goals that would end with the burning of Harvard.

      Yes Kikes bad and all that, but I’m getting more daily oppression from Pajeets than Jews. Jews appear to be on their way out as useful tools of the ruling class while Pajeet are everywhere harming whites. How is allying with a black rapper suppose to help whites?

      If Ye wants to form a National Christian movement for blacks that’s awesome but it has nothing to do with me.

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        While Jews do not run some massive coordinated conspiracy that is behind literally everything, a disproportionately massive number of jews are behind the worst aspects of what the Cathedral is doing: tranny shit, abortion, FIRE economy, pozz media, not-wars, great replacement, BLM. While there may be no King Jew somewhere dictating orders, there is undeniably a cabal of connected jews dabbling in every evil thing. Kanye, one of their pet niggers, has decided to Name The Jew, which is an act no person of status or wealth has been able to safely do in the United States. Some have dabbled in Naming, and have been severely punished for it. Even after they recant and beg forgiveness, they are ridiculed, defamed, and bled dry in their businesses/finances, forever “paying for” the act of saying that which cannot be said.

        Kanye used his race card to say that which cannot be said, and did so in a way that left the Cabal with very few, if any, options: ignore him and run the risk of him starting to point out who held most of the wealth, set most of the policy, dictated allowable speech, managed the curricula, and gate-kept academia & media OR silence him in the traditional method, force him to recant, and steal the apples from his knocked-over carts. The issue was, Kanye has a massive number of eyes and minds that follow his antics and he is a cultural maven due to America’s culture of negro-worship. He also had substantial wealth in a diverse array of industries/businesses. Kanye basically said “Jews are in control of media, banking, and speech and it is not necessarily a good thing [I translated into English from jive]”, the jews in control of media, banking, and speech demanded his cancellation for saying such, and a massive number of normies were forced to confront the fact that the dancing parlor negro had a pretty solid point.

        Whether Kanye gets to be Culture King, make shoes, or rhyme broken english for money is not really the point. What is the point is that an American Elite has launched an attack on the most sacred cow of the Cathedral. If that cow gets damaged, even slightly, it will be a signal to all dissident and outsider elites that the Cathedral bleeds, and if it bleeds, it can be killed. This event, in conjunction with Twitter being ripped from the talons of high status progressive priests, seems to be forming a trend. It could snowball massively, causing a chain reaction in other sectors/categories/areas that were previously considered locked up tight or safe from destabilization.

        • Red says:

          I’m really not sure what Elon was thinking by buying twitter. It’s fairly likely to get him suicided. I thought it was gambit to get Starship launched but he may be worrying about nuclear war and needs an opposition that openly oppose it via twitter.

        • jim says:

          > While Jews do not run some massive coordinated conspiracy that is behind literally everything.

          At any one time, one Jewish conspiracy tends to be dominant and to exercise a great deal of power. But there are many conspiracies, a disproportionate number of them Jewish, and the dominant Jewish conspiracy of the day hates most of the others, especially the Jewish ones, even more than it hates us.

          The enemy is far more centralized than it appears, far less centralized than would enable it to engage in sane, competent and cohesive action.

          • Dr. Faust says:

            Harvard is full of Jews. While there is a difference between the cathedral and the Jews there is also a lot of overlap. So much so that any purge of one will likely look much like the other.

        • Dr. Faust says:

          Well wrote, KD.

          The empire fractures at the fringes first and then the center. I expect huge escalation to grasp at those pieces as visible signs of cohesion ebb away. This time next year or sooner the terminal decline of the GAE will be undeniable to the normies. For anyone willing to look the signs are in the hundreds now as former allied nations distance themselves in seen and unseen ways.

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            Thanks Faust, I steal from the best.

            “If that cow gets damaged, even slightly, it will be a signal to all dissident and outsider elites that the Cathedral bleeds, and if it bleeds, it can be killed.”

            I should have extrapolated a bit further: any time someone names the Jew, the Cabal overreacts. This is partially their nature, partially traditional, but mostly, it’s a message to everybody else: “we won’t just punish our enemies, we destroy them in body and soul.” Notice how they dedicate vast resources to the memory of Hitler, or Henry Ford, or Walt Disney. They use any opportunity to dig up the past and defile the corpse. This is how a Cabal of sickly, inbred tribalists project an aura of invincible power.

            So it is actually an incredibly precarious position (((they))) are in. They already appear racist, vengeful, and vindictive given how Kanye set up the whole situation. They now must obliterate him as well as burn down the intellectual bridge he’s building while maintaining their aura s the high I perennial victims of systematic discrimination in perpetual need of redress and deferment. How do you burn something down and salt the earth without shattering the illusion that have neither flame nor salt?

            “While there is a difference between the cathedral and the Jews there is also a lot of overlap. So much so that any purge of one will likely look much like the other.”

            This was perfectly stated. The Cathedral wears a yarmulke no matter how you slice it. So not only has the Cabal tied themselves inescapably to an ailing ship that’s taking on water, the possible authors of their demise might be the very negros they possessed, empowered, and unleashed. Oft evil will will evil mar.

        • jim says:

          As the Cathedral gets ever more evil, stupid, and insane, it runs into defeats – which it cannot endure, so has to exercise unprincipled and lawless power to bail itself out.

          The more they have to exercise unprincipled power the more that power loses legitimacy.

          But historically, the usual end point of this process has not been the defeat of the left and the restoration of legality and order, but rather the utter dissolution of legality and order, ultimately resulting in Caesar.

      • ten says:

        Anglin thinks that jews rule everything doctor evil style. If you think that, someone who is too big and too loved to get cancelled coming out against the jews is obviously an enormous deal. Cat’s out of the bag, the normies will follow or at least listen.

        I think jews, in their relation to the cathedral, are part converts to the postchristian heretic sect progressivism, part useful idiots to progressivism only allowed their elevated position because they can be trusted to be perpetually hostile to their surroundings, and part competent ethnonepotists who earned their spot more or less fairly (probably not good for others even in that best case). So i do not think it is such a jawdropper. It is a great shift that i look forward to seeing the fallout of though.

        The holocaust is a competitor for polaric evil in progressive moral cosmology – americans have the slavery crap too, britbongs have colonialism, while over here, it’s all just holocaust. A religion is nothing if its moral cosmology starts to smell of bullshit.

        “Ok, so we aren’t exactly going to the socialist utopia, and the multicultural utopia is kindof rapey and full of hostile shitskin retards, but remember the holocaust and forge on” will most likely have a distinctly different reception in the soul of the normie when kanye is done. Hitler hitler hitler hitler will probably work considerably worse in arguments.

        So it’s probably a pretty big deal.

        Maybe the cathedral ejects the jews and blames them for the 20th century and gets everyone to go along with it. What a fucking nightmare that would be.

        • The Cominator says:

          I think the plan right now is to blame the Jews for the economic failures… that is the main thing frontmen are for. It ties in with rehabilitating Ukranian Nazis…

          I absolutely don’t believe it, I’ve known too many lowly and broke jews.

          • jim says:

            > I’ve known too many lowly and broke jews.

            They are the ones most likely to be blamed for economic failures. It looks to me that Soros is already preparing this program – not necessarily going to roll with that option, but preparing it as fallback to be applied if necessary.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            >I think the plan right now is to blame the Jews for the economic failures…

            Highly doubtful, this is simply not something that exists in the baizuo’s cognitive universe. They are going to go to their graves blaming everything on maga deplorables, as their ‘fellow traveler’ is putting them in a grave for being a maga deplorable.

            If something like that happens, it won’t be because it was *their* idea.

            • jim says:

              It is an option that is on Soro’s table. Remember he got his start ratting out Jews to the Nazis.

            • The Cominator says:

              if the lights go out and the democrats inadvertently solve the obesity problem they’ll have no choice but to blame some group that looks powerful besides themselves, throwing America’s jewelry under the bus is an emergency option. As Jim says the really elite jersey like Doros will be safely out of the country if they do.

              • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                Problem with that option is that its proximity to truth brings equally restive opposition from demon faithful. His ‘friends’ won’t play along, and his enemies – rightly – won’t spare him anyways. The internet exists now. The collapse of a global empire brings global consequences. He is a dead man walking, and the hour of repentance long since passed.

              • Kunning Druegger says:

                Doesn’t this presuppose that there is some other jew-like faction or cabal that is masterminding the jews? And why are there jews in all the various factions? There’s jews in the war faction, the octogenarian faction, the DNC, the RNC. There’re even a few in the dissident right. There is undeniably a jewish conspiracy, but it doesn’t include all jews. There are jews in every conspiracy because they gravitate to them and make themselves an invaluable resource to them.

                So who would throw them under the bus?

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Skypes are absolutely going to find themselves under buses, and many skypes are going to be throwing each other under buses, and some of the may even think they are doing some clever plan in this – but all of it is simply going to be the natural result of what such execrable creatures and others of similar ilk get up too in the first place. The number one killer of communists in history is other communists.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Covid which was a blatant and obvious global conspiracy showed that in whatever the real conspiracy is that Jesuits outrank jews. No jewish frontman was trusted with the NIH or CDC at the time they had to use their own…

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  You seem to be operating under this kind of mental block, where if one faction bears blame, other factions can’t be to blame.

                  No, there is plenty of blame to go around for everyone.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Yes true but i also believe in hierarchies…

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  There was a hierarchy when men like Joseph Kennedy and Kissinger were in charge; now it’s just a knife fight of 50 Xanatos pile-ups.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Eg, the stumbling around of Current Things from covidianism to jewkraine is itself an expression of this chaos.

              • Neurotoxin says:

                “if the lights go out and the democrats inadvertently solve the obesity problem they’ll have no choice but to blame some group…”

                They’ll just do what they always do, blame white people, and in particular straight white MAGA men.

                • S says:

                  Wreckers, hoarders, kulaks, enemies of Soviet power- if it isn’t broke, why fix it?

                • jim says:

                  They are preparing for a possible situation where blaming straight white maga men could be bad for their health.

                  This is how Jews always wind up being expelled. The corrupt and hateful ruling elite hired Jews to do its dirty work. Things go pear shaped, and they announce it is all the fault of the Jews. Has happened over and over and over again. They are preparing for the likelihood that it will need to be done again.

                  And in substantial part it is the fault of Jews, but those Jews are planning on getting exiled to their private islands and continuing to run their empires by videoconference. It is the Jew who owns a bagel shop and sells good bagels who is going to get it in the neck.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  “They are preparing for a possible situation where blaming straight white maga men could be bad for their health.”

                  From your lips to God’s ears.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          “In a closer analysis, one should exhibit how the cultural relativism of the “right-to-narrate” orientation contains its own apparent opposite, the fixation on the Real of some trauma which resists its narrativization. This properly dialectical tension sustains today’s the academic “holocaust industry.” My own ultimate experience of the holocaust-industry police occurred in 1997 at a round table in the Centre Pompidou in Paris: I was viciously attacked for an intervention in which (among other things) I claimed, against the neoconservatives deploring the decline of faith today, that the basic need of a normal human being is not to believe himself, but to have another subject who will believe for him, at his place – the reaction of one of the distinguished participants was that, by claiming this, I am ultimately endorsing the holocaust revisionism, justifying the claim that, since everything is a discursive construct, this includes also the holocaust, so it is meaningless to search for what really happened there… Apart from displaying a hypocritical paranoia, my critic was doubly wrong: first, the holocaust revisionists (to my knowledge) NEVER argue in the terms of the postmodern discursive constructionism, but in the terms of very empirical factual analysis: their claims range from the “fact” that there is no written document in which Hitler would have ordered the holocaust, to the weird mathematics of “taking into account the number of gas ovens in Auschwitz, it was not possible to burn so many corpses.” Furthermore, not only is the postmodern logic of “everything is a discursive construction, there are no direct firm facts” NEVER used to deflate the holocaust; in a paradox worth noting, it is precisely the postmodern discursive constructionists (like Lyotard) who tend to elevate the holocaust into the supreme ineffable metaphysical Evil – the holocaust serves them as the untouchable-sacred Real, as the negative of the contingent language games. ”

          – Schniffmaster Shirttug

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Ye is right, and has neither backed down nor apologised. They’re proving just how right he was by taking $2B off him in a single day and even going after his children. He’s going to have to endure a lot, and may even end up with a Mossad fentanyl dart in the neck, but the fact he’s out there sharing the red graph of jewish media control is an unalloyed good.

        • jim says:

          It has long been completely obvious that you are Jewish employee of Soros. You are not fooling anyone.

          What you think mainstream conservatives think comes from leftists, what you think Christians think comes form Jews, and you are unable to mention anything within a thousand miles of the activities of Soros.

  15. India is now somewhat challenging the Cathedral controlled social media’s content moderation policies and wants to have final say in what content is taken down or kept up:

    It seems that Trump wants an alliance with Hindu nationalism

    Again normalcy bias news. Just posting here for information.

    • Hesiod says:

      “Former US President Donald Trump acknowledged Hinduphobia and promised to build a Hindu holocaust memorial in Washington DC.”

      I’m prepping the station wagon Chevy Chase style in anticipation. Perhaps it can be built right beside a Jewish shrine to holocaustianity so we can have some epic rap battles between the two groups as to whose ancestors were more oppressed by WT.

      • Hesiod says:

        YT, not WT. Need more caffeine…

      • someDude says:

        Relax, any Hindu holocaust memorial will be all about Islam, not the British Empire. Hindu don’t see the Brits as the enemy though they are not crazy about them. The enemy for them, for a millennia and a half, and for a millennium to come, is always and will always be, Islam

        Any Hindu holocaust memorial which does not point to Islam is fake and will be seen as fake and illegitimate by a majority of Hindus.

        • Hesiod says:

          Well, if it’s to be anti-Islam, the article is erroneous concerning its proposed location. Obviously, I need to plot my course for Big Rock Candy Mountain instead.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          It’s so strange to me how much I love hearing about Hindus in Hindustan in inverse proportion to how much I hate every single elite Hindu in the US. Of course there are based dharmabros in the states, how not, but I have never once had a positive experience in Indian dominated districts, suburbs, or cities. I imagine you guys in the subcontinent feel the same about us Occidentals, and I cannot imagine how insufferable occidental tourists must be.

          Hope Dharma Tribe is doing well on their various blogs.

          • Red says:

            >in inverse proportion to how much I hate every single elite Hindu in the US.

            The elite Indians are not very elite in the US. They have zero persuasive power. They’re just the iron fist of the state without the smooth talking Jews as the velvet glove.

            • The Cominator says:

              5% of them are great brilliant people…

              95% of them are all the sterotypes of jews but true without any of the good qualities and yes the jews do have genuine good qualities. They make much better elite intermediaries than dotheads.

  16. The Cominator says:

    Democrats are up to something if they can’t hold the house, phony attack on Pelosi’s house… as if she didn’t have secret service guards around it all the time.

    • jim says:

      Looks like her home was attacked by leftists, who are threatening her for being insufficiently left.

      Her home security might well suffer an Epstein like lapse.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        Paul Pelosi suffered blunt-force injuries in the attack

        One wonders if he’ll publicly appear with a black eye?

      • Red says:

        That seems likely. The full court press blaming MAGA isn’t happening with it. They may try to spin it later, but clearly not a planned propaganda event.

        • The Cominator says:

          don’t be too sure about that remember when they downplayed covid so they could do the about face and therefore initially fool most people…

          Could be a curveball like that. How would some antifag get past the secret service? Am I to believe that Paul was left alone with no security… doubt it.

          • Red says:

            They downplayed COVID so it would spread.

            The SS and FBI looks the other way when Antifa/BLM shows up. Also he used a hammer. A propaganda attack would include firearms for maximum right is bad vibes.

            The attacks on Ron Paul were beatings, that’s how the left does it.

            • The Cominator says:

              Covid was always going to infect the world once it got out of Wuhan…

              They downplayed it to fool right wingers who wouldn’t buy it if they were alarmist on day one..

              • Kunning Druegger says:

                “They” downplayed it because their standing orders were to call everything the Right said racism. Once the opportunists laid out their case and a plan, They changed course.

              • Red says:

                >Covid was always going to infect the world once it got out of Wuhan…

                The goal was to run up the body count by infecting as many Americans as posible. Original COVID didn’t spread all that well. Then COVID quickly evolved to much less dangerous.

        • Pete says:

          Yes. If the guy was part of a rightist group, or was even white, we’d already be hearing it blared from all leftist media.

      • Dr. Faust says:

        Off the cuff I would guess a guest of some sort. Anyone capable of getting past the SS would glow in the dark.

        • The Cominator says:

          Exactly no way there wasn’t security these weren’t antifags, the dems are planning something. If they aren’t immediately blaming Trump supporters perhaps something big… blaming Russia maybe?

          • jim says:

            I think you overestimate the cohesion and planning of our enemies.

            My interpretation of this event is that someone in high office is threatening Pelosi – Pelosi now being out flanked by the even more evil and even less sane, but resolutely hanging onto power. It is a little hint that she should retire.

            • The Cominator says:

              Perhaps but thru can also plan sometimes, covid was definitely planned.

              • Kunning Drueger says:

                COVID was planned, but I don’t think it was planned to a t. I think there was a general outline, or maybe a few bullet points or directives, but it was more like a number of plans coalesced into an operation that consisted of killing a bunch of people for Gaia worship and, later, destabilizing and removing the Trump regime. There were certain things that were definitely planned, but I think there was much that was improvised based on what was happening. I think it is highly unlikely, verging on impossible, that it was some multi-step plan with coordination the whole way through. the original plan obviously failed, as the disease made in a lab was barely lethal to anyone that didn’t have stacked comorbidities, but the improvised plan of removing Trump worked better, though even that was quite sloppy and required last minute improvisations.

              • jim says:

                What they planned was that they would have a disease that would kill everyone, and an effective vaccine, whose supply would be limited.

                The disease turned out to be disastrously ineffectual. It has not killed anyone who did not already have one foot in the grave, though malicious medical treatment on top of covid, or a vax shot during, immediately after, or immediately before covid, is apt to be lethal.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  I actually expect it was the opposite. A moderately dangerous disease that pushes everyone to take the Demon Vaxx, which they apply selectively. Crimethinker or dissident? You get the bad stuff. Doubleplusgoodguy? You get a saline shot. Then retardation and holiness spirals turn it into a total disaster.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Wulfgar the way I see it as well.

    • Hesiod says:

      Rumors circulating the attacker is a Berkeley hemp enthusiast. Samples of his alleged anti-Semitism seem stock far-left.

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      Here’s an arcive link of the trash reuters article which is semi-walled:

      Is it possible to have a bot just turn links into archive links, seeing as no one wants to take the extra step?

      The “attacker” was clearly someone familiar with the house or to the staff, as all the LEOs are not commenting while the Pelosi team builds up an excuse and hides embarrassing information. I’m guessing it’s one of mister Pelosi’s buttbois.

  17. Javier says:

    Curious on the thoughts on this:

    tl;dr, the author of this report makes the following claims:

    -All the top money management/investment companies/banks own each other’s stock and sit on each other’s boards to such a circular/incestuous degree it is difficult to call them separate companies. The author argues they are all more or less one giant megacorp he calls The Trust. The Trust then owns all major companies, industry, media, stock market, transportation, retail, etc. Everything.

    -The Trust traces back to two companies (themselves close partners with shared board members): Standard Oil (JD Rockefeller) and Chase Manhattan bank (JP Morgan).

    -Both men were notorious monopolists (and, for the record, gentiles). At the turn of the century the Trust owned over 80% of the GDP of the entire country. They effectively owned America.

    -The Trust operated with great secrecy, and took painstaking steps to gather intel on all aspects of its operations, with detailed dossiers on even low level store clerks and deliverymen.

    -JD believed ‘competition was a sin’ and sought to own all ends of a business transaction so as to ‘pay no man a profit.’

    -In 1911 Standard Oil was officially dissolved by the US gov. However JD’s stock ownership did not change and he remained on all the same boards. He even got richer as a result of the breakup.

    -In school we were taught that after the breakup JD Rockefeller became a great philanthropists and donated all his money to charity (this is what I learned in school!) This is BS. He put the Trust into various foundations to preserve it from the government. What charity he carried out was to further the goals of the Trust (including forcing schools to teach what a great humanitarian he was.)

    -In many instances, when people organized against the Trust they eventually give up with a token victory or lose steam. Later it is revealed the leader of these movements were in fact close personal friends or agents of JD (controlled opposition).

    -The rich families interbreed and are loyal to each other to a degree unknown among the lower classes.

    -Basically every war is waged for the benefit of the Trust.

    -In 1934, General Smedley Butler testified he was approached by the Trust to lead a military coup against FDR. (aka the Business Plot).

    -In 1974 when Nelson Rockefeller was appointed vice president by Gerald Ford, he claimed to not own only minor amount of stock. When investigated, congress found he sat on dozens of boards of directors in a similar web of influence as existed 70 years before.

    -Etc. It is unfinished but you get the idea. America is owned by super rich who have only gotten more control over time. They control all industries; if you make enough money to attract their notice they either absorb you or destroy you.

    This all could be seen simply as another way to conceptualize the American ruling class, something few people really think about because the media never talks about it. Everyone kind of understands we are not our own masters but they don’t like to rub it in. Direct reveal of the elites breeds resentment.

    Its clear that the Trust is superior to American politics to the point that putting Rs or Ds in front of their names is foolish, it is the politicians who do their bidding. What disagreement exists is due to factions vying for supremacy; when a true outsider threatens the trust they unite to destroy them (Trump).

    It does fly in the face of the Moldbug idea of spontaneous coordination. NRx is dismissive of organized conspiracies because it makes you sound insane, but this at least provides a framework for elite coordination. When all the big money people agree, the underlings follow.

    I can attest to some of these ideas due to a background with the Family Office industry. If you are not aware, family offices are investment firms that run for the sole benefit of preserving the wealth of the super rich. The Rockefeller family office is Rock Co. and its richer than ever. So is DuPont, Carnegies, Vanderbilts, etc. The individuals in these families may not be super rich themselves, but the office exists to protect and obscure their wealth.

    I’ve noticed a ton of media stories read, “This once super rich and mega corrupt family lost all their power and influence forever, the end.” which turns out to not be true. Family Offices aren’t exactly a secret, but they don’t go out of their way to inform people of their existence either. Most people wouldn’t care anyway. Whenever someone tries to complain about these people (“Rich don’t pay taxes!” etc), the media always frames them as crackpots. No one ever talks about foundations or all the other money-hiding financial schemes (e.g. Crummey Trusts).

    While working in a family office I realized the total sham of rich “charity”; every charitable foundation exists first and only as a tax shelter. To what extent it gives away money it always gets something in return, either more power or more virtue. What I didn’t know was that Rockefeller pioneered many of these trust/foundation scams.

    Globohomo/Poz comes from the Trust. I have personally sat in a conference room with super rich people, dressed in designer clothes, eating expensive catered food, listening to a highly-paid black consultant call them all racist pieces of shit (not in so many words mind you). They all went on to use their ‘charity’ foundations to spread this gospel.

    This also lends to the Moldbug idea that “you are hobbits, leave ruling to the elves” i.e. The Trust. He’s saying we’ll never touch true power, and he’s probably right. To what extent you have influence it comes from capturing part of the Trust. Musk probably did this, as his Carbon Indulgence wealth is a pure Trust scam through and through. (Most government programs boil down to ways to enrich the Trust.)

    I just thought I’d open that for discussion, even seems on-topic for this post.

    • Aidan says:

      Nuts on more counts than I have time to refute. Consider the power dynamics of the supposedly wealthy and powerful being made to sit down and listen to a nigger call then racist pieces of shit. Who backs the loans that the business run on? AIACC

    • jim says:

      > I have personally sat in a conference room with super rich people, dressed in designer clothes, eating expensive catered food, listening to a highly-paid black consultant call them all racist pieces of shit

      Which would seem to directly refute the story that these super rich families have all the power. The man who tells them they are pieces of shit obviously has all the power.

      The powerless and terrified are summoned to hear the powerful speak.

      We are always ruled by priest or warriors, or something of both. Always have been, always will be. The black guy is acting like a ruler. The super rich are acting like the ruled.

      • Adam says:

        I can’t imagine it’s some random thug walking in and talking shit. Sounds like the guy is there on the board members terms. He is performing for them. They are debasing themselves for some reason. Demon worship or something. That’s what it sounds like.

        • jim says:

          That is not what it sounds like. Sounds like he summoned them to listen, they did not summon him to speak.

          If they summoned him to speak, he would speak very differently.

          • Kunning Druegger says:

            This. While these diversity consultants are almost always midwit mudskins with power point, they are held in extremely high regard by their clients. I can attest to this personally and across a number of fields relevant. They are treated with kid gloves, constantly bathed in praise and goodies. And, in my experience, they know full well that they are doing what they do for holy reasons. They laugh about lambasting the wealthy to their faces, crying about muh poverty while indulging in the largesse of their masochistic patrons.

            • Pax Imperialis says:

              Sounds like an easy life. Good pay, minimal work, social status. Sounds like diversity consultant is a pretty nice career if morals aren’t an issue. The behavior you are describing also sounds like self awareness… quite the opposite of midwittery.

              One can sell crack on the streets and risk death, or sell cultural crack in a nice air conditioned office. Are you sure they are midwits and not just simply smart crooks?

              • Kunning Druegger says:

                It’s a valid question. Bear in mind that I am a midwit, and I have loads of self-awareness. The reason I am a midwit is that my grasp is wide and shallow. There are very few things I actually deeply understand. So, I can speak in a way that punches way above my weight. I can sell an idea or corrupt a concept with ease, but I can’t actually implement anything without other, smarter, more capable people doing the real thinking and work.

                The diversity consultants I have come into contact with are people who put in a few years in HR or some other department then “started” their “own” “company” with magic sky money that magically appeared. They put together power points and training courses, then go on tour with a canned speech that just bukkakes stats, numbers, and facts all over C-Suite faces. They then buy the program and feed their employees through it. Then a new consultant comes along a couple years later and the process repeats.

                There’s nothing really complicated, elegant, or mysterious about all this. It’s the travelling preacher/evangelist model from the Big Tent Revival era of American history. There may be some true geniuses behind it, but I doubt it. The whole system is predicated on resonant guilt from decades of education and acculturation. Keep in mind, the C Suite is not what it once was, so the marks aren’t that hard to hit.

          • Javier says:

            he was there because they paid him to be, at their invitation. They did it because all the other foundations were doing the same thing. rich people are not immune to fads or memes.

            • Dharmicreality says:

              Of course the rich pay their Tithe to the state priest. The state priest does not act like he’s obliged by the money but treats it as his rightful due and treats the donor with contempt nonetheless.

            • Neurotoxin says:

              “They did it because all the other foundations were doing the same thing.”

              They did it so that when an “activist” with a video camera, or a lawyer from the Labor Department, asks them, “What are you doing to fight racism in your organization?” they have something holy to say. It’s defensive.

        • jim says:

          > I can’t imagine it’s some random thug walking in and talking shit.

          Of course it is not. It someone high in the priestly hierarchy.

      • Pete says:

        There’s a bit of displaced hatred going on there, I think. The rich fancy whites despise prole whites and believe they are racist.

        The nigger is brought in to rant about whites in general, but the rich whites are sitting there thinking “He’s talking about those rural prole MAGA whites, not about me. I’M one of the good ones!”

        The rich whites have done so many awful things to prole whites: Dismantled their towns and sent their jobs overseas, flooded their communities with niggers and opioids to kill them off, stolen their retirement funds with inflation and Wall Street casino schemes, placed pedophile teachers in their schools to troon out and rape their kids just to name a few.

        If the rich whites allowed themselves to feel all of the shame and guilt for doing these things, they would eat a bullet in a heartbeat. To keep the self-loathing at bay, they have to displace all of that rage and hatred ONTO to the prole whites.

        Thus they impute prole whites with all kinds of horrible qualities including racism. They have to BELIEVE we are evil, so that in their minds we deserve all the things the rich whites did to us.

        • jim says:

          > The nigger is brought in to rant about whites in general, but the rich whites are sitting there thinking “He’s talking about those rural prole MAGA whites, not about me. I’M one of the good ones!”

          Not what I am seeing. I see the priesthood summoning the rich and powerless to repentance.

          I don’t have contact with the very rich, but I have some contact with the rich, and they live in fear and shame. I see people vastly wealthier than I fleeing power as I have fled power.

          If the diversity trainer was summoned by the rich and powerful to speak, he would be telling them how enlightened they are, at that they should be crushing those other horrid whites who are much less enlightened than their enlightened selves.

          Instead it sounds like “Bow before Zod. If I am sufficiently pleased by your grovelling, then when you get sent to the death camp for whites I might make your death mercifully swift.” Sounds like the diversity trainer summoned them to listen.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      >-In 1934, General Smedley Butler testified he was approached by the Trust to lead a military coup against FDR. (aka the Business Plot).

      I file this under the ‘The Holocaust Didn’t Happen But It Should Have’ column.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      I once observed a discussion between a fednat and some humans online, where the fednat declaimed that there is no pretense of “egalitarianism” or “demotism” or indeed anything but a highly technical redefinition of the word “democracy” (meaning “our regime”) in the current system, which immediately struck me as involving overly (purposefully) tendentious redefinitions of all of these words involved in this context, and not just ‘democracy’.

      Of course there is very much a *pretense* of egalitarianism in the current system; the language that is used for expressing moral superiority in popular discourse today is predicated on the most banal implementations of equality possible.

      Now, the idea that we already in fact have ‘fully automated luxury feudalism’ ironically is also an idea of namefag yarvin’s, and his thinking is if we can just convince the current elite to openly acknowledge what he thinks it already is, things will be much better. This in certain ways is simply a restatement of his old formalism argument, that was perhaps better expressed under his old persona as moldbug, before he became a namefag. The idea that in any case, open and explicit power functions better than occulted and disingenuous power. There is a kernel of truth to this idea.

      Yarvin is a born member of the bluetribe, and it is bluetribe that rules, and his message is primarily directed towards bluetribe, and is primarily tailored to flatter bluetribe sensibilities. He, basically, thinks he can meme them into becoming what he wishes them to be.

      The problem is i think he’s substantially wrong, in a way that may even prove lethal (though time will tell on that front), because *there is no coordination in them that could make such a happenstance possible*. That even if some certain persons in elite positions of influence were receptive to his idea of declaring themselves the new official nobility, *there is no possibility of ‘the ruling class’ as a whole being capable of doing this*, and the reason is simple: they are trapped in an unholiness spiral. It is baked into their very political formula to always contend with unholiness spirals. Everywhere you look, the less unholy are getting purged and replaced by the more unholy.

      The ‘cynically amoral consequentialist’ wing of the party wants to keep the graft rolling, using unprincipled exceptions to tamp down any excessive radicalism that threatens to kill the golden gooses they corner the privilege of sucking blood out of – we can speak of this as the default mode of the old ‘liberal order’ that predominated over the 20th century in the occident. But they are all old and dying now, and their replacements are true believers who didn’t get the joke – that which went without saying, now goes without thinking. The same ideological weapons the old grifters used to rationalize their taking of status, power, and or wealth, in terms of ‘equalitarianism’, has been and is increasingly being used against them in turn. Any unprincipled exceptions to the regressive faith anywhere, are scrupulously and assiduously burned out by the faithful jihadis.

      Perhaps some critical mass may be reached at some point and old curt may get his way after all, in a manner of fashion; perhaps after enough ruin, enough purgings, a rump of the grifters get together, see the writing on the wall, and if for no other reason than self-preservation, select for themselves a stalin to rally around.

      I don’t this particular chain of events is exceedingly likely – it is likely that as the process of woke jihad accelerates, one or more of the smoldering brushfires being set alight will explode and cause things to break in unexpected ways, and total victory will go to whatever party can adapt to the new normal the fastest – but that’s just one reason why im actually rather sanguine about the future; there are a lot of ways things can go, and i in fact rather like most of them.

    • Ted says:

      The ruling elite obfuscate their money in a decentralized web of foundations, funds, and trusts each run by family members where there is no single point of failure resulting in secret billionaires that do not show up in the Wealthiest Forbes list. See the Clinton Foundation, a multi-billion dollar foundation.

      • jim says:

        The people you are pointing at as the ruling elite look terrified and terrorized.

        Take the shill test.

        The Clintons are not powerful because the Clinton foundation has money. The Clinton foundation has money because the Clintons are powerful.

        The story about an invisible super rich ruling class inevitably winds up pointing at the kulak with two cows. Supposedly he has those cows because Power assigned him those cows. So we should fight the power by killing those cows.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          Ted attacks TC for no real reason.

          Adam starts bleeding red all over the comments section whinging about muh capitalists, then goes further and asserts that Progressive States generate better workers.

          Javier posts a mile long text asserting there’s a conspiracy of monied gentiles pulling all the strings, advancing all the plots, and running the show. Adam and Ted show up and support the assertion.

          All of this under a massive effort post demonstrating what’s going on with capitalism, both real and fake. Just laying it out as I see it. A conspiracy need not be coordinated, it can just be.

          • Red says:

            > A conspiracy need not be coordinated, it can just be.

            It’s pretty standard shill tactics. The same poster pretending to be multiple people or working with other shills come together to support their payloads. Adam might well be Glowie Pooch 2.0. He’s got the same sort of back down and agree with your position after you call him out for Marxism that Glowie Pooch was doing.

            I watched shills tactics evolve on reddit and using multiple identities pushing payloads in blocks of comments is still the gold standard. Normies and midwits have a hard time believing they’re all one person but to me it seemed like the same using the same database to post from.

          • Adam says:

            I got on Pooch’s case same as everyone else. He was out of line.

            Profit is a powerful and necessary incentive. It needs to be respected. And competition brings out the best and the worst of people. Take for instance auto racing. Highly competitive. Everyone agrees on the rules before a race. If they didn’t it would be unstable, capital investment would be minimal, and they would not attract the best drivers (labor).

            I was ignorant of a few things in my initial line of questioning, I appreciate the comments and those that corrected me. I stand by what I said about blue and red states and I do not entirely understand it. Both myself and my employer are from blue states now living in a red state. We both share this opinion and it is an opinion that is widespread here, at least as far as small businesses go.

            Jim is free to moderate me but I will not pursue this line of questioning any further. Others are making the same points better than I was.

            • jim says:

              Your questions were legitimate, reasonable, and appropriate. We need to discuss the prog anticapitalist arguments from time to time.

              Obviously dumping has to be regulated, but anything that obviously has to be regulated tends to result in a horde of lawyers looking for deep pockets, and a horde of bureaucrats looking for lawless and unaccountable power, and these lawyers and bureaucrats are apt to create the problems that they claim to be solving.

              To the extent that regulation attempts to prevent people from doing obviously bad things in advance, tends to be counterproductive because it is frequently difficult for outsiders to know what was “obviously” a bad thing until after the dust settles. In such situations, hanging those who willfully caused harm, when they knew or should have known that their actions were likely to illegitimately cause harm, after the harm becomes apparent, is likely to be more effective and less disruptive.

              I think the jab was deliberately engineered to cause harm as an effort to reduce population, especially white population, but whether deliberate or negligent, they should have known it was likely to cause harm, so they all should hang.

              Which of course means that most of the medical authorities involved in regulating medications and vaccines should hang, so this is also a deregulatory measure.

    • EH says:

      Who really controls transnational corporations? For a quantitative study, see: “The Network of Global Corporate Control” by Vitali, Glattfelder & Battiston in PLOS October 26, 2011


      The structure of the control network of transnational corporations affects global market competition and financial stability. So far, only small national samples were studied and there was no appropriate methodology to assess control globally. We present the first investigation of the architecture of the international ownership network, along with the computation of the control held by each global player. We find that transnational corporations form a giant bow-tie structure and that a large portion of control flows to a small tightly-knit core of financial institutions. This core can be seen as an economic “super-entity” that raises new important issues both for researchers and policy makers.


      The real meat of it is buried on p. 17 of appendix S1, which lists the 50 financial institutions with the top share of control. #1 is Barclays, with over 4.07%. (Barclays was formed around 1900 from a merger of the Quaker banking cartel. Lloyd’s, the other Quaker bank on the list, has 0.51%, for a Quaker total of 4.56%)

      [Quakers no longer have much control of these firms. Quakers were also the origin of more of poz than can be covered here. (More innovations and industry, too.) Their numbers were always extremely small, around 20-30k in Britain and up to about double that in the US. They were formerly endogamous and exclusive, but the vast majority today are common progressives that “converted”, many brought in by automatic draft exemptions. They are only nominally Christian, less so than even the Unitarians.]

      The rest are listed as cumulative share, so you have to put it in a spreadsheet to figure out how much control is attributable to each one, but #2, Capital Group, has 2.6%; #6, J.P. Morgan Chase, has 1.5%; #18, Goldman Sachs, has 0.66%.

      Cumulatively, France has 4.19% slightly more than the Quaker banks.
      Non-Quaker British firms have 3.7%.
      Swiss firms have 2.03%, less than half of Barclays by itself.

      US firms have 20.73%, and all 50 firms on the list have 39.78%.

  18. Anon says:

    Elon Musk closed the deal and acquired twitter
    CEO paraj agrawal
    CFO ned segal
    vijaya gadd chief content moderator head of legal, policy, trust and saftey at twitter
    all fired and escorted out of headquarter.
    Trump twitter to be restored monday.

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      Things seem to be happening. The backlash/response should be interesting.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        The annals of history are full of scenarios where, a number seemingly unrelated events, because they just happened to happen concurrently, end up radically exacerbating each other’s effects.

        Empirically, we can often find the pattern where an evil priesthood can handle one Current Thing at a time, and at times even handle shifting from one Current Thing to another with rapidiousness, but any more than that can threaten to cause the wheels to fall off the bus. It is not just that the Megaphoning loses volume on account of divided focus, but that the very structure of that megaphoning, the very foundation of its power as a ruling priesthood, becomes cracked up, on account of that very dividedness.

        Black Yeezus died for the sins of clownworld, the chains of memetic ensorcelment that gagged them blown open through no virtue of their own, a gift of His beneficence, a conduit for the hand of Providence; and God willing, he will rise again.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          The New Triumvirate: Musk, West, Trump

          Their powers combined can raise the power level from 109 to unparalleled heights

          • Starman says:

            @Kunning Druegger

            “The New Triumvirate: Musk, West, Trump

            Their powers combined can raise the power level from 109 to unparalleled heights”

            When the present ruling class is “agreement not capable,” then opportunity presents itself to ambitious outsider elites within, and abroad.

    • Anon says:

      * trump twitter restoration seem to be fake

  19. The Cominator says:

    What’s the redpill on the supposed diesel shortage?

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      Redpill? Diesel primarily comes from Russia, and the Occident is no longer buying from Russia, so diesel and DEF (which is ~70% urea, another Made in Mother Russia commodity not being bought; DEF is needed for most/all domestic diesel engines after 2010 or -12, IIRC) are being horded to keep USG mobile and exacerbate domestic logistical discontinuity.

      This may be the Hard Left stepping on the Unrest Accelerator with the goal of a “hostile takeover” following some sort of false flag… and that statement has a good bit of tinfoil and guessing. Whatever the case, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is being drained to stabilize the greater petroleum market, which to me seems like a rather transparent initiative aimed it increasing intermediate term problems. 2023 is when many of the decisions and actions of this year will actually start to bite hard, particularly in terms of crop yields.

  20. JustAnotherGuy says:

    So it turns out Jim was right, the ‘sane lunatics’ in the USG are looking for neo-nazis to join the military because they need them in the upcoming wars.

    I’m guessing the reversal on the whole nazi shtick will be ‘Aksually, it was the russians who did da holocaust’ and make shit up from there as you go.

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Top Gun Maverick was the most White Power movie since Dirty Harry. See it for yourself. I was sure it would be Rise of Shaniqua Part XXCVI, and the years-early teaser clips all showed that it would be, but the final cut is holy shit what the fuck was that. Not a Shaniqua in sight, and even the Latino fucks up at the climactic moment. All goy writing and direction.

      It confirms everything we think we know about the USM’s understanding of its own situation.

    • Red says:

      I’m not sure that’s Jim’s theory(at least I don’t recall him suggesting it), but there’s been a number of commenters who’ve suggested it. They’ve been pulling a lot of shit from the Nazi play book for years now.

      It’s odd that they’re trying to directly recruit them instead of directing them to a PMC. They’re going to need to keep them together in a single group to control them properly.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        I don’t think they’re putting together an Azov Battalion, that isn’t their style. A parallel institution would be something like New Black Panthers or neo-SLA. The Ruthenians worshipped their ancestors that fought with Hitler, so A3OB benefitted from the connection for finding zealous recruits.

        The shared evidence seems to me more of an indication that the brain drain initiated by Covid then General Gorilla Kang’s purged are creating real issues.

  21. Zach says:

    This is fascinating for how it ties into climate change, scarcity of resources (real or imagined) and virtue signalling if one hammers the nail a certain way.

  22. JustAnotherGuy says:

    Team Shaniqua drone has yet another failure, and this thing costs 70K to make. Meanwhile Iranians are cheaply manufacturing drones capable of rekting all of Ukie infrastructure.

    Would not surprise me if all that money went to check our nukes went into Team Shaniqua’s ‘I’m on break’ vacations and the second we launch them they just fizzle out or fail to launch and detonate where they were. Exciting times for cascading engineering failures.

  23. Kunning Drueger says:

    Here’s Col. Macgregor from today:

    Points of note:

    03:30 – possible coalition being sent into Ukraine by the GAE
    08:34 – 101st airborne battalion in Romania, conjecture about direct involvement by US
    11:40 – war powers resolution

    So, I may be proven wrong, and the GAE might attempt to field an army in Ukraine. I don’t think I am, I think there’s going to be a pretty dramatic shift in the US establishment regarding Ukraine. We shall see.

    Changing gears, I submit a single data point that could illustrate that I may have been correct in terms of another fundamental shift by the establishment:

    This is another step down the path of a reversal on Coronatarianism. We’ll see if it actually stands, but if it does, I believe we are then fully on the path towards a substantial opportunity for destabilization of the status quo. This is a tacit admission of lockdown and vaxx mandates being not the best idea. That is a dangerous path to tread; once questioning the holy and awesome church of Corona becomes in any way allowable/tolerable, it is only a matter of time before guilt stricken medical folks start blowing the whistle on myocarditis and Otherwise Healthy Death Syndrome.

    • Pax Imperialis says:

      I talked with a young officer recently. He is not enthusiastic about the prospect of war over something so stupid with nothing to gain. Sentiment is fairly common but suppressed.

      The antiwar democrats got crushed today in less than 24 hours since publishing a letter yesterday calling for negotiations to avoid the prospect of nuclear war.

      I had myocarditis. Not directly from the vaxx. I got J&J but it fucked up my immune system for a month enough that I caught covid shortly after. People who say myocarditis is just a mild condition have no idea how bad it can be or they are lying. It took around 7 months for me to recover and lots of pain. Was informed by a medical professional it was the equivalent of a heart attack. Self medicating with alcohol for the pain probably didn’t help, but I’ve finally stopped drinking.

      Anyways, hope you and family are doing well.

      • jim says:

        Yesterday’s offensive allegedly has substantial Nato forces.

      • Starman says:

        I never took the frankenvaxx.

      • Karl says:

        I had myocarditis. Not directly from the vaxx.

        How do you know? The are many people who were talked into taking the clot shot, got myocarditis or something comparably nasty, but keep saying that it was not directly from the vax.

        Maybe it is all in the word “directly”, but directly is not the the same as immediately.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          Too long? Skip to the last part for some humor.

          Technically the vaxx did not directly give me myocarditis… it did directly create the conditions for my body to catch covid in a weakened state likely contributing to the severity of the infection… How direct or indirect that is arguably a question of semantics, but here’s a rough outline of events.

          I set up regular medical check ups with a highly trusted and anti covid vaxx doctor for post vaxx monitoring.

          To my knowledge, myocarditis is linked to mRNA based vaccines and not adenovirus based vaccines. If you get myocarditis from a vaccine, it shows up within days. Therefore I got the adenovirus based J&J although J&J is linked to clots. I took natural blood thinners in case.

          I did not show any signs or symptoms of myocarditis after vaccination and prior to covid infection. EKG and blood testing for heart inflammation markers were conducted fairly frequently over a period of about one month. I could run 3 miles in under 20 minutes comfortably. I think it is safe to conclude I did not get myocarditis from J&J vaxx.

          I did not show any signs or symptoms of clotting… thank god

          What did happen shortly after vaccination was lymph node inflammation (semi-painful and constant) and a weakened immune system verified by blood tests.

          I caught covid while my immune system was still compromised. Considering that I was in repeated close contact with infected since late 2019 and never caught covid, I think it’s safe to conclude the weakened immune system caused by the vaxx created the vulnerability to covid.

          Within days of infection I was nearly passing out while just standing. Blood tests showed elevated levels of troponin, an enzyme that is release when heart tissue is damaged. After an echocardiogram was conducted, myocarditis was verified. The proximity between infection and myocarditis symptoms and diagnosis indicated high likelihood of direct causal effect.

          Of course the military proscribed me max dosages of the extra strength Motrin pills which, as it turns out, increase the risk of heart failure and death from myocarditis.

          • Karl says:

            I agree that you got myocarditis indirectly from J&J vaxx, but I don’t agree that if anyone gets myocarditis from the vax it shows up within days. Elevated troponin levels show up within days, which indicates inflamation somewhere, but that inflamation sometimes needs time to grow or spread to be myocarditis.

            Adenovirus increases cancer risk. Better check regularly, but it seems you are already doing medical check-ups regularly.

          • Aidan says:

            Whether the vax gave you myocarditis directly, or you got it because the vax gave you AIDS and then you caught the flu is irrelevant.

          • Red says:

            >To my knowledge, myocarditis is linked to mRNA based vaccines and not adenovirus based vaccines. If you get myocarditis from a vaccine, it shows up within days. Therefore I got the adenovirus based J&J although J&J is linked to clots. I took natural blood thinners in case.

            The quantity of spike proteins you get from J&J is much lower so there’s less damage from it. Blood clot rates with the mRNA vaxes were actually higher, but the J&J wasn’t killing enough people for the Great and Might COVID Demon which is why the J&J shot was getting shit on.

            There’s multiple types of damage from the vaxes, but most of the people who develop myocarditis end up with a direct into to the blood stream injection because the medical establishment refused to aspirate the shots. This leads to immediate heart damage. Full on myocarditis was typically triggered after heavy exercise after that heart damage.

            Myocarditis is basically heart strain. Your heart was damaged and instead of letting it rest, you continued to abuse it and myocarditis is the reaction. Hell alcoholism is a basically heart abuse, making it bad combo along with COVID and a clot shot. I’m glad you survived, you’re a lucky man. I met a girl who was dying of congestive heart failure after catching COVID and then taking 2 mRNA shots.

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        Hey Pax

        I am so happy to hear you are working on your chemical intake. It is not trivial, and the fact that you had the courage to address it speaks volumes about your character.

        I was going to make a new comment about this, but the topic is ugly and emasculating, in some sense, so I’ll keep it buried here. Please feel no need to respond.

        I am an addict. I’ve been clean for longer than long, or at least it feels that way. But that’s also a lie, because, every few months or longer, I’ll take 5 or 6 airplane bottles to the face and chop wood naked. I let a demon into my heart, and I will be forever bent by that badness. But I have so many reasons to keep fighting to be my better self.

        It’s disgustingly easy to walk down a path from which there is no true return. Many, maybe most addicts, fall into the evil unintentionally. I went looking for evil, and I found it. So now I live in a perpetual state of warfare between mind, body, and soul. That’s the cross I took up.

        I genuinely hope this emotion charged post has no bearing on your situation and this all sounds like pointless babble. But if it does resonate, I want to impress upon you that being clean and healthy is a campaign that lasts forever. Each battle is the most important moment of your life, and when it is over, it means nothing. If you fuck up, it doesn’t matter. If you win, it doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters is increasing the number of days between the last time you fucked up and the next time you fuck up. If God is kind and good, and we know He is, you can put that Next Fuck Up past the point you die.

        Be well, dude.

  24. Aryaman says:

    It is hard for a man who insists on making money, unlike one happy with losing it, to cause harm to other people (at least where the government is not involved).

    If I am willing to lose money, I can open up shop next to an enemy, and sell at below my cost, driving him out of business. If I am willing to lose money, I can buy up coal power plants and shutter them, driving up costs for my customers. If I am willing to lose money and do not like you, I can offer to buy a company you are short for far more than it is worth.

    The Michael Bloomberg willing to lose money is hell of a lot scarier than the one ruthless to make it. The Bill Gates happy to lose money is a hell of a lot scarier than the one ruthlessly selling a better operating system to my and my friend’s benefit.

    I just cannot do any of you harm if I insist on making money.

    • jim says:

      If you can do harm to people and get away with it, obviously you can make money by shaking them down. But that is the province of priests and warriors. Warriors because they can easily do enormous harm, priests because they can concoct clever rationales for doing harm – for example we must sacrifice people to the demons, or else there will be climate change and the oceans will rise. But you can be excused from sacrifice, if you just purchase some carbon indulgences credits to expiate your sins against Gaia.

      The evil warrior is a mobile bandit, the evil priest a demon worshiper. The evil capitalist, what is he doing?

      Well, he could be overpromising and underdelivering, and we see plenty of that, but as evil goes, rather harmless and forgivable.

      Well, what about the snake oil salesman, selling dangerous remedies for trivial or imaginary ailments? That, however, is in practice the province of priests, as for example Fauci. One might well say Fauci is a priest capitalist, but obviously his priesting is primary, and his capitalism is secondary. Is the man selling indulgences a capitalist? Hardly. And those who sell vaccines daily look less and less like capitalists.

      • Nikolai says:

        “The evil capitalist, what is he doing?”

        Drug dealers getting working class whites addicted to opioids, heroin, fentanyl etc. Pornographers warping the sexuality of an entire generation of boys. Banks and payday loan places giving usurious loans to people who usually barely understand how interest rates work.

        • Aryaman says:

          Absolutely one pays for porn, no one clicks on the inane advertising that appears around porn, or in the rare event they do, certainly do not buy the inane products being marketed. And despite the fact that no one pays for it, porn accounts for more web traffic than every streaming service combined, many of which themselves do not really make money. And despite the fact that plenty already exists, new porn continues to be made.

          So it is pretty clear some one is losing one hell of a lot of money in the bargain, paying one hell of a lot to make sure all that porn is readily available. That is not evil capitalists at work. You would lose every cent if you tried entering the business yourself, unless you knew tax-exempt NGOs with massive endowments willing to pay you. In which case, not capitalism.

          • jim says:

            Porn is pushed to obliterate knowledge of the mating dance. New porn appears because old porn becomes politically incorrect due to the constantly changing re-invention of how humans are supposed to mate. Thus, for example, porn featuring old women, because we are supposed to find old women sexually attractive. Supposedly they are in high demand.

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              Porn is ordinance in the culture war. As “technology” advances, new ammo is constructed. While it may seem like a loss, or profitless industry, that is due to looking at it the wrong way. It is not a waste for a bullet or missile producer when the bullets are fired or missiles launched. Depending on the target and, more critically, effect on target, the efficacy/utility can be gaged.

              One can only assess whether a bullet was wasted ex post facto, and even then, hard to tell. If I mag dump and only one bullet hits you, did I waste the other 28? If you die and I don’t, I’d be inclined to say no. As well, the concept of suppressing fire complicates utility as well. If I “waste” a belt keeping your head down, and Wulf slits your throat while you hide from my firing, was the ammo wasted?

              The jews running the porn industry are laying down massive suppressing fire in the culture war. Their goal is not to make money, it is to desensitize teens, manipulate the Overton Window, and, as Jim put it in a way I’d never considered but now seems obvious, obscure the mating dance. A side “benefit” for them is that virgins get defiled and men lose confidence and self respect.

              In thinking about this, something occurred to me that I’ve struggled with before, namely… whores. Whoremongery and pornography are not the same, even though they both involve sluts and decisions. I personally think porn is an insidious evil, but that’s my own personal struggle and failing speaking. I have never had an issue getting laid once I figured out how to properly engage women, but Anglin* put it really well in a post from last week: having the whores be out there, somewhere, plying their wares, is a wonderful security blanket for men to have, even if they don’t use it/need it. Porn does not, and cannot, perform the same function.

              *speaking of St. Anglin, is Daily Stormer down again? Is it at a new address? I can’t seem to hit it. halp pls frens

              • Mr.P says:

                St. Andrew moved. New domain is:

                Not able to access the previous domain for days, I went to his articles at Unz and, sure enough, St. Andrew mentioned his previous domain was attacked and taken offline.

                FYI: h t t p s : // www . unz . com/author/andrew-anglin/

                • f6187 says:

                  Yes, and you can follow Andrew on Gab as well. He has a funny graphic showing the entire history of domain names he’s had to cycle through.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Thanks MP. Every day I wake up nervous that this place or that place will be gone.

        • The Cominator says:

          The drug dealer problem is given that women love independent criminal men with money drug dealers seem cool badass sexy and attractive to women which also makes hard drugs seem cool to women. I do not believe its within the power of a government less powerful than Mao to really stop a drug problem once embedded what you can do is make them less cool and perhaps other less harmful drugs more cool.

          So legalizing drugs (therefore putting all drug dealers other than the pharmacy out of business) would ironically do very much to end the drug problem. I would also have our media portray hard drug use as very unsexy while perhaps rehabilitating the far less harmful drug that we used to be okay with tobacco (not vaping which doesn’t seem to control weight nearly as well).

          • Kunning Druegger says:

            I agree on this one, as much as I cannot stand the “legalize it, maaan” crowd. In my mind, the best solution is cultural. Certain enforcement mechanisms can help, but even China has drug problems. Suicide and addiction are perennial problems in modernity. We are not evolved for the environment we inhabit. I heard somewhere (so take with salt) that high powered alcohol, as in beer over 3-5% ABV, wine over 14% ABV, and spirits over ~30% ABV, are quite modern “achievements” of production and chemistry, so our gut flora and neurons are still adapting to the situation.

            • The Cominator says:

              What do you mean by modern, beer in the middle ages (I’m a non drinker fyi) had much higher alcohol content than modern beer.

              As far as good alcohol… I have bad family history and I don’t like the taste of beer or wine but wine seems generally more prosocial than either beer or hard liquor. But not drinking bottles of it alone like a suburban Karen or my mother did…

              • Aidan says:

                Beer in the Middle Ages was generally weaker than modern beer, and hard liquor did not exist until the 17th century or so. You solve a drug problem by making drugs uncool, and you make drugs uncool by allowing normal men to beat, harass, and make fun of junkies. Making drug dealers subject to violence makes them unattractive to women.

                And this is not said without sympathy for the men ensnared by addiction.

                • ten says:

                  big true.

                  Using tax money to prevent people from having fun/ruining themselves as they please is retarded, doesn’t work and makes drugs cool. People should be allowed to abuse junkies and junkies should be allowed to junk as long as they dont bother anyone.

                • jim says:

                  Same system for faggots, pimps, and whores. State attention makes an activity cool and high status. Getting beaten up arbitrarily with impunity because you are participating in that activity makes it uncool and low status. Recollect Putin’s wonderful approach to dealing with Pussy Riot.

                  Reflect on the comic book “The fabulous furry freak brothers”. They are way cool because the state is vigorously but unsuccessfully trying to suppress their self destructive drug use “drugs will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no drugs”. Which repression just Streisands them.

                  And giving them free needles and housing also Streisands them.

                  Vices should be ignored by state and Church, and when people practicing vices get up the noses of respectable people, state and church should not much worry what happens to them.

                • Hesiod says:

                  Apologies for the fetid source, but compare and contrast Russia’s treatment of blasphemous thots with the EU’s:


                  Desecration is “freedom of expression”, dontchaknow.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Whores belong in the red light district. If they ply their trade outside the red light district subject to violence, if you try to rough one up inside the red light district the brothel owners thugs can subject you to violence.

                  Hard drug use should depending on the drug be looked at far far worse than whoring. Weed though its not physically dangerous needs to be made very very uncool again… as it makes people stupid and more emotional and less logical.

          • Your Uncle Bob says:

            “legalizing drugs (therefore putting all drug dealers other than the pharmacy out of business) would ironically do very much to end the drug problem”

            Case study: Oregon. Full legalization of marijuana some time ago, de facto legalization of hard drugs more recently.

            Homelessness is up. Mental illness is up. Petty and not so petty crime is up. Gangs and drug dealers aren’t out of business, and aren’t any safer to be around.

            It’s not so hard to understand why. Meth and fentanyl were never good for you to begin with, and with a bad batch it only takes one dose to do permanent brain damage, equivalent to mental illness to a user.

            Aging ex-hippy boomers who lived high on marijuana and tried some acid on the side still trot out the line that it didn’t do them any harm, kids these days just need to get clean, handle their shit and fly right. But many of our obvious crazies and homeless are broken even when they’re clean and sober. Drug-induced mental illness is a major thing. So now we’ve got the one hit kills percentage, in a legal and somewhat socially acceptable environment, and the promised reduction in actual drug use has never actually materialized either. So it’s not even that we’ve traded some breakage of the weak for less drug use overall, we’ve just got more breakage and more drug use.

            As a recovering former libertarian (I know, I’m not proud of it) I’m very well familiar with the arguments for legalization. But the promise hasn’t materialized. If your model predicts one thing and reality delivers the opposite, there’s a problem with your model.

            • The Cominator says:

              Blue state drug decrimilization isn’t legalization pre progressive Era style its anarchy style.

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                Cocaine was legal in America in the early 20th century. So were many other drugs. It didn’t cause too much of a problem. Partly because addicts were permanently dealt with by the authorities when they committed crimes. Partly because nature took care of the rest. To put it simply, we tolerated the drug use but not the behavior that came with it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

                Modern America, before legalization, was the opposite. We tolerated the associated behaviors, but not the drugs.

                What we see today is the worst of both worlds. We tolerate both the drugs and the associated behaviors. In some states we even promote both.

                • Adam says:

                  A hundred years ago a lot more people had hope. The feminization and emasculation of men today hits everyone hard. The general sense of demoralization is everywhere. People are trying to escape things today that didn’t exist as much back then.

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              This is a salient point. Needle exchanges increase disease transfer, decriminalization increases criminality, and bail reform increases violent crime. This is to be expected, as the people proffering these “common sense” alternatives have a single goal: tip apple carts, collect apples. They could not possibly care less about demonstrating causality, and if there policy advice had not culminated in more chaos and death, they would have moved onto something that would have.

              On the technical side, when we look at the decriminalization/legalization initiatives and policies, we do not see extant, for profit companies selling drugs and paraphernalia, we see ad hoc, pretend companies appearing out of nowhere that do nothing but specialize in the drugs and accoutrements. These “companies” are helmed by people tied directly to the policy and lobby folks that made the scenario possible. So what we are seeing is demon worshippers helping their fellow satanics establish brick & mortar demon vestibules.

              The situation would be substantially different if it went like this: “OK, no more rules about chemicals being sold. Also, no more rules on tools being sold. Any company is free to sell whatever chemicals and tools they’d like to provide. Cops will be enforcing all laws on the books, no exceptions based on geography, melanin, or financial status. Caveat Emptor you filthy niggers.” Certain companies would absolutely move into the “addictives” space, and pretty soon you’d have single use, micro-dose dispensers, buzz warranties, brand evangelists, and all manner of side lines involved with the commoditization of chemicals and accessories. But it would pale in comparison to coolants, lubricants, and tons of other chemicals heavily regulated by government oversight. And the addictives businesses would work overtime to get as close to non-lethal products as scientifically possible. They would want to retain customers as long as possible, and keep them gainfully employed to keep revenue pouring in. We would see a completely different situation if it was purely “OK, no more arbitrary regulation based on Nanny Karen reasons, just law enforcement regarding theft and violence.” The winnowing period would be wild (Wulfy, Aidan, and I would become millionaires in short order hunting violent thugs), but soon you’d have lifelong addicts shunted into cash-for-smash arrangements as free market forces started to bite.

              I wrote it elsewhere, but it bears repeating: addiction and suicide were not problems invented by the Cathedral, they are issues endemic to modernity. Limiting guns won’t eliminate suicide, and limiting drugs won’t eliminate addiction. Better to let the smart profit and the user be served to the greatest extent. Curtailing excessive risk taking requires two things to be effective: alternative activities to provide venues for risk taking, and cultural instruction to mitigate excessive risk taking.

              • zero says:

                There is an interesting time to the apple carts with drugs. When Colorado legalized marijuana all the niggers and spics went broke and fat pothead whites made good businesses selling pot legally. Then the media got pissed about gentrification of drug sales, I have some conclusions from my life and jimian wisdom.. 1. Niggers and spics are shit drug dealers, they just are immune to the law. 2. It isn’t about any one issue like liberty, it’s always about apple carts, first people’s morals and old laws, then the dregg whites profitable businesses selling dope. 3. Leftism is just pure entropy and evil that would wipe this planet into microbial goop and raw rock if it could, their first principle is envy. They don’t practice eugenics, they rape the beautiful. 4. All leftists have two corrupt desires, to hurt others and make their lives as shit as possible, and to steal everything by bribing the mob with the smallest share possible.
                It would be interesting to compare #4 to pathogens and parasites because they ultimately kill themselves and make the surviving host species stronger if it survived. Hopefully we get a meta Caeser that saves this civilization without us having to go through the butchery process before we figure shit out.

            • Jehu says:

              2020s America isn’t functional enough to do the ideal solution, make drug use technically legal but extremely low status, like it was during the days before the proliferation of 3 letter agencies. When it was the ‘secret shame’, or associated with broken down and discarded soldiers with war injuries.

              • The Cominator says:

                Look around you… it’s clearly not functional enough to ban drugs effectively either.

                • Red says:

                  Arresting people for using drugs is useful for getting criminal scum off the street. It was always a compermise to get around the Warren court’s destruction of the criminal justice system.

                  Having had lots of experience with drug users now, I say anyone non functional who’s using drugs and drug dealers should be executed. People who order their drugs online and don’t cause any problems are fine.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hacks where you bust people for a victimless crime because you can’t prosecute the real crime anymore.. it always creates more problems than it solves long term.

                  It’s like when beta tradcons agreed to all sorts of feminist demands for expanded rape definitions statutory rape enforcement etc in the vain hopes they could get their daughter into an arranged marriage and generally after college no less… this makes women all the more attracted to totally antisocial men.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          Addictive substances are self-solving problems. Organizations screening out addicts improves society as a whole. Compare and contrast, for example, the differing experiences of europoids with alcohol, and amerindians with alcohol.

          People greatly underestimate the impact of someone with a high status platform simply pronouncing their opinion about something; which is ironic, considering that they live in a world that is ruled by the impact of pronouncements from high status platforms. If there is some matter of some concern, the ruling lord of the demesne and his preachers can simply make his judgement on the matter known, and popular discourse will line up behind it.

          Bureaucratization’s main precis is removal of skin in the game; any situation where people with power to make decisions about something, are not also the same people who pay when that something goes badly. One may note this describes the broad mass of regulatory intrusiveness.

          The reunification of power and responsibility is a special case of the rectification of names, and perhaps the most pertinent facet of formalism. It is naturally the necessary precondition of possibility for good management of anything; and in particular, for knowing whose heads need to go on the chopping blocks in case of maleficence, pour encourager les autres.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            Addictive substances were a self-solving problem in the past. Back when misbehavior was punished and addicts left to die.

            That isn’t what’s happening anymore. Addiction and inability to function is effectively subsidized by the government via all sorts of free handouts and petty crime is ignored. Vagrants are left to terrorize the streets whereas in the past they would have been institutionalized in work camps or asylums.

            When addiction and bad behavior is subsidized, you get more of it.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              Of course; i don’t recall anywhere in this post where i advocated subsidizing addictive substances though. Looks to me like i was implying ust the opposite; the voice to power sending the message that it is low status execrable behavior that low status execrable people engage in. If you read a contrary impression out of the text, pointing out where would be appreciable.

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                Not saying you’re wrong.

                You’re not advocating for subsidizing it. You are making statements whose truthfulness are highly dependent on context…

                If the context is a contemporary one, it’s not a problem. It’s an a priori that doesn’t need be stated. If it’s more esoteric, you’re going to lose people before the logic can even be stated.

                You’re statement on addictive substances won’t fly well with most people because the circumstances in which it’s true are only understood by say really, really old school pre-FDR Americans, and maybe some libertarians.

                So you’re shooting your own argument in the foot before you get to the real message that you are communicating.

                Don’t know if I’m coming off as caustic or autistic about this, but I often make statements like yours and get burnt for it.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  It kind of came off that way, i felt like you were simply wanting to add to the discussion and just worded things in an impolitic way.

                  If i stated ‘addictive substances are a self-solving problem’ and left it at that, that could indeed leave room for misunderstanding. The implied context is pretty clearly spelled out by subsequent statements though.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  The conventional method of long form writing is to state a thesis up front and then backfill explication.

                  Of course i rarely follow this convention myself, as i often find it more artful to slowly draw a reader in through spirals of initiation into deeper conclusions, but it’s not wrong to follow the convention either. Indeed, there can be an art in opening fire with something punchy up front as well.

                • Kunning Drueger says:



                  POV: KD being drawn through one of St. John’s “spirals”

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              We are entering the Mommy Republican era. It will become quite common for some “boss bitch” with conservative characteristics to ascend, with thousands of rabid male supporters who should be carrying the triform banner of throne|altar|freehold. After decades of Lindsay Graham faggots, Marco Rubio cucks, and Dan Crenshaw kikolds, the regular conservative craves legitimacy, and will do anything to get it. This means they will ignore the long term lunacy of tasking a female with a return to tradition. The best modern, mainstream conservatism can offer, or tolerate for that matter, are the likes of Kari Lake, Giorgia Meloni, and Lauren Boebert.

              As these mommies begin to invest the political offices to which they aspire, their maternal instincts will overwhelm and political theory or practical aspiration they may, but most likely do not actually, have. So long as they are not under the moon, not challenged by a superior intellect, and not in the pheromone cloud of an alpha male, they may be able to get something done. But at the bare minimum, 12 times a year, they will be reckless, shortsighted, vengeful, and mindless. The best we can hope for is that their maternal instinct is in some small way informed by practical experience, but this is in no way certain, and the best example is drug use by children.

              If you spend any time listening to Lake’s positions on drugs, you see this “maternal fallback” appear. Her goslings are in danger, and she is going to spread her wings and charge at whatever her little walnut brain perceives as the closest threat. She will tie herself to the cement ship of an idea that guarding the border better will in some way reduce fentanyl addiction, and she will be broken on this dumb position.

              Dig into any mommie conservative, and you will find this insultingly simple reasoning and strategic planning. On the campaign trail they can be guided, coached, and dolled up to seem like independent actors with agency and intellect. Once they take power (ha ha) their true nature will shine through, and it will be a comedy of unforced errors and lady-brain moments. Drug policy is, IMO, the easiest place to see this, but it shouldn’t be too hard to see it elsewhere, like Meloni’s pro-UKR/anti-Globalist positions.

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              Check out this politi-porn site with 15 conservative mommies you simply must be familiar with!


      • Adam says:

        What about businesses that knowingly endanger the public? Not that it happens often, but it happens. DuPont got in a lot of trouble for knowingly dumping chemicals in the ground that caused thousands of cases of cancer, birth defects, all kinds of stuff. Killed some workers. Covered it up for decades. Not for lifesaving products or anything but for Teflon manufacturing. Profits on non stick cookware. DuPont also does a lot of good obviously. Lots of jobs for lots of people.

        Also things like the vaccine, and things like the opioid epidemic that all started with OxyContin. And tobacco companies with undisclosed additives that increase physical dependency, and the company’s knowingly going to great lengths to hide that information from the public.

        Even things like putting untrained guys on dangerous equipment. Seen guys do it many many times. Same with putting guys on faulty equipment.

        The love of money and material wealth, greed etc. is not something I really understand. Never appealed that much to me. Some guys it really motivates. And some guys have no trouble risking your life for money, or to save face or to keep up with the Jones’s or whatever.

        If I put an untrained guy on a table saw, or a trained guy on a table saw that is faulty, I think I should be held accountable if something goes wrong.

        A lot of these things are pretty rare, but they happen all the same. Certainly a King or a virtuous elite should hold its merchants accountable. It would serve them well I would think. You wouldn’t want to give socialists and other entryists something legitimate to work with.

        • jim says:

          The love canal business was fictional.

          What happened was that the material was buried, and sealed with a layer of bentonite clay. Then the government acquired the land by force, and idiots dug it up.

          Sued because world not safe for idiots in government. DuPont was acting properly and correctly. Buried the stuff safely on its own land.

          • Adam says:

            Every cabinet shop in Florida has to follow certain procedures for disposing of waste chemicals like paint, stain, laquer etc. and they are required to hire a chemical company to pick it up and dispose of it. The chemicals are really nasty, mess up your skin, toxic to inhale, probably kill you if you ingested it. Many mix up the waste with sawdust and put it in the dumpster to go to the landfill. Not sure if it ever impacts the drinking water.

            It’s not terribly expensive to pay a company to dispose of it. I would guess a few thousand dollars a year. Some shops pay it. I know the weight of progressivism is killing business, and I’m sympathetic to shop owners. I plan to own my own shop one day.

            I think it’s safe to say if it’s happening on a small scale with small businesses, it’s happening on a large scale with large businesses. I think people should be held accountable for it too. I don’t think the EPA is the answer. But I get why they exist.

            • jim says:

              The toxic waste issue has been politicized as a bludgeon for lawyers and bureaucrats to shake down capitalists.

              Harmless materials such as sodium sulphate are deemed toxic waste if they occur in circumstances that the government deems evil – which is to say, in the vicinity of deep pockets, and genuinely harmful materials, like sulfur dioxide, are deemed three thousand times as dangerous in the vicinity of deep pockets than far away from deep pockets.

              Strangely, no materials associated with vaccines are ever dangerous, even if they are deemed dangerous in association with some different deep pockets.

              • Adam says:

                I agree. But there is a price to pay for preventing leftism, for preventing the EPA. The cabinet shop guy with 3 million in revenue, claiming a quarter million in income should be able to pay the 3k for proper disposal. The 650 million in Teflon profits should cover the 10 million it takes to bus the waste out into the desert or whatever.

                Either we pay the price for preventing leftism, or we pay for leftism. Good honest men don’t have a problem paying to prevent it, that I have seen. Not everyone in business is a good honest man and a lot of careless men give capitalism a bad name.

                • The Cominator says:

                  You don’t make people pay for prevention you make them pay dearly for misconduct…

                • zero says:

                  bingo cominator, thats supposed to be what judges are for, smacking trouble makers proportionally to the trouble they make, on the environmental bs the total lack of science as a tool to measure consequence allows nasty stuff to slip by and innocent chemicals get walloped.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  “there is a price to pay for preventing leftism, for preventing the EPA.”

                  By nature I’m sympathetic to this argument, but as Moldbug said in one of his lucid moments, that strategy simply does not work. People have trying the strategy of co-opting leftism, of stealing its energy by making partial concessions to it, much longer than any of us has been alive. Empirically, it just doesn’t work.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  zero, this is a reason I think a “judge” shouldn’t be a full time position, rather a privilege/burden for certain elite men.

                • The Cominator says:

                  KD that is what judges used to be until the Renaissance anyway, the lords or even the king would sit in judgement of legal cases or in Rome the governors Praetors or later on even the Emperor. This changed in England sometime I think during the Tudor Era with the introduction of Assize courts.

                • zero says:

                  I don’t know if they need to be part time. There used to be good judges in America with a very particular culture altho everyone has forgotten that and you have to read old books to see it. Altho I could get behind a class of men with that responsibility vested on them when needed (not really different to how things were with wealthy patriarchs that were pro socially connected) I think the bureaucracy of the judges has reduced their independence to nill and made them slaves of the false religion. It seems like now that civilization allows for so much connection things need to be violently broken apart. It should be a crime for some governor or high court creature to interfere in a local matter. Always seems to come back to the coup complete problem of morals and God. I think those medievals had a lot of brains in thinking about things as good kings bad kings. Now everyone believes there is a solution to little issues with wit. Sometimes we just get evil overlords and there isn’t a good way out.

                • Adam says:

                  Jim pays a price to prevent leftism in his blog. Moderate takes time and energy. It’s a private solution to a private problem. Which is what should be promoted to businesses. Seems like this is an opportunity for social technology. Make responsible capitalists high status, and careless ones low status without involving bureaucracy. Or something like that.

          • Guy says:

            Worse, they sold the land to the government for a buck ( under threat of eminent domain) with the stipulation that a school not be built there due to it’s use as a dumping ground. Government proceeded to build the school anyway, and pass the blame.

        • Guy says:

          After asbestos was made illegal, and firefighters were left to melt in their suits in buildings with subpar fireproofing, DuPont discovered yet ANOTHER chemical with flame retardant properties that completely changed the way products were engineered, and yet again it’s being removed from the market.

          “not for lifesaving products, but for Teflon” is a pretty ignorant statement.

          • Kunning Druegger says:

            I swear, every time one digs into any one of these “moral panic/public outrage” cases, you find competent business/technical people being lynched as cover for incompetent government managers.

            • Pax Imperialis says:

              Asbestos is still used in a limited fashion with industries that got exemptions. NPR is currently stirring up “moral panic/public outrage” over its continued use.

          • Adam says:

            We know how to organize our garbage and put it in one spot. This is not a problem. Everyone is expected to do it. Go live in Haiti if you don’t understand the argument.

            • Guy says:

              The Hooker company followed the law and put their waste in that one spot as so required.

              • Adam says:

                I think it was proven they followed the letter of the law. But also that the law was not aware of how toxic it was, and DuPont was very aware. This didn’t have to become such a clusterfuck. Make as much Teflon as you want, just clean up your mess. If you make a bigger mess than you intended and it hurts some people, make amends.

                These things get blown out of proportion, and agencies get created because people lie about this kind of thing. Then everyone is fucked. My questioning surrounds this whole suite of problems, and how to prevent it, if possible.

                • Guy says:

                  Was is that simple? The properties that make polyfluoroalkyls useful also make them remarkably easy to leach into groundwater. And it’s more than just Teflon.

                  The manner by which hazardous waste is legally mandated to be classified and disposed of is insane, hazardous to health, and bankrupting to companies. To expect them to then go, hey EPA how do you want us to handle this stuff? Here’s our trade secrets, can you please fax us the list of contractors and consultants we must now pay? And also to expect them to not ever produce and dispose of anything that might at some future date be deemed be someone to maybe be hazardous? That world would look similar to Haiti

                • jim says:

                  > The properties that make polyfluoroalkyls useful also make them remarkably easy to leach into groundwater. And it’s more than just Teflon.

                  No, makes it remarkably difficult for them to leach into groundwater. These were not cases of polyfluoroalkyls leaching into groundwater, but of idiots digging them up after they had been well buried. Where do you get this “leach into groundwater” stuff? Polyfluoroalkyls were not coming out of taps, and are not coming out of taps in concentrations that anyone thinks are likely to cause harm. They are right at the lower limit of detectability, and have only recently become detectable due to improved methods of detection.

                  Because they are only now able to detect extremely low levels, they are only now thinking about regulating limits for them in drinking water. If the love canal was contaminating drinking water, it was not contaminating it at levels that anyone could detect back in those days.

                • jim says:

                  > I think it was proven they followed the letter of the law. But also that the law was not aware of how toxic it was, and DuPont was very aware. This didn’t have to become such a clusterfuck. Make as much Teflon as you want, just clean up your mess.

                  But DuPont did clean up its mess. Buried it in a very deep trench underneath thick layer of impermeable clay on their own land.

                • Adam says:

                  > The properties that make polyfluoroalkyls useful also make them remarkably easy to leach into groundwater.

                  Seems like burying it underground is not really a good idea. Even if as Jim says, it was on their own land, it will affect a much larger area than the actual site it was buried.

                  They haven’t stopped making this stuff, I have to assume they are now doing something more responsible with the waste. They are still in business. So the claim that everyone is going to go bankrupt and we’re all going to live like Haitians seems off.

                • jim says:

                  > Seems like burying it underground is not really a good idea. Even if as Jim says, it was on their own land, it will affect a much larger area than the actual site it was buried.

                  No it will not. Nor did it. It stayed put till people dug it up.

                  Perfluorocarbons are almost insoluble in just about anything, and even if they had been soluble, the clay contained them. If you embed soluble material in a good thickness of clay, it is going to take a very long time to get out. DuPont embedded the stuff it did not want in clay to make sure it did not go anywhere. This is standard procedure for making sure that buried stuff stays put and does not seep.

                  Burying waist on your own land embedded in clay is competent, safe, and responsible behavior.

                • Adam says:

                  Jim if you are right who were the idiots who dug up the barrels?

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  The idiots in question were the government. The same fucking idiots to whom you want to give a veto on business decisions. The government dug it up after being told that it was a waste dump, and they only had it because they hinted that they were going to buy it at gunpoint if DuPont did not sell. That is not corporate malfeasance to anyone but a turbophaggot communist.

                  A cynical man could draw the conclusion that it was intentional. Government needed a plausible attack vector against industry. Threatened and coerced industry to sell them a waste dump, dug up the waste, and then put kids on the site. When the inevitable health issues cropped up, blamed it on industry and gave themselves the ability to beat on industry. But only a cynical man would ever think something like that.

                • Adam says:

                  I don’t think I have once argued in favor of government solving the problem. I’m in manufacturing. I probably own 50k in tools. I’m a capitalist. Don’t want government involved.

                  All that said, if I am careless in my work and someone gets hurt or killed, if I knowingly put the customer life at risk, or someone else in my profession, I do not think it is acceptable for me to say oops capitalism.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  The import thing to keep in mind is how important keeping things in perspective is.

                  For example, abortion; ‘rape and medical emergencies’ constitute 99% of the breath wasted in the megaphone about abortion, and constitute 1% of actual abortions; 99% of actual abortions being young sluts aborting the kids of young men who would rather want to have children so that the former can keep riding the cock carousel.

                • Guy says:

                  >>>>No, makes it remarkably difficult for them to leach into groundwater. These were not cases of polyfluoroalkyls leaching into groundwater, but of idiots digging them up after they had been well buried. Where do you get this “leach into groundwater” stuff? Polyfluoroalkyls were not coming out of taps, and are not coming out of taps in concentrations that anyone thinks are likely to cause harm. They are right at the lower limit of detectability, and have only recently become detectable due to improved methods of detecion

                  The Hooker chemical company at Love Canal was PCBs, disposed of properly and dug up by the government against the advice of those who they stole the property from.

                  The PFAs are from firefighting materials in some places, but also from cosmetics, sunscreen, Teflon and many other common consumer products. My understanding, from my discussions with those who developed the testing methods for it, is that it does easily get into groundwater and is hard to get rid of, but also that it’s not harmful given peoples clothing and cosmetics are made with it in much higher concentrations than it’s ever going to be found in drinking water.

                  It is exactly as you said, we found a way to detect it in low concentrations, and now are scare mongering to build up a whole new business. That business is booming by the way, people are going nuts testing every fuckin well and square foot of dirt for the stuff. Huge amounts of labor spent on demonizing the chemical.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  Adam: “I don’t think I have once argued in favor of government solving the problem.”

                  Not explicitly, but you’ve implied the hell out of it. Saying “Capitalism bad capitalism bad capitalism bad” and then adding, “I’m not arguing for any policy implications” is a little too cute. I don’t buy the soulful expression of innocence in your big brown eyes.

                  Here’s a piece of advice: If you think gov’t is the solution, just say that. Be a mensch.

                • Adam says:

                  I think it’s wise for the sovereign to selectively impose its will on merchants. Like patriarchy is a group effort involving coercion, elements of trade, service, manufacturing etc. are group efforts. Have to keep trust high. Keep everyone honest.

                  Everyone had made a lot of good points some of which I had not thought of. My understanding of the issues is better than it was. I play the devils advocate in my own arguments all the time and sometimes here.

                  Admittedly it is hard for me to envision some of the claims Jim makes to be true. I have only known progressivism. I know capitalism creates prosperity, I own many thousands in tools they always pay for themselves and then some. I know government intrusion and bureaucracy kills prosperity.

                • The Cominator says:

                  if a merchant does something really bad you hang them after the fact. Trying to prevent every possible problem doesn’t work.

                • Adam says:

                  I’ve spent half my life in Minnesota and half in Florida. Worked construction in both. Totally different places. Way more money in Florida. Way more progressivism in Minnesota. Rather work in Minnesota. Better pay, better working conditions. Easier to become wealthy in Florida. Easier to get ripped off too. Among whites in Minnesota business seems much more straightforward as far as dealing with people. Florida is easier to deal with the state. Harder to deal with people.

                  Probably couldn’t find a white guy in Minnesota that would burn tires for you for a price. In Florida you could throw a rock in any direction and hit someone that will burn tires for you. Obviously it’s not allowed in either and I think that’s good.

                  So a lot of my motivation for the questioning is how to get the best of both worlds. How would a sovereign do that.

                • Adam says:

                  Also every business in Florida loves employees from Minnesota. The same would not be true very often the other way around. So as far as producing good help, good people, the progressive state does much better. Most native Floridians suck to work with. Think Joe Dirt.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Adam, it’s time to stop posting.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Is it time for a shill test?
                  It makes basically zero sense for a regular commenter to start shilling subzero-IQ, capitalists-are-bad tier Marxism, but then again it also made no sense during Poochgate.

              • Guy says:

                When collecting samples and testing for PFAs you must ensure your clothing does not contain Goretex, you aren’t wearing sunscreen, no makeup for women, etc… otherwise false positives. Which indicates that the action levels are clearly in the harmless range

                • jim says:

                  You go for a swim in the pool while wearing sunscreen, the pool is “contaminated” – and yet your sunscreen does not easily wash off.

                • Guy says:

                  That’s a good point. And were it super soluble it would not do it’s job.

                  I suspect what was meant by it being susceptible to leaching into groundwater then, was when used in fire fighting foams that are later rained on, does not degrade quickly but instead stays in place? Or maybe they just see any trace amount in the water as being a big problem and ignore the fact that they are just continually able to see smaller and smaller amounts as their technology improves?

            • Adam says:

              This was hastily worded. Look at pictures of Haiti. That’s an area with an unsolved garbage problem that capitalism can solve. I don’t know why a few bad apples ruin it for everyone (or whatever the phrase is). Capitalism has and has had a solution to toxic waste disposal. It’s a little more expensive. Teflon can be made and made profitably while properly disposing of the waste.

              That’s not where my question came from. My question was more or less who twists the arms of the few guys who are going to ruin it for everyone else? In a monarchy it should happen naturally one would think, if the king acts as a father to his kingdom. Not sure about republics or democracies etc.

              • Vendat Tunicam says:

                In a republic the elite police each other. Men lacking virtue get told to shape up. Failing that they are censured and eventually pushed out of the elite into a social class befitting their lack of talent. Look at how the Roman patricians shamed each other for dishonorable behavior, so seriously did they take their duties that Titus Manlius executed his own son for abandoning his post.

                In a democracy… well there is a reason Aristotle treats it as a degeneration of a higher form of governance.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Republics (that is to say oligarchies with some democratic characteristics theoretically) only work really if their is an external threat… otherwise the elite stops policing each other.

                  Democracies work if they are small pretty homogeneous and men only. Ie Switzerland (yes its different linguistic groups of white people so not entirely homogeneous).

      • Aryaman says:

        Every vaccine that ever worked anywhere was invented by a singular white, Japanese, or Jewish man, not infrequently isolating the pathogen from his sick daughter in his home and seeing that it works by observing that it works himself.

        The mRNA vaccines were apparently invented by a committee of 400 scientists, none of whom ever said “I saw it work”. Obviously whatever they were selling would not have sold very well if people had to pay for it with their own money. Some of the monoclonal antibodies on the other hand were available to sale for men paying with their own money, despite subsidies involved, and those sometimes did sort of work.

        There is some snake oil capitalism but doesn’t really seem very harmful, on average.

      • Neofugue says:

        “The evil capitalist, what is he doing?”

        As stated in law 229 of the Code of Hammurabi, if an architect builds a home but has not made his work sound, and as a result the house collapses and the homeowner dies, then the builder is to be put to death.

        Most examples of “evil capitalists” listed here so far have failed because they contain overt obscenities and thus fall under the domain of priests. However, there is a place for laws and regulation to prevent prisoner’s dilemma situations in the marketplace.

        Let us take the example of Partnair Flight 394:

        Say a small airline company is struggling to keep up with maintenance of aging aircraft, some of which require replacement parts costing over $400 each. As a result, the company buys second-hand bogus parts for a fraction of the price, saving tens-of-thousands of dollars. However, during a flight, several bogus parts on the inside of the plane’s tail fail under turbulence and as a result the plane disintegrates, leaving 55 people dead in a crash.

        Snake oil is one thing, but bogus parts on an aircraft are another. It would be better to have a corrupt bureaucracy regulating the sale of aircraft parts than to have occasional unnecessary crashes of aircraft, because while the sale of snake oil only defrauds the individual, the sale of bogus aircraft parts affects the general society. As aircraft contain both business-class and economy seating, this is not reducible to paternalism of the proles either. Partnair was a charter airline carrying people on business.

        Is there an alternative to bureaucratic regulation of airplane parts? This not only applies to the airline industry but also to the construction industry as a whole.

        • Karl says:

          A corrupt bureaucracy regulating the sale of aircraft parts does not prevent crashes. Boing Max8 was approved by bureaucracy although inherently unstable.

          The alternative to bureaucratic regulation is reputation of businesses that have been active for a long time without crashes. Old businesses with a good reputation can and do charge more than new businesses.

          • zero says:

            why did people stop judging companies for quality? I never hear normies say they wont by x because the last thing they baught was crap, old timers were very discerning, unfortunately now for the few who want quality, its a bitch to find, is it just oligopolies and government strangling good competition or is it that so many people are doll fags that there just isnt a market for quality that saves money in the long run?

            • Pax Imperialis says:

              A number of reasons.

              A Whig mentality of tech progress. Why buy a toaster that will last 50 years when a newer, better brand will come out every year? If people aren’t buy a toaster to last a lifetime, why build quality?

              Production methods have changed a lot and the growth in the pace of change was pretty significant between the 60s and 90s. Businesses were incentivized to mostly invest in constantly retooling rather than refining the product. This trend is slowing down.

              A change to just-in-time manufacturing doctrine. Dependency on suppliers and smaller investments favors quantity over quality.

              • Karl says:

                There is that. Additional reasons are that quality products are more difficult to produce and more expensive. Many normies have become too poor to buy quality and Shaniqua in charge of manufacturing is unable to deliver quality.

                Moreover, even a product of good quality will occasionally need maintainance and repair. Logistics for repairing products are scarce. No point paying for quality unless you can get repair services.

                That said, some companies are still judged for quality, at least in some places and for some products.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  This is a dynamic that was touched on in the discussions of fashion i brought up, but really it’s something that applies to basically everything in our most current of years: the abjectness of the situation is not simply that good quality is more expensive; it is that there is nowhere you can buy good quality even if you wanted too.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  They are poorer because of lower quality, not because they can’t afford quality.

                  Take a computer mouse from the early 1990s for example. The mechanical type lasted a decade and often even longer. In today’s money that mouse would cost around $50, but spread over a decade was $5 a year. Compare to a cheap optical mouse today that is $10 but only lasts 1 year. That’s double the cost over time.

                  I’m still using many of the same tools my great grandfather passed down over 100 years ago. Some might have even come from my great great grandfather. That’s multi-generational wealth building right there. Tools back then were made from good steel. Buy home-depot tools today and they easily bend and wear down.

                  Repeat for nearly all goods and you get a poorer normie even if they make significantly more money.

                  So why do they continue to buy low quality… well our business culture has gone very short time horizon due to government fixation on Just in Time fixes. ‘I have a problem now. I buy a tools to fix that problem now. I no longer have a problem. I discard the tool.”

                • Adam says:

                  There is demand for high quality tools, and there is supply as well. Dewalt, Milwaukee, Makita etc. all make tools that you can buy at Home Depot and if you rely on them to make money they are excellent and will pay for themselves easily.

                  Lithium batteries last more than 5 years now, the tools too if you take care of them. There are more expensive brands not found at Home Depot and guys buy them even if they are not as economical because it’s a tax write off. Carbide bits and blades today last forever, not so 100 years ago. More expensive than steel but demand is there and supply too.

                  There could be other tooling and equipment that was better before, I don’t know. But not necessarily the case.

              • zero says:

                Thanks pax, I hadn’t thought about the pace of change. I am stealing the whig mentality description for shit tech.

          • Adam says:

            Capitalism can solve its own problems. People used to burn tires to get rid of them until someone invented a machine to shred tires. The rubber can even be repurposed. It’s more expensive, but not much. 5$ a tire or whatever for the cost of the machine, labor and transport etc. These are ideal solutions. The same way dumpsters, garbage trucks and landfills are good solutions for most waste. If the problem is solved by capitalism, better for everyone.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          Disagree strongly with this. Fields like medicine, flight, and mega-construction don’t need government trolls keeping things in order. As history clearly shows, no amount of oversight prevents accidents from happening. Tragedy is unavoidable, excessive bureaucracy is.

        • Aidan says:

          What you do is simply apply the code of Hammurabi. If the airline is using fake parts, and the plane crashes, people get their heads cut off. Then, in the future, people choose to go bankrupt rather than defect on their contracts and go under the headsmans axe

          • Adam says:

            This is appropriate.

          • Neofugue says:

            Without defectors being held responsible for malpractice, there is no real incentive for the entrepreneur not to risk people’s lives. Skippy and Karl’s points regarding corrupt or failing bureaucracy applies to this as well. No one was held truly accountable for the Partnair crash nor the Max8 crashes.

            In 2000, a funicular railway in Austria carrying ski passengers caught fire in a tunnel, killing 155 people. The cause was the improper installation of a fan heater and hydraulic brakes on a train specifically designed not to carry flammable material. Everyone involved in the accident lawyered their way out of responsibility. It is ironic that a bureaucracy designed to prevent loss of life is the product of a system where guilty men can get away with taking it.

            • Karl says:

              Ostensibly that bureaucracy was designed to prevent loss of live. I suspect it was designed to provide jobs for priests.

            • jim says:

              > No one was held truly accountable for the Partnair crash nor the Max8 crashes.

              These crashes were sufficiently multicausal to muddy the waters.

              With Max8, it was not exactly secret that it was fly by wire, but not exactly public either. When fly by wire failed, the plane was still flyable, but not what the crew were used to and not what they had trained for, so though they could still fly it, bound to make some stupid error on top of the failure of the fly by wire system. So you could always blame the stupid error. “The captain did X, which was obviously idiotic, contrary to the rules, and all that, so it was his fault the plain crashed, not the failure of the fly by wire system. If he had not done X, everything would have been fine” And yes he did do X, and had he not done X everything would have been fine despite the failure of the fly by wire system, but under the circumstances, doing something stupid was inevitable and predictable.

              I don’t think they should have been allowed to get away with that excuse. The fly by wire system was a carelessly improvised abomination bound to kill people if it failed, so had to be designed to achieve a much lower rate of failure than it was, but hard enough to explain to engineers, impossible to explain to lawyers. I am right now having a related conversation about error messages and exceptions, and the other party, a competent engineer, does not get it. (I suspect brain damage caused by the jab.)

              • Neofugue says:

                MCAS is automated flight stabilization software, not fly-by-wire. Fly-by-wire is an electronic system which replaces manual flight controls with an electronic interface and has been used on cars and airplanes for decades. Electronic power steering is a fly-by-wire-type system used in almost all modern automobiles; manual hydraulic steering is now only designed for dedicated sports cars. Every Airbus plane developed since the 1980s uses fly-by-wire.

                Every modern plane requires some degree of automated flight control because large planes cannot fly without it. The Boeing 747, designed in the 1960s, required automated flight stabilization software to mitigate flutter; in other words, if no automation, no 747. Almost all modern planes have software automation of which the pilot is not aware of nor needs to be aware of. The Max8 crashes were solely the fault of Boeing, not the pilots.

                The problem with the Max8 was that Boeing outsourced software development to slave-labor H1Bs and made a fundamental mistake with the development of MCAS. Every automated system is supposed to require corresponding information of two or more inputs, and MCAS operated using only one angle-of-attack sensor. Boeing and the FAA waited for Europe to ground the Max8 because they knew that the entire problem could be avoided if Boeing only implemented a simple software fix.

                The lesson here is to never leave critical software development in the hands of slave-labor H1Bs and to make sure that critical automation software requires the data of at least two or more corresponding inputs.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Fair points all, but it remains at bottom a regulations, thus a bureaucracy issue, yes? Those H1Bs didn’t magically appear out of nowhere, policy advisors and lobbyists got them there. Similarly, the people making decisions at Boeing, and virtually everywhere else these days, are priests put in place by priestly power. We have a priestly problem at every level of every stack, so much so I cannot think of anything that doesn’t have at least one layer of Progressive Religion oversight. And this came to be from a very seemingly legitimate concern regarding oversight. I break with Jim, only very slightly, on snake oil issues. Any time specialists with uncommon knowledge are required for anything, you will have rent seekers and grifters with just enough jargon to be dangerous. Just one fast talking, seemingly competent grifter can cause massive tragedies. I apologize for not being able to specifically reference incidents, but in both Europe and Asia, there have been multiple plane crashes due to incompetent pilots who slipped through the filters and over worked mechanics who cut corners just a few too many times. These folks are guilty, undoubtedly, but the environment that made possible these, and many other, mistakes was one of box checking*. The real danger is when a Procedure supplants a Person (stealing from Yarvin here). In the vast majority of the cases in this topic (plane accidents), the body that reviews the case never fails to put “failed procedures/poorly constructed procedures/insufficient procedures” right at the top of the list. I am going to blind post a link here, but if this body doesn’t do it in this video, it will be the first time they do haven’t:


                  I really enjoy this channel for the comprehensive case material and well crafted animations, but the interview snippets of the USCSB is incredibly redpilling about the nature of “oversight” in terms of modern approach. This review body always recommends, without fail, that more review body involvement would in some way mitigate the disaster under review (again, haven’t watched this one, but every single other video they have posted does this). A priest always recommends more priesting as a solution to whatever ails ye. The first priest hired/placed/appointed always seems to make a lot of sense, but it always leads to more priests. On balance, given the verifiable history of the 20th century, though there will be mistakes and accidents and tragedies, I still think it is better to let the capitalists capitalist, and let the market correct the problems that arise.

                  *I encounter this in my worthless email job all the time. “We went through the checklist, boss.”…meaning, no one is guilty, no consequences for anyone, let’s rewrite the procedures and bump pay and headcount. Mazeltov!

                • Karl says:

                  The problem with the Max8 was that Boeing outsourced software development to slave-labor H1Bs and made a fundamental mistake with the development of MCAS.

                  Not quite. Jet engines were getting bigger and the latest jet engine generation would not fit under the wing of the plane they had. Instead of constructing a new plane with sufficient wing to ground distance mangment decided to mount the new engines infront of the wing (not hanging under the wing).

                  That made the plane hydrodynamically unstable; stall was bound to happen rather often. Fixing lack of stability with software was cheaper than designing a new plane.

                  Even with perfect software and perfect sensors Boeing’s solution would have been an accident waiting to happen because in some situations the plane is simply too low averting a crash in case of stall.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  I still see this as a failure of policy/process. Just like it is impossible to build nuclear power plants profitably, it is nearly impossible to design and build new planes, both due to onerous and pointless regulation and oversight. At the bottom of every technical problem or barrier is some idiot with a liberal arts degree picking winners and losers with a progressive 8 ball.

                • Red says:

                  >I still see this as a failure of policy/process. Just like it is impossible to build nuclear power plants profitably, it is nearly impossible to design and build new planes, both due to onerous and pointless regulation and oversight. At the bottom of every technical problem or barrier is some idiot with a liberal arts degree picking winners and losers with a progressive 8 ball.

                  I think they were afraid that they couldn’t build a new plane successfully. Most of the competent white males have been long purged from Boeing.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Very well could be the case, and again, just another problem with too many priestly overseers.

                • Red says:

                  >Very well could be the case, and again, just another problem with too many priestly overseers.

                  It is, but it also means the value of Boeing is zero. They can’t produce anything new and probably never be able to again. Once a company loses the sort of people who can actually make new things they become the undead.

        • skippy says:

          “Snake oil is one thing, but bogus parts on an aircraft are another. It would be better to have a corrupt bureaucracy regulating the sale of aircraft parts than to have occasional unnecessary crashes of aircraft, because while the sale of snake oil only defrauds the individual, the sale of bogus aircraft parts affects the general society. As aircraft contain both business-class and economy seating, this is not reducible to paternalism of the proles either. Partnair was a charter airline carrying people on business.”

          You’ve clearly never lived in a country with seriously corrupt bureaucracies where many things are wildly dangerous all the time because the bureaucracy conspires with crony suppliers to eliminate competitors that use safe (but more expensive/difficult) processes.

          What you’re describing happens when a relatively honest bureaucracy OR a bureaucracy with a religious goal like making everything way too safe is putted against a very poorly run business.

          However, if you only have poorly run businesses but no bureaucracy, the plane only crashes once. The difference between the state maximal bad outcome and the market maximal bad outcome is that the state maximal bad outcome perpetuates itself indefinitely.

  25. Kunning Druegger says:

    I predict that the 2022 Midterms will be a very messy battle. There will be 4 main factions: hard left, institutional left, institutional right, and hard right.

    Hard left will attempt a steal in every election they can. They will attempt to contest every reversal and loss to the nth degree.

    Institutional left will refrain from any overt steal but will attempt to use all traditional forms of manipulation. They will only fight where they believe they can easily win, and roll over where they can’t.

    Institutional right will do whatever the institutional left tells them to.

    Hard right is a wildcard; some will fight, some fight dirty, but honestly I don’t have even an inkling of what they will do.

    I predict it will be wildly chaotic, and the MSM will be bifurcated into “ok, it’s over let’s move on, here’s another manufactured crisis” and “we will do whatever the hard left tells us to.” Until this rift is sealed, there will be massive discontinuity, as the normie craves placidity, even if it is painful.

    • Javier says:

      I am predicting comfortable victory for the left up to 60 votes in the senate and a large house majority. enough to ram through everything they want in the next two years. by the time Scotus catches up to them it will be too late. note the left is already planting the seeds of the delayed result narrative, and most of the systems put in place for 2020 remain untouched, loaded and ready to fire. they simply are not acting like a party in danger of electoral defeat, with crime, inflation, economy, gas, etc. all being dismissed and ignored.

      • The Cominator says:

        I think the dems lose the house.. they’ll keep the senate after two weeks of post election counting in big shitties.

      • jim says:

        They act like they expect to win everything, and they do not care if no one votes for them.

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        This flies in the face of everything I am seeing, but that means precisely nothing at all. Strong position to take, thanks for playing along. In case it’s not obvious, my “prediction” was in line with my typical slippery ways. I did not, intentionally, predict specific results, because I think all of the 4 sides I described are blindly walking into an ambush:

        The Hard Left is incapable of understanding anything but total victory or cosmic injustice.

        The Institutional Left is breathing into a paper bag and repeating pseudo-buddhist mantras they memorized in their college days.

        The Institutional Right is terrified they might actually win too much and get cut off by their permanent bureaucracy patrons.

        The *participatory* Hard Right genuinely belives the normie is ready for them, and that violence will not be required to have even a remote chance at playing in the big leagues.

        As I said, I am predicting a mess, with the true winners being anyone who sees reality with their eyes open and acts accordingly. I don’t think this will be restricted to any one faction, and thus we may see some strange coalitions arise.

  26. Cloudswrest says:

    we saw both wealth and nobility. Wealthy men who were short on nobility would marry their sons and daughters to nobles who were short on wealth.

    This reminds me of Heartiste’s “BOSS” (BOSe-Secretary) mating strategy, and Sailer’s “The Love Life of Hugo Chavez”

  27. Pax Imperialis says:

    In a move many are decrying as cruel and inhuman, Russian prisoners at a remote penal colony will now be terrorized for a decade by a 6′ 9″ drug addicted bigfoot.

    “We must protect our vulnerable men and women, even those who made mistakes” Slutsky said to reporters. “That thing, it terrorizes me. There are real concerns that it might have a dick.” He added that “No Russian prisoner should ever have to fear for their chastity” and that “Brittney Griner should be returned to it’s natural habitat in North America.”

    • Hesiod says:

      Russian Cop #1: Comrade, we should have looked the other way.

      Russian Cop #2 (Shuddering at the memory of the strip search): Da…

  28. TBeholder says:

    Zelensky as such is a creature of Kolomoisky, not directly of the foreign puppeteers.
    But then, obviously Kolomoisky could do this after Orange Revolution only because he was allowed this power, so he is on that boat (and is somehow chained to it). In this case, fine details of the power flow within a faction don’t matter much.

    Likewise, it’s obvious that since NSDAP is long dead, any self-proclaimed “Nazi” these days should be either
    A) genuinely delusional or
    B) some sort of a LARPer (provocateur).
    But there’s no point to muse which is which: since (A) also gets to matter in any way only if an external force grants it, both can be reduced to puppets driven by the same hands behind the curtain. All the difference is that one is controlled indirectly. But a few short pieces of string between the top puppet and the bottom puppet don’t matter much. There’s no point to worry about “Nazi” as a movement in any way, since all of it that matters in any way is either filtered or faked outright by other forces.

    I assume much the same could be said about any such “movement”.
    Take furries, for example: obviously, they can be trivially SEO’d and promoted by shills and bots, or googlewashed into oblivion, or purged outright “to keep this site somewhat family friendly”, at no cost (there would be opportunity cost due to high-priority objectives for relevant capabilities have, but practically in such cases everything else drowns in “hot” content anyway). We know all those things were done to something or other. Thus they are visible or matter at all only as much as someone who can do so allows, and can even be pruned into desired shape.
    For another example, “alien abductees” presumably existed in obscurity as isolated loons at first, then were promoted and obviously encouraged, then were dropped back into obscurity. There may be alien abductee blogs now, but how many did you actually stumbled upon or heard about? So, no big deal. Even Sonichu is better known than they are.

    Only a movement too heretical to acknowledge its existence at all can be fully immune to shaping of its little Overton Window. Practically, the non-acknowledged entities (see People Cube and 8chan) are subject to influences or platform destruction, of course.

  29. Pax Imperialis says:

    Communists control the definition of communism. They love to define communism as a society in which all property is publicly owned. Most Americans only have a vague sense of what communism is and can’t define it. When they look it up the communist definition of communism is what they see. This makes it extremely hard to point out to normal Americans that America is a communist country. This is sort of like depending on a schizophrenic, during one of their psychotic breaks no less, for the definition of schizophrenic and running with it.

    But back to those normal Americans… ‘But muh private property,’ they cry! ‘America can’t be communist because there is no private property in communist countries.’

    I’ve found that it doesn’t matter how many top politicians have directly quoted Marx or praised communism, these people refuse to see the evidence that America is a communist country and has been since the 1920s. Funnily enough, they may sometimes complain about Marxist Obama quite vocally, you know that guy who was the head honcho of America for 8 years… clearly something isn’t adding up in their heads.

    According to Marx, who underpins all modern communist ideologies, there is no money and there is no state under communism. Guess by that measure the Soviet Union was not communist for they had both money and a state. See how easy it is to use a communist’s own definition of communism to prove there are no communist states?

    These normal Americans are similar to the communists who say there has never been true communism because communist policy objectives were never achieved in complete purity. (Because they are impossible) They look at the same set of impossible policy objectives and thus concludes that communism doesn’t exists in America; ironically using the same mental gymnastics as communists. Truly we Americans are all communist now comrade!

    Rather than define communism by a checklist of policy, a definitional trap, we must have a clear and cohesive definition of communism. This has been difficult to do since communism is incredibly broad in practice be it the Marxist, the Socialists, the Stalinists, the Bolsheviks, the Mensheviks, the Trotskyites, BLM, ANTIFA, LGBT, the T without the LGB, etc etc… But all strains share the same underlying pathology, a totalitarian mindset where anything is permissible in a revolutionary fervor to obtain a utopian society based on equity. Because equity is impossible in nature, the revolution becomes permanent and the body count climbs. (Or in Tranny Communist America the number of castrations climb)

    Christianity could have been difficult to define because it is very broad in practice much like communism. Christianity is not a simple list of dos or don’ts, it’s far too complex for that. Luckily we have a fairly good approximate definition due to sects who do adult baptism. A person must publicly declare that they believe Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior. Thus we can defined a Christian is a person who believes in Jesus Christ to be their Lord and Savior, and Christianity is a religion based on Jesus Christ. Let’s use this simplicity for defining a communist.

    A communist is a person who desires and seeks equity. Communism is a political structure based on equity.

    • skipp says:

      Communism is an ideology that worships equal-ness. Since every thing in the world is unequal, except perhaps elementary particles, it’s impossible to uniquely defined equal-ness in terms of actual things in the world.

      There are various possible interpretations.

      For tactical reasons, the most successful communist movement at any given time chooses a definition that seems edgy but not ridiculous and not too scary (e.g. all white men are equal -> all humans are equal -> all species are equal for an example of past/present/potential future).

      Equity is fairness, not equality.

      • Pax Imperialis says:

        I forgot to mention who I’m writing that definition for.

        You are technically correct in the definitions of equality and equity. You are completely wrong in their usage and their cultural political connotations. Language is tricky like that.

        The problem with using the term ‘equality’ is how easily it is conflated with the old American sensibility of the word’s usage. ‘Equal under God,’ ‘All men are created equal,’ and ‘equality under the law.’ All are phrases where ‘equality’ is used to describe spiritual fairness, or in raw technical definitions ‘equity.’

        When you talk to Americans still operating under old Americanisms, most standard republicans and there are quite a lot of them, they react badly when ‘equality’ is used in a negative context. For to them, ‘equality’ is not a term used in the material sense, but the spiritual sense and thus you are sort of attacking their religious sensibilities.

        To to define communism in terms of ‘equality’ only serves to confuse normal Americans at best, and to make them knee jerk angrily at worst. The angry knee jerk is the more common response.

        However, ‘equity’ is a lesser known term. One that has gained great popularity among American communists (our inner party) to mean equality in the material sense. Put in other words, equity is used to mean we are actually equal in worldly matters. Equity in income means we all get the same amount of money. Equity in housing means we all get the same housing. So on and so forth.

        Part of what we are seeing is the natural shift in language that occurs over time. Entropy is a bitch. Communists, and the left in general, also have a tendency to accelerate shifts in the meaning of language with how they are always looking to hid behind euphemisms.

        I’m interested in a simple definition of communism that can be forced fed to normal Americans while still being recognized by possible inner party dissidents. jim’s and moldbug’s definitions are far too esoteric for anyone not well read in American history to even begin to wrap their heads around. I’ve found that once confusion sets in anger follows suit. Not exactly conducive for convincing people.

        Now of course one might argue that our inner party dissidents, our natural aristocracy as some would put it, would be able to understand the more esoteric definitions of communism. Unfortunately, our natural aristocracy got a little too decadent in recent years. Esoteric truths in their raw forms are largely out of reach for them. Thus what is needed is something they can understand at face value, and at face value they understand equity to really mean equality of outcomes.

        • TBeholder says:

          For to them, ‘equality’ is not a term used in the material sense, but the spiritual sense and thus you are sort of attacking their religious sensibilities.

          For a good reason: it’s a connection. See also: Plymouth, doctrine of Inner Light, etc. Communist movement did not come from China or Space Fleas.
          Of course, if you want the connection to be clarifying rather than confusing, you need to note the reinterpretation.

          Then again, there’s something to be said for “equity”, as well.
          Does a stereotypical tumblrina espouse the belief that any rayciss-fassiss-sexciss “maganazi” deserves the same as xirself? Clearly, no! To xir mind, those icky people belong in a woodchipper. Ultimately, if you peel it, this looks like a tumblrina “deserves” something better than the silent masses for being such a good tumblrina, while icky white patriarchal maganazi “deserves” something worse for falling too far from being a good tumblrina. Hence “equity”.
          Obviously, this has nothing to do with any sort of “equality”, but may have something to do with the earlier Protestant sects.

        • jim says:

          > I’m interested in a simple definition of communism that can be forced fed to normal Americans while still being recognized by possible inner party dissidents. jim’s and moldbug’s definitions are far too esoteric for anyone not well read in American history to even begin to wrap their head

          I defined communism? I don’t think I did. I described a couple of important elements of communist ideology, but, as I remarked, Stalin was more communist than Lenin, and Trotsky more communist than Trotsky. Communism mutates too rapidly to be defined.

          > When you talk to Americans still operating under old Americanisms, most standard republicans and there are quite a lot of them, they react badly when ‘equality’ is used in a negative context. For to them, ‘equality’ is not a term used in the material sense, but the spiritual sense and thus you are sort of attacking their religious sensibilities.

          Their heads are enemy occupied. Do they think a a black Harvard professor is considerably more likely to attack and rob them than a white prole? If they do think that, they have an unprincipled exception to spiritual equality. If they don’t think that, they are delusional.

          Do they think that men and women are equal? If they do think that, they are unlikely to reproduce successfully. If they don’t think that, again the unprincipled exception.

          If a doctrine needs unprincipled exceptions to be consistent with survival, you have to throw out the principle, for you can tell a tree by its fruits, and the fruit of equality is death.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            I defined communism? I don’t think I did.

            I’ve been reading a lot of your older posts from early to mid 2010s which have a framework. Combined with your comments over the years a rough definition can be extrapolated, but I think some of it might be dated, not sure. When I said it was too esoteric for the typical American elite, it’s because you’ll get a lot of glazed over blank stares when you start mentioning things like Calvinism and (religious) Universalism.

            Communism mutates too rapidly to be defined.

            It takes a lot of energy to create and maintain a hierarchy because it’s a fight against political entropy known as anarchy. When hierarchies fall, all that energy is freed up and dispersed. It’s free energy up for grabs.

            Communism mutates rapidly, but always towards a country’s potential energy. Since potential energy is held in hierarchies. there is incentive for destroying hierarchies to release the potential energy. After the targeted hierarchy’s potential energy has been fully exploited, communism mutates to attack the next hierarchy, and the next, and the next ad infinitum. But we live in a finite world, eventually the only hierarchy left that is full of potential energy is the communist leadership itself. The incentive for holiness spirals is always present, but grows juicy targets diminish. Communism is fundamentally a pathology of leveling in order to disperse energy.

            One thing Nietzsche said, about liberals, that has stuck with me for decades is:

            Their effects are known well enough: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality

            America has full spectrum communism. All hierarchies are under simultaneous attack. Racial by BLM, capital by the traditional communists a la Bernie Sanders and AOC, gender by LGBT, the family by feminism, and yes even Harvard as they’ve been having a low intensity holiness spiral. Optimistically this means that American communism is dispersed in its efforts and partly why it is so soft in comparison to say Soviet or Chinese style; too many targets and not enough focus. Pessimistically, and likely more realist, that just means the amount of potential energy that can be tapped is far greater which will feed a far larger communist movement.

            Their heads are enemy occupied.

            Yes but mostly not, which is the frustrating part. When looking at the normal republican, you’ll see all of these potential inroads for dialogue only to be blocked off by some residual remnant of Harvard theology. Like being able to walk a horse all the way to the river through treacherous mountain paths and past rank bandits, but it still dies of thirst.

            • JJ says:

              > a herd of horses dies of thirst on the banks of a river

              It brings to my mind the devils that drove the herd of swine into the sea in Matthew 8:28-34. As the possessed blocked the path “that no man might pass by that way,” so these devils block the path for dialogue in the minds of these people.

    • TBeholder says:

      See also: “Never Been Tried”.

      This is sort of like depending on a schizophrenic, during one of their psychotic breaks no less, for the definition of schizophrenic and running with it.

      Worse. In that at least a schizophrenic’s insanity is likely to not revolve specifically about the concept of schizophrenia.

      Also, taking such self-definitions at the face value was already reduced to absurd. By tumblr. Obviously, asking a tumblrina to define xirself and then treating the result as useful for some practical (medical, judicial, etc) purpose is not a sane approach. Unless you reduce it to the test for very presence of tumblrisms.

      all strains share

      Christianity could have been difficult to define because it is very broad in practice

      Huh. You are looking at large scale, path-dependent, stochastic phenomena developing mostly in an interaction of its current properties and environment… Where much of the methodology fitting something like this could be found? If not in the natural sciences? This in particular is a matter of cladistics.

      “How Dawkins Got Pwned” by Moldbug may be not perfect, but it should be required reading on this subject, IMO. :]

  30. someDude says:

    Here is a Buddhist tale glorifying the wise use and multiplication of Capital, howsoever little it may be at the start. This merchant’s starting capital was merely a dead mouse,

  31. Ghost says:

    In early America, it was common for females to marry at 16 and younger. Females reach fertility at an even younger age. There is no biological reason why they cannot be wives and mothers once they are fertile and physically capable of bearing children. The limitations imposed are artificial and the purpose is to disrupt the mating ritual and restrict population growth.

    Todays female is too lazy to want motherhood or family responsibility. They lack the proper discipline. Once a female is past 30, it becomes more and more difficult to reproduce. And, the quality of their eggs become less and less. Females produce their highest quality eggs early on resulting in superior offspring. Lower quality eggs are produced after 20. There is a higher chance for birth defect, physical inferiority, and lower IQ.

    Todays female paints their face with makeup even in their later infertile years. Red lips, rose cheeks, accentuated eyes. All designed to simulate youth and fertility to trigger the hindbrain of young men. But, they are past that stage. Without the makeup, they look like dried up skanks that no one would want.

    Todays female wants adventure and craves attention. They go a whoring in college or whatever garden of cucumbers they can find. Eventually to lie down in filth with negroes. It is disgusting. Women need the discipline of a strong man. Without that guidance, there can be no population growth.

    • Ghost says:

      A frequent member posted that they got the CV shot and now have myocarditis. But, that they don’t believe it was caused by the shot.

      You cannot trust your doctor anymore because of this and liability. They will never admit the CV shot is causing your myocarditis. But, it does. The shot produces a synthetic protein which causes inflammation and clotting. There is likely no way to get it out of your system. People that took the shot should not exert themselves at all. I realize the VA was coercing veterans in their system to take this and sent out multiple letters and even letters threatening disability payments.

      I had solid advice from doctors that were opposed to this. And I passed that information along here to your blog. We can all learn from the mistakes of others though.

      The CV shot kills. On a long enough timeline, you will die from this shot by stroke, heart failure or worse. And no job is worth your life.

  32. Anonymous Fake says:

    I think most economic arguments come from an “uncanny valley” of globalist elite corporations that can only be called fascist by default, because they aren’t really a free market or socialism but some monster in between. Goldman Sachs, Blackrock, Google, Microsoft, etc.

    People employed there are the highest status people. Dropouts who become entrepreneurs just as much as government bureaucrats are seen as losers, but the corporate elite are the true ruling class. The Davos/WEF crowd.

    These “private businesses” increasingly feel like the real government, and the right’s “socialism” is closer to feudal knights than anything else. The alternative is rule by ESG and social credit.

    • jim says:

      At Davos, the wealthy are summoned to listen respectfully to the priesthood. You see the holy lecturing the wealthy from a position of moral superiority.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      Certainly, there is no shortage of ‘commercial’ entities in later days that we may find have converged into the creeping sclerosis of bureaucratization; and that is exactly what’s wrong with them.

      Organizations live on judgement and die on procedure. Something no less true for your local tee-ball team as it is for a trades company, as it is for a corps of fighting men, as it is for a civilization in general.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      Every single example you listed is a bureaucratic framework designed to collect, retain, and squeeze the inventions of capitalists past. They gorge themselves on priestly midwits whose entire purpose for being is to parcel up actual value and distribute responsibility and consequences into a trillion tiny pieces. You’re just doing exactly what Jim described: “look at the shiny thing in my right hand while my left hand plants the magic marked card.”

    • Mister Grumpus says:

      Niggapleeez. Who comes to get their pictures taken obediently listening to Bill Gates or whatever Indians are supposedly in charge of Microsoft or Twitter or Google now? No one. It’s they who have to stop what they’re doing and go obediently listen to someone else. And who is that?

      Can Bill Gates slap a negro on camera and get away with it? Or is it the other way around?

      It’s the status filter, not the wealth/earnings filter, that maps to actual human reality.

    • Anon says:

      “Dropouts who become entrepreneurs ”
      It should be entrepreneurs who bacome Dropouts.
      All entrepreneurs soon discover that universities are worthless except for networking so the moment they make usefull connections they dropout.
      Dropouts who became entrepreneurs are usually scammers and grifters.

    • ten says:

      Founders, leaders, owners of megacorporations quake and shiver under the thumb of the government.

      The davos/wef crowd are government people, not business people.

      You are insane.

      • Kunning Druegger says:

        You nailed it. As Yarvin said (roughly): if you have to constantly remind everyone that you are a ‘non-governmental organization,’…

  33. Mary Grace Shabazz-Epstein says:

    All this to say that the marxists who make up the political left are dishonest? Not necessary, but a fascinating read nonetheless.

    • jim says:


      All this to define the words “capital”, “capitalist”, and “capitalism”, and to explain why we need to define them.

      • TBeholder says:

        Do you need it for something? If you don’t, it’s pointless.
        The only real use for this term seems to be various games of bailey-and-motte. If the idea is to somehow hinder the thimble-riggers who do this, how one more easily ignored fence somewhere on bailey is supposed to change anything?
        Catching them red-handed by demanding their definitions at least demonstrates that “hey, these are thimble rig operators playing bailey-and-motte”. Though even then, public already knows this, and most of those willing to give a damn already did.

  34. The Cominator says:

    “These guys who call themselves fascists and Nazis while spouting Marxist theory and Marxist economics are enemy entryists. If any of the original Nazis were fans of Marxist economics and Marxist theory, Hitler took care of that lot in the night of the long knives.”

    Don’t really agree with this. Hitler, Goebbels, Bormann and Ley only really differed from Marx in that they rejected the International proleteriat idea but they accepted most of Marx’s insane economic ideas in principle anyway.

    • jim says:

      I don’t nee any indication that they accepted Marxist economics and Marxist history. They accepted socialism, but their theory derives from Hobbes, not Marx. The third positionists smell different from Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and so forth. All socialists, but not the same kind of socialist.

      • The Cominator says:

        Hitler accepted a lot of Marxists economics (more than he let on) Tik in his five hour video proved this pretty decisively. He believed in the “tendency of the rate of profit to fall”/”shrinking markets” problem for one thing.

        • jim says:

          The fundamental Marxist line is that the peasant with two cows was granted those cows by “Capital”. Strike a blow at capital, comrade, kill the cows of the peasant with two cows – for example CR ranting about the evil owner of the pizza shop. Not seeing that from Hitler and company.

          It is Marxists, not the real Nazis, that cannot accept that Musk created twice as much lift to orbit capability than ever existed in the history of mankind, and want to destroy that capability. He must have stolen it somehow, or the Rothschilds assigned it to him, like they assigned the cows of the peasant with two cows. Real Nazis, Hitler included, are fine with great men doing great things. There is the big difference right there.

          • Cloudswrest says:

            F. Roger Devlin has a great article on “envy” on Unz.


            It’s targeted toward racial conflict, but it contains a lot of information on envy in general. He states that envy is much more common in primitive societies and is a significant burden on them, preventing development due to “envy avoidance” behavior, i.e. individuals in such societies go to great lengths not to outproduce their neighbors, even when they could, in order to avoid negative consequences.

            • Cloudswrest says:

              In his book Race and Education, the late Raymond Wolters offers many examples of black racial resentment enflamed by integration. Whites’ participation in class discussions, for example, appeared to some blacks “as an arrogant display, a deliberate flaunting of knowledge that downgrades other class members.” Some suspected the only reason white children even bothered working for good grades was to look better than blacks. One black girl, asked why she picked on a smaller white girl, said she was annoyed by the girl’s “attitude in class. She knows all the answers. She gets them right all the time.” It may have been wiser to segregate the races and let people suspect black children were less smart than to integrate them and remove all doubt.

              It is classic envy to accuse others of “thinking they are better.” Most often, this is psychological projection: It is not the envied man who thinks he is better, but the envier who perceives himself as inferior. How likely do you think it is that even a single white child in America works for good grades specifically to humiliate black classmates? And yet black children are perfectly capable of imagining this. Whites do not compare themselves to blacks; they are far more likely to compare themselves to other whites.

            • Cloudswrest says:

              Envy is a negative feeling aroused by noticing an advantage enjoyed by someone else. Sometimes unfavorable comparisons of this kind motivate people to try to get a similar advantage for themselves. In that case, the result is emulation, not envy. The envious man dwells on his perceived inferiority, which humiliates him and often arouses a sense of impotence or self-pity. The differences in status that provoke such feelings need not be great. In fact, truly enormous differences such as between a peasant and a king tend not to arouse envy, because the peasant has a hard time even imagining himself in the king’s place. Invidious comparisons arise most easily among relative peers.

              Envy is also distinct from any desire to possess the advantage in question. Very often, it is aroused by advantages which by their very nature cannot be transferred from one person to another, or by things that would be of no benefit to the envious man if he did come into their possession. So, it is not a form of covetousness. An envious man with a broken leg does not so much want to be whole again as to see everyone else break their legs. His concern is not primarily with his leg per se, but with a sense of inferiority in comparison with others, which he would like to avenge upon others. This is one reason schemes for redistributing wealth do not solve the problem of envy. A person with an envious disposition tends to see whatever confirms his envy, and he can always find new inequalities to focus on once one has been removed.

              This essentially futile character of envy, its lack of constructive purpose, has traditionally caused it to be considered an especially shameful fault. Few people are prepared to admit to serious feelings of envy. Occasionally one may hear people say “I envy you” in relation to some small advantage, but the speaker does not mean he would rather see his friend lose the advantage or come to grief. Real envy is a serious matter. Crimes, including murder, have been motivated by it. People are therefore reluctant to admit, even to themselves, that they are envious. The fault often is disguised, for example, as righteous indignation or a zeal for justice.

              • Locustpost says:

                Great comment. I’ve been on the receiving end of envy throughout my life. This comment sums it up completely.

          • The Cominator says:

            “The fundamental Marxist line is that the peasant with two cows was granted those cows by “Capital”. Strike a blow at capital, comrade, kill the cows of the peasant with two cows – for example CR ranting about the evil owner of the pizza shop. Not seeing that from Hitler and company.”

            Hitler didn’t go quite that far in his worldview but his agricultural planning was almost as if he did… but yes Hitler was fine with great men though Stalin kind of was too provided he was somehow allowed to notice them.

            • Jehu says:

              If you’re not ok with great men doing great things, your country will suck hard. Envy needs to be shamed, and shamed hard, especially when it masquerades as something else.

            • skippy says:

              Stalin arguably wasn’t a communist.

              Natsocs did not believe in private property as a foundational institution but they believed in social and income inequality. They just insisted that such inequality come only from service to “the people” which meant a lot of socialistic implements in practice (state defines what serves the people and what does not).

              • jim says:

                > Stalin arguably wasn’t a communist.

                Stalin was absolutely obviously a communist. Just not as communist has communism was rapidly becoming. The Mensheviks were communist. Lenin was more communist than the Mensheviks, Stalin was more communist than Lenin, and Trotsky was more communist than Trotsky, And Trotsky was rapidly heading off into Seven Kill Stele communism, at which point Stalin parted company.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  You likely made him confused as hell the 七殺碑 communism. People who argue that various communists weren’t communist are falling into a definitions trap where they use discrete characteristics to describe a highly fluid and constantly mutating ideology.

                  Using Marx’s definition of communism, arguably nothing is communist because that would require the elimination of the state and currency. An impossible task for any social structure of scale.

                  Yet communism obviously exists outside those definitions. Communism can’t be adequately defined by the definitions provided by communists.

                • skippy says:

                  Stalin was obviously somewhat communist. Or maybe he just believed in Marxism the way a political bishop “believes in the Bible”.

                  When one reads the mocking notes he left in the margins of Lysenko’s papers, and the condemnations of Marxist linguistics he wrote shortly before his death, one is tempted to conclude that he was basically a sane man who had fallen in with a bad crowd.

        • TBeholder says:

          It was an adaptive in the circumstances.
          Hitler deviated in light-handed approach to control: as long as the owner of a factory is a good little National-Socialist, all is well, further intervention is not required. So N-S did not fix much of what was not broken.
          Yet another consequence of N-S walking in at the low point. They did not have to run the whole destruction-reconstruction cycle because the first part was already done for them, by the Treaty of Versailles and Great Depression. No real need to use a stick when the donkeys are starved and you get to distribute the carrots.

          HR commissars and replacement of viable infrastructure with toy windmills and cow fart catchers introduced behind renewed crackdowns for oldthinkers who unbellyfeel, behind constant distractions? It’s an opposite move. But that’s also an adaptive (if overbold) strategy — in the opposite circumstances: post- Cold War economics of USA & protectorates could easily whip up enough of power tokens to back a real opposition, once the demi-shadow government does something wildly unpopular in the industry.

  35. King Lizard Intercourse says:

    >When Wernher von Braun was a prisoner of NASA

    LMAO. It’s true.

  36. A2 says:

    The abject Tories managed to put in Fishy Rishy as PM after all.

    • The Cominator says:

      The funny thing is that Liz Truss initial economic plans were actually incredibly good… but being a woman she couldn’t stick with them against consensus and in reversing course alienated everyone and failed immediately.

      • A2 says:

        Still, Cummings epithet ‘the human handgrenade’ seems all too apt. She didn’t have the required skill or personality to see that sort of reform through.

        Then again, is it just by chance that she gets tossed out by the global financial market whereafter Fishy the globalist financier takes her spot? Very odd that the Tories couldn’t muster one serious white male candidate. It’s supposed to be one of those power uber alles parties, but perhaps it’s no fun to strive for a middle management position in GAE.

      • Ted says:

        You’re an idiot. Cutting taxes and increasing government spending is horribly stupid policy. That’s why the UK’s bond market blew up when she announced it, dope.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          I agree with you about the UK but it also depends on the circumstances.

          What is going on in the UK is more than just fiscal policy. The entire economy is shutting down because of a lack of energy. Russian gas was important to the European market. Tax revenue goes down and government expenses, hence spending, naturally goes up.

          Truss decided to exacerbate that problem by layering her fiscal policy on top of that.

          In a normal economy with energy security, good revenue, and low debt her plan could have been good policy… but no one has a normal economy anymore.

          • Ted says:

            Nonsense. It was Truss’s insane Keynesian “mini-budget” (decreasing taxes in the financial economy and increasing spending by issuing bonds) during a time of record high inflation that blew up the long end of their yield curve and pension funds, not “Russian gas” or any lack thereof.

            Keynesian economics is moronic in a normal economy. Its insanely moronic during an inflationary economy.

            • The Cominator says:


              No mention here on what spending she planned to increase. Sounds like she just didn’t plan to cut spending. What spending was she going to increase… more gibsmedats to Pakis Yobs and the Ukraine? Pay increases for the civil service parasites, even more aid to the Ukraine?

              What were the spending increases?

              • Ted says:

                Here you go, midwit. Can you read and use google? If so, then you can figure it out. If not, then you probably can’t.


                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Seeing as we are on the topic of basics, here’s an archive site for you:

                  Highlight the URL, copy it using right-click or control-C, switch to the tab with open, and paste the link into the first, red bordered search box. Click save, and the site will archive your link (or direct you to a previously saved capture). The archive link will be in the URL box at the top of the page, which can then be shared without giving traffic to the source site, and will remain online if the source deletes the page.

                  This is not hard to do, and has tangible impact on both keeping data available as well as depriving bad actors of support. It can also enhance operational security (OpSec) by stripping out tracking data and helping keep you, the linker, obscured from trackers.

                  Here’s your link:

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  You’re own link mentioned energy 6 times. A link in the article says people are paying about 80% more. Energy underpins everything in a modern economy. Think about what that does to industry from everything from a restaurant to a large industrial factory. 70% of pubs are facing closure for example directly due to energy prices.

                  The UK is a massive energy importer. While only 4% came from Russia directly, all those continentals like the Germans are now having to buy from the same markets the UK does, driving up global prices significantly. UK energy prices were fairly stable until sanctions on Russian gas.

                  Keep saying it has nothing to do with Russian gas, you’re wrong. A large chunk of that record inflation is coming from a global energy shock. Remember that inflation comes from having too much paper money and not enough material goods to match, and one of the world’s biggest energy markets is almost completely gone as far as Europe is concerned.

                  Like I said, this is more than just fiscal policy, but her policy certainly exacerbates the underlying problem severely. More over to the point I said cutting taxes and increasing budgets can be good DEPENDENT on circumstances. If you’re already running a deficit you’re going to have inflation. If you’re also experiencing massive material shortfalls, you’re going to have really bad inflation and freeze to death in the winter.

                  In a normal economy where you might have a slight budget surplus and energy security, cutting taxes or increasing spending is not a terrible thing on it’s own and can be very healthy.

                  Now it’s very possible I’m wrong. It’s very possible you’re wrong. No one is infallible and we all make mistakes, but when you come here to call people 90 IQ and Dopes instead of communicating in good faith, disregard the points others make, and apparently don’t even read your own sources… well maybe you’ve got some personal problems you need to work on.

        • The Cominator says:

          Decreasing taxes and drilling for oil increases revenue you moron. I don’t know what her spending policy is but I can’t imagine how the UK could increase spending to much more than it is now.

          Bond Markets are fake and gay and controlled by central banks. There is no such thing as the bond market.

          • Ted says:

            Bond markets are fake? Wow you just might actually be a 90 IQ dope. I feel sorry for you.

            • The Cominator says:

              you were obviously one of the corona Karen’s Jim I humbly request you put this faggot on moderation.

              • Kunning Druegger says:

                Can you prove that, or are you responding to his obvious and unnecessary hatefulness? It’s a bad tactic to project onto your interlocuter like that. I get that he has been a roight jackass from the get go, but there’s no need to stoop to his level.

                • The Cominator says:

                  His emotion reveals who he is. Not stooping to people’s levels is a cuckservative idea…

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Completely false. He was goading you from the start. Whether it was due to vociferous disagreement based on actual points or prior dislike, it remains the case that he was trying to personalize it. The reference to “stooping to his level” was not at all about giving back as good as you get. That’s that cuck idea that “I win when he hurts me,” and it is underpinned by the whig assault on dueling/honor defense/fighting. Stooping to his level is when you stop debating the points and start attacking his person. It is plain as day that he is/was attacking you, TC, a tribe member, personally. Pax just demonstrated that his argument is weak. You stooping is invoking punishment “from above” due to your assertion that he was wrong on covid. If you took the time to go back in the archive and prove he was on the wrong side, as was done by the recently absent but no less based Globalist Power Terminated in regards to Pooch’s betrayal, share the links and lets torch the faggot. If you made that claim because he riled you up being an insufferable ass, then I suggest you ignore him, or attack his position on the merits. That’s all I was driving at. I think he’s being a cunt, and I agree with you in regards to the “actual” topic (though it is well outside my expertise, so my opinion is worth its weight in gold). But everyone here who matters knows you aren’t a midwit or a moron, TC. Don’t let some angsty newbie make you feel slighted. You are nobility here, never forget that, my nigga.

                  What are your thoughts on the new Pajeet PM? He is the scion of some OG diversity-is-our-strength family, and he seems like a massive poof. Is he just a brown midwit, or has England come under the command of someone intelligent?

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m pretty sure he changed his name I know and we all know. And of course his point is weak there were no specific spending increases mentioned even in his link only tax cuts and drill baby drill.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  I’ve never seen the insult dope used outside Yahoo stock forum.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  OK, bro. If you’re right, I support you. If you’re wrong, I’m still at your back. Ride or die, my negro. Just trying to be good counsel as best as I can.

                • skippy says:

                  The UK already has a big deficit because of covid. Truss proposed to expand it further. Of course the central banks can just buy the debt but this causes the currency to devalue and the UK is dependent on imports for everything because they dismantled their industry and went all-in on neoliberalism.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Oh the new pajeet PM is shit. Already definitely killed the plan to drill more oil.

                  95% of pajeets in the West are people we’d be better off without… even as individuals.

                • skippy says:

                  Governments of women and foreigners who just appeared from nowhere* are intrinsically fake.

                  Boris was a white man but he had no supporters and an odd background being born in New York and technically an American until recently.

                  The only British man in the cabinet is Jeremy Hunt but he is married to a Chinese woman who does not have British citizenship and has said he fears the consequences of British patriotism on his half-Chinese children.

                  Britain (sorry “the UK”) has no national elite. It is dead.

                  *Sunak married an Indian woman he met in America who did not take British citizenship and is closely connected into the Indian elite so this is not a case of muh it’s OK if they’re integrated; he’s outegrated!

                • The Cominator says:

                  Boris was a corona Karen cuckservative POS. Being a white male is only a prerequisite to being good (with VERY rare exceptions). Imagine listening to Neil Ferguson ever.

                  And Britain’s elite has been full of traitors since the time of Kim Philby at the very latest. Most all of the PMs since WWII have been communists or homosexuals. Wilson may have been an outright Soviet agent and Tony Blair was almost certainly a Jesuit or part of some other Vatican spy group (ruins the country worse than ever in every way possible, 1st thing he does when he retires is convert to Roman Catholicism). One of the few good ones was a woman lol.

  37. A2 says:

    A loosely sourced quote of some Jimian amusement

    “To right wing men, we are private property. To left wing men, we are public property. In either case, we are not considered to be humans: we are things.”

    (Andrea Dworkin, “Right Wing Women”)

    • Redbible says:

      “And to the simps, we are goddesses. But honestly, none of us want to be with simps.”
      – a red pilled women, probably

      But in all honesty, women are sex objects, and men are success objects. Anyone trying to deny this is simply lying.

      • A2 says:

        Women are, perhaps, family construction kits. I’ll see what the wife thinks about that.

        Also, as has been shown so amply, better to be private than public property.

  38. i says:

    Voxday however as a result of the machinations of the Fed:

    This is why the Sino-Russian alliance is going to win WWIII. They not only have the advantages of population, territory, social stability, and manufacturing capacity, but they also have the advantage of not being hamstrung by completely screwed-up economic systems.

    Capitalism has completely and utterly failed, as what presently passes for capitalism is nothing more than a massive credit-fueled Ponzi scheme.

    One of the most important historical lessons of warfare: he who can pay his troops wins.

    • Cloudswrest says:

      Roosevelt goading Japan and Germany into attacking and/or declaring war, may have worked then, with smallish, resource poor countries. But Russia and China are not small and resource poor, while the GAE has been in rapid industrial decline and population quality.

      The only thing I can logically conclude, as I’ve speculated previously, is this whole conflict is a scam to finish off the *West*. The real target is the West, using *Russia* as a proxy to finish the job. *Americans* are being goaded, via GAE propaganda, into attacking Russia.

    • The Cominator says:

      He however has to use an enemy phrase…

      “Capitalism has completely and utterly failed”

      We haven’t had capitalism in over a century.

      • Arakawa says:

        I’m starting to hear ‘free enterprise’ in some contexts. That’s a fairly good term for the time being that hasn’t been damaged by decades of being used as a strawman by Marxists and skinsuit by various managerial movements.

        • jim says:

          > I’m starting to hear ‘free enterprise’ in some contexts. That’s a fairly good term for the time being that hasn’t been damaged by decades of being used as a strawman by Marxists and skinsuit by various managerial movements.

          I like “capitalism” and “capitalist” because they are rooted in the immensely ancient term “capital”, which likely goes all the way back to the Aryans. Trying to keep one step ahead of those who destroy the meaning of words is a game we are bound to lose.

          Plus, it simply more manly to not run away from the enemy’s demonization of healthy and ancient social institutions. The “Yes” meme expresses this hold-your-ground” position. “Free enterprise” sounds new, sounds like libertarians saying “Just back the cake, why don’t you”. “Capitalism” sounds like Christians announcing capitalism was ordained by God in the fall. Which it was.

          • Hesiod says:

            Even the Greek gods had their own herds, and woe to him who trespassed upon them.

          • i says:


            When a word acquires baggage.

            Its quite annoying having to return the perception of the meaning of the word back to its original meaning when one doesn’t yet have the megaphone which allows rectification of Names en masse given enough repetition.

          • Arakawa says:

            Google ngrams for ‘capitalism’ and ‘free enterprise’ was instructive (assuming ngrams data isn’t BS). I was certainly instructed.

            According to ngrams the term ‘capitalism’ exists since the time of Karl Marx among the 19th century equivalent of smelly basement otaku, and then takes off after the communist revolution as I assume everyone started trying to figure out what the fuck this ‘capitalism’ thing the communists were yelling about even was. I imagine the same process as ‘deplorables’ or ‘Christians’ eventuated where individuals practicing what they think is common sense not requiring a name are insulted by demon-worshippers, and eventually adopt the demon-worshippers’ insult as a badge of solidarity.

            The ‘free enterprise’ meme suddenly appears around 1940 in a massive surge, and then gradually falls back down to obscurity. Will need to learn more to be sure what happened there, or why modern-day is similar enough to 1940 that people are remembering it. 1940 sounds like memetic armwrestling against the New Deal / WWII command economy.

            • jim says:

              New Deal / WWII command economy was purportedly capitalist, so a new term was needed.

              • Arakawa says:

                I suppose there is an analogy in the present situation in that actual-capitalism has to be carefully distinguished from large-scale-corporate-woke-demon-worship that wears the skinsuit of ‘capitalism’ while deploying catastrophic amounts of money and state and priestly power to co-opt and suppress actual-capitalist activity.

                Thus, there are two different strategies to ruining the word ‘capitalism’ going on, in parallel. Strategy 1 (the Marxists) uses the term as a perjorative, and the plausible effective response is to adopt the perjorative as a badge. Strategy 2 (woke capital) uses the term as a skinsuit for a completely unrelated phenomenon. They have been successful to the extent that I do not feel any warm fuzzies hearing or using ‘capitalism’, or have any reason to assume the person using the term is on my side absent other evidence. New Deal era supporters of capitalism tried to fight this strategy by inventing a new word that clarifies the aspect of capitalism that the New Deal state was abolishing and didn’t want you to pay attention to.

                In the end, your point about ‘free enterprise’ in particular stands in that the first ascendancy of ‘free enterprise’ seems to be associated with Taft Republicans who were not memetic winners in the medium-long term.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              The greek oikonomia means ‘the management of household affairs’. And what are the affairs of a house-father?

              For most of history cognates of economy and economics throughout europoid nations were indeed simply bywords for wisdom, particularly concerning wise stewardship of things. The idea of a muliparity of ‘economics’ as meaning things that could be anything other than good would have seemed like a contradiction in terms.

              • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                Steward itself comes from stigweard, or house guardian, from stig “hall, pen for cattle, part of a house”, and weard “guard”; which in turn from the Proto-Germanic *wardaz “guard,” from the PIE/ancient aryan root *wer- “perceive, watch out for”, which can also been seen in the Latin vereri “to observe with awe, revere, respect, fear;” the Greek ouros “a guard, watchman,” horan “to see;” and the Hittite werite- “to see”.

  39. Ted says:

    If the East India Company was rule by merchant warrior, seems obvious the West today is rule by merchant priest.

  40. i says:

    A good way to hold Bureaucrats responsible:

    Unlimited power over their respective sphere. No procedures, no protocols that restrict that actions.

    No German Post Office Model which is the basis of modern Bureaucracy and the cancer of unaccountability.

    Nothing they can use to excuse themselves. Because their hands aren’t tied in anyway. Unlimited power in said Sphere. Absolute Responsibility.

    The Sovereign is the Check and Balance on the Bureaucrat.

  41. Arakawa says:

    This rhymes with the Jane Jacobs taxonomy of warriors and merchants and her contention that merchants cannot do the job of a warrior nor vice versa.

  42. Anonymous says:

    The man who favors equality hates better men and hates great men more, and wants to tear down and destroy what they create, for he is envious of the excellence of anyone superior to himself.

    Along these same lines, they really hate landlords too. Anyone who they’re renting from.

    • Adam says:

      There is good reason to hate landlords. Landlords should be restricted to renting hotels and work camps. Ownership should be encouraged by the king. Large groups of transient people who are not invested in the land should be discouraged. Real estate speculation should be discouraged. All housing should be privately owned, by the people who live in the houses.

      • The Cominator says:

        This is not always suitable and landlords should not really be blamed for the awful housing situation.

        What happened to housing prices is what happened to college tuition, restricted supply + subsidized credit. The solution is simply to ban mortgages for any purchase of existing homes. Your idea of encouraging home ownership is actually partially what lead to this situation. Loans for new construction only existing homes must be bought with cash all at once and any attempt to get around this must mean an immediate death sentence for all involved.

        • Adam says:

          Profit from land development and home building should not be discouraged. It is fairly easy to do, and accessible to many. Competition will keep production high and profits low.

          Profit from speculation, or from any kind of shucking and jiving in the marketplace should strictly be forbidden. As should land hoarding that leads to manipulation of the market.

          It is not all that hard or expensive to build a house. Finding affordable crime free land is hard.

          Usury on real estate loans should be eliminated, the same as any other parasitic drag. Excessive loans for housing should not be needed, as once you eliminate progressivism and the price we pay for it, excessive amounts of money will not be needed to build or buy a home. It is just not that hard or expensive.

          • jim says:

            > Profit from speculation,

            Speculation consists or utilizing judgement and knowledge to predict future supply and demand. It benefits everyone, but it most benefits those with foresight.

            Suppose the speculator knows there is going to be a dire shortage of rice soon. So he buys rice now, and sells it when the price rises. Well, for those who lacking foresight, did not stockpile, paying him sucks, but it sucks considerably less than if those lacking foresight, starve.

            Buying rice when it is abundant, raises the price when it is abundant, encouraging people to conserve and produce rice. Selling it when it is short keeps the price from rising too far and enables the hungry to eat.

            The entire society benefits from the wise and successful speculator’s foreknowledge and foresight.

            The problem with the Pharaoah’s speculation was not that he was speculating, but that no one else had property rights secure over time, so he alone could speculate.

            • Adam says:

              How do you tell the difference between foresight and corruption? Much of power is in information. How do you keep people with information from abusing it to benefit themselves at the expense of another? Seems simpler to rid the market of potential free riders.

              • jim says:

                > How do you tell the difference between foresight and corruption?

                Speculation is corruption when the speculator is a government insider who has knowledge of upcoming changes in official government set prices, which is how the government funded Soros in the time of fixed exchange rates, and how it now funds Soros in a time of government set interest rates.

                If the prices are market prices, set by arms length transactions between buyer and seller, speculation cannot be corruption. Solution. Government should not fix prices. Government fixed prices always get the sovereign into trouble, for power leaks into the hands of the sovereign’s overmighty servants, and Soros launches color revolution against the sovereign.

                > How do you keep people with information from abusing it to benefit themselves

                Some people have information, some people have ignorance and obstinate stupidity. It is right that those who have information should use it to benefit themselves. If they don’t get rich, people will reasonably conclude that they are not smart, and fail to listen to them.

                If one man knows that rice will soon be short, and everyone else is acting like there is no problem, what is he supposed to do? Stand on the street corner preaching that the end is nigh? No one is going to listen. If he is right, they will start listening only when they get hungry.

              • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                All good trading is insider trading.

                • jim says:

                  It is frequently unfair that one party to the deal has better information than the other, but the unfairness works both ways – for example “the market in lemons”. You cannot sell a good used car for a fair price, because though the seller knows it is good, the buyer does not. This is unfair to the one with more knowledge, not the one with less.

                  Imperfect information and lack of trust prevents transactions that could have been mutually beneficial. It is a cost of living with stupid, ignorant, untrustworthy people. Trying to remake society to protect those people from themselves is just going to hurt the smart, knowledgeable, and trustworthy.

                  If we could feed all those people into the woodchipper and use them as fertilizer we would be a lot better off, but, of course, we cannot trust those who would decide who needs to be fed into the woodchipper.

                • Adam says:

                  If people were punished for ignorance nobody would make it to adulthood. How are you going to keep all the land from ending up in the hands of Bill Gates and Blackrock?

                  Land should not be attractive to finance and real estate investors. Developers and builders who are involved in creating value yes.

                  Land is different than most things in that it is finite, but not scarce. But valuable nigger free land near whites that go to church on Sundays and absent massive government, financial and real estate parasites is extremely scarce. So it has some unique properties that have to be accounted for.

                  I don’t have the answers other than prioritizing ownership and residence, allowing profit for developers and discourage profit for rent seekers.

                  Just have to figure a way to keep it out of the hands of parasites.

                • jim says:

                  Nah, just have to figure out a way to keep dangerous people off it. There is plenty of land. What is in short supply is defensive violence. Consider Detroit. Is the problem land speculators? If people are free to build, and secure that they will not be chased off what they have built, there is no real estate problem.

                  It really is not that hard to build a house- regulation gets in the way, and having built it, bad people are apt to move in and move you off it. Those are the problems that need to be solved, and if you start going after the evil speculators this is an inappropriate displacement activity from the actual problem.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  And who are the operative agents in these hypotheticals? children, or adults?

                  Implicitly infantilizing modes of thought are a pathway to many ideologies some might consider… unnatural.

                • Adam says:

                  You telling me adults make better decisions than children? Look around you.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  A. everyone (but me) is stupid
                  B. we need to protect people from their stupidity (which is possible thanks to benevolent experts such as myself)
                  C. therefore socialism

                • Adam says:

                  The conditions that developed America were lots of land either free or cheap, few niggers, few priests, and few bureaucrats. Justice was served on occasion and when it wasn’t, you could somewhat serve it yourself.

                  Those are good conditions. Pioneers and capitalists can work with those conditions. I’m not so much advocating government regulates land, more that we do what we can to preserve that free-for-all state that drives pioneers and capitalists.

                  As soon as you let money decide everything, or bureaucrats decide everything, it ends up in the hands of a few and then your fucked.

                  Capitalism is good, but capitalists also do whatever they can to stifle competition.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  ‘Robber barons stifling competition’ are not why you can’t live in a community where your kid is not at risk of getting beaten up by niggers in child prison.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  To the extent that assets conglomerate under a common ownership, it is because the owner is making his assets more potentiating, not less.

                  The historical track record of monopolies, or more broadly speaking market dominant actors, is that they produced fabulous benefits for America. Carnegie Steel, Vanderbilt Rail, and Standard Oil germinated the potestas that the whig priesthood coasted on inertia through the 20th century after they took over the place, and it was enough to conquer the world.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Property of value will always agglomerate underneath the control of one man. Power wants to be held by as few operators as possible. it requires massive effort and time investment to keep power fractured and distributed widely within the bureaucratic oligarchy. The natural human inclination is to trade away agency for stability, with a rare few inclined to trade stability for agency. You only think you are a nascent warlord because it looks cool and fun. When you get into the situation where warlord shit is required, you will surrender your agency as fast as you can for stability. Further still, those few who have the reverse inclination are by no means naturally suited to effective martial agency. This is true across the warrior/priest/merchant trichotomy: few are capable, even fewer excel. For the vast majority of human kind, we prefer to be led, not lead, for leading is the surrendering of simple happiness, ease, and pleasure.

                  A man starts a business, he grows it, and it consumes him. Just existing in the natural competitive space is enough to swallow a life whole, and women and children sail away into the arms of another. So to become dominant in this area requires an even further sailing away into the depths of inhumanity to achieve dominance. Almost no sleep, no free time, no friends, no lovers, no relaxing, always fighting, always performing, always competing. Very few of the very few can even operate at this level, much less dominate in it.

                  The boundaries are established much like physical constants. No amount of will or energy or desire will enable a 5’6″ man to compete with a 6’5″ man if the baseline requirement is height over 6′. So, once the game of competitive power management kicks off, it will always, always, always culminate in control by the few of the few. Railing against this, calling this bad, thinking this is bad, is dumb. Better to work within the structure that exists. Better to use the tools at hand rather than dream of magic tools or declare certain tools evil or unfair because you cannot wield them yourself.

                  The system under which we endure needs to be changed not because wealth, power, and property end up in few hands, as this is exactly how God and Nature intend things to be, rather it is because of the artificial and unnecessary structures in place that shunt said wealth, power, and property into undeserving and incapable hands.

                  Rampant bureaucracy is a bulwark erected around the Incompetent Elite to keep power and control they cannot handle firmly out of the hands of good warriors and honest priests. Their King is, in effect, their Castle. Their throne rests empty by design, and the dull bricks are seeded with the shards of the King’s stolen and fractured power. They plop a merchant with plastic crown on the seat and hail him king only to distract from the very walls they have erected. I have no solution to propose here, but I know beyond doubt that, whatever system follows, it will obey the laws of nature: the few shall control the many.

                • jim says:

                  > Property of value will always agglomerate underneath the control of one man.

                  This is just the Marxist theory that capital is theft. That capital springs forth spontaneously from the fertile soil of Wakanda and is stolen from the brave and stunning warrior women of subsaharan Africa by white male rapists.

                  Capitalism creates capital, it does not “agglomerate” it.

                  The mergers that we are seeing in the tech field today are not driven by entrepreneurs wishing to surrender agency, but by Sarbanes Oxley, which made IPOs impossible. If you want your shares publicly traded to that you can cash out, you have to sell out to a giant megacorp.

                  Those awful evil big monopolies got big the way Musk got big in space: They created capital, they did not agglomerate it. As Space X radically reduced the cost of access to space and radically increased the amount of cargo going to space, Standard Oil radically reduced the cost of fuels refined from crude oil, radically increased the amount of refining capacity, and radically increased the amount of products refined from crude oil. The reason Standard Oil owned most of the refining capacity was that Standard Oil created most of the refining capacity. The Rothschilds did not redistribute it to them from Wakanda.

                  When you say “agglomerate” there is a presupposition that capital just exists somehow. Capital is continually created by wisdom, hard work, and good judgment, and continually destroyed by foolishness, fecklessness, and bad judgment. Capitalism is the creation of capital, and some people and groups are apt to create a great deal more of it than others. This creation benefits everyone, not just the person who creates it. The capital that Standard Oil created benefited everyone that drove a car. When a farmer is good at increasing his herds, more steak for me.

                  All genuinely voluntary transactions are win win. If I buy a hamburger, I value the hamburger more and the money less, while the man who sold me the hamburger values the hamburger less and the money more. If a great capitalist creates an enormous amount of capital, he has engaged in a great many voluntary transactions that have benefited a great many people.

                  To the extent that we now see the agglomeration you describe and rightly decry, the problem is not human nature, it is Sarbanes Oxley, which put a sudden end to the explosion of a multitude of tech firms.

                • Adam says:

                  Sounds a lot like all capitalists are holy and blameless, and all men that become capitalists magically shit altruism and prosperity.

                  But businesses can become bandits all the same. All day every day the owners are incentivized to give less to the customer and less to labor. That’s a lot of temptation and it’s just the beginning.

                  We talk all the time about virtues among kings, and elites, and warriors and priests. Are we supposed to believe capitalism magically eliminates vices from the men that become capitalists? As if that has no effect on their neighbors?

                • jim says:

                  > Sounds a lot like all capitalists are holy and blameless, and all men that become capitalists magically shit altruism and prosperity.

                  Obviously capitalists magically shit prosperity. Just look.

                  Which altruism conspicuously fails to do, hence the phrase “as cold as charity”

                  Altruism murdered hundreds of millions, capitalism made everyone prosperous.

                  You think all that stuff was stolen from Wakanda and the capitalists got there first and grabbed more than their fair share.

                  > We talk all the time about virtues among kings, and elites, and warriors and priests. Are we supposed to believe capitalism magically eliminates vices from the men that become capitalists? As if that has no effect on their neighbors?

                  Capitalism needs the virtue of keeping one’s promises and paying one’s just debts, the virtue of wisdom, hard work, foresight and prudence. But capitalists, unlike warriors and priests, are in no position to harm people, so they no need for virtues related to that capability, nor do they have opportunity to display virtue or lack of virtue in those matters.

                  The speculator, for example, benefits those he bought from, and those he sold to. They may feel pissed off because his foresight was better than their own, but had he told them what he foresaw, they probably would not have listened.

                  > But businesses can become bandits all the same. All day every day the owners are incentivized to give less to the customer and less to labor.

                  The customer and the laborer can become a competing business. And if they cannot, the owner of the business is giving them an unearned benefit, for which they are being ungrateful. All the wealth and abundance of modernity was created by capitalists. If you cannot do what they did, what gives you the right to any of it? What gives you the right to a higher standard of living than you could obtain by scratching in the dirt with a digging stick?

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  If my position parrots marxism, it is unintentional and a result of my own ignorance or incompetence.

                  > Capital is continually created by wisdom, hard work, and good judgment, and continually destroyed by foolishness, fecklessness, and bad judgment.

                  I would argue that there’s an ebb and flow, that neither is constant, but the potential for both is constant. Regardless, in states of equilibrium, there does appear to be agglomeration of sorts. I don’t think this is a bad thing, but it can be a bad thing.

                  The warrior needs the priest, the priest needs the merchant, the merchant needs the warrior.

                • jim says:

                  Where we get one business growing bigger, and others diminishing relatively or absolutely as result of competition, this is usually a good thing, a result of one business being more successful at creating wealth than the others.

                  When we get agglomeration, often a bad thing, the tech acquisitions generally a bad thing, but these are driven by the state, by regulatory power. In the normal market order we see spinouts as well as mergers. Obviously there is a strong natural tendency for one business to become bigger than the others, but I just do not see a natural tendency to agglomerate, except as a result of corrupt state intervention.

                • Adam says:

                  Evil will smother good, because evil is always one step ahead of good, a step that cannot be predicted because evil chases a false reward.

                  I have seen no end of envy, and covetousness, and lust from capitalists. In front of my face, with my own eyes and ears. It is disgusting. It is like looking at a demon. To avoid the pain of honesty, a man will take the path of dishonesty.

                  If your telling me the cure is worse than the disease, I don’t have an argument or a solution. And to some extent I can accept that. I know capitalism produces prosperity. But that is not all it produces.

                  If you tell me that a chemical company and pump toxic sludge into a river, endangering those nearby and unrelated you better also tell me that I can slit the CEOs throat in front of a crowd of people and you will look the other way with that too.

                • jim says:

                  > I have seen no end of envy, and covetousness, and lust from capitalists.

                  Bullshit. Covetousness is wanting that which is someone else’s, and envy is wanting someone else to not have what he has. What drives a capitalist to do capitalism is he wants to create something similar to, and usually wants to create something better than, what someone else has.

                  The envious and covetous just do not do capitalism, and do not understand it. Doubtless capitalists are as lustful as any man, and probably more so – I surely am. But of enviousness and covetousness, you will not find the faintest skerrik. Not a trace. It is just an entirely alien and incomprehensible motivation to me. It is something I just do not get, and that very few capitalists can even comprehend. It is a vice entirely alien to capitalists and capitalism.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  > It is something I just do not get, and that very few capitalists can even comprehend. It is a vice entirely alien to capitalists and capitalism.

                  And herein lies a critical exploit. The failure to “get it” means that, 9/10 times, it will be ignored or forgotten or not taken into account, in design or implementation. This is why priests are needed by both merchants and warriors. Great men need assistance to remember or at least consider the things that slip by or mean nothing. The best exploits by intel organizations come from people who feel left out, forgotten, or ignored. They are embittered and spiteful, and can be used to great effect against the organizations/institutions they are a part of.

                  Enviousness and covetousness are rampant in many groups, but that doesn’t mean they have to be. These tendencies have to be ameliorated, and that is the job of priests. But therein lies a danger, as the very priests who should be mitigating this issue are also the same people that can utilize it to enrich themselves and cast down their foes, real or imagined or projected.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  Do you know why people were okay with the rivers being flammable? It meant that they were fed, and their children had medicine. After you slit the CEO’s throat, and people begin to starve to death because chemical-free agriculture will not sustain the current population, people will look the other way when I have you ground into fertilizer. You foolishly Lach understanding of the forces that drove us here.

                  You project the sins of the priestly class onto all others, because you are a small, evil man who will achieve nothing and you would rather that we all scrabble in the dirt than anyone be above you. You forget that even when we are all scrabbling in the dirt, that some animals are more equal than others. Give a man bread, he’ll eat for a day. Beat a man and take his bread, and he’ll grow more for you to take tomorrow. The rules of polite society are their for your protection, not mine, and you will always be beneath me no matter what the rules are.

                • Aidan says:

                  Who owns, or has rights in, the river that the factory owner is dumping waste into? The commons have been subject to special law for a very long time- if somebody is polluting property that others have rights to use, that is between those parties.

                  Because the state has an interest in certain of its lands, it has every right to regulate the use of those lands- generally, this is solved with charter corporations. When a corporation is created, it gets a charter which describes the activities that it is limited to.

                  When Adam says covetousness, he probably means greed, manifested by the fairly common practice of a business owner defecting on a transaction or contract. Historically, businessmen who defect, a used car salesman selling a lemon or a barkeep watering down his beer, tend to get lynched while the state looks the other way.

                • jim says:

                  Greed is indeed a stereotypical sin of capitalists. Envy and covetousness, however, are more typical of their enemies.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  People with full belies and medicine to keep them healthy tend to worry about waste dumped in rivers significantly more than people who have gone hungry and lost children to disease. Sri Lanka is learning that lesson well. Better living through chemistry is not an empty slogan. It is a reflection of bitter reality.

                  Now that we have the means and methods to avoid the waste dumping we should. Life is in general better that way, but we need to remember that it can always be worse, too. People knew that, which was why the river being on fire was annacceptable compromise.

                • Adam says:

                  Not bullshit. Your starting to sound like the people that say that wasn’t real communism, real communism has never been tried. Yeah liked Ayn Rands book. I found myself deeply sympathetic to the protagonist and thoroughly disgusted by the antagonists. But it’s a fairy tale.

                  Real capitalists lie cheat and steal like everyone else. Many capitalists have to have a gun put to their head before they take full responsibility for their business.

                  The chase for material wealth is the same as the chase for heroin. Same high, just harder to get. In business you will find the same defects of character in many that you find in a heroin addict.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Wulfgar, you’re being harsh. Not necessarily unnecessarily, but the soft answer turns away wrath.

                  Adam, you are starting to sound like a livid college student demanding equality, but I don’t thank that is your intention. I think you might be conflating skinsuit capitalists with actual capitalists. I suggest we all attempt to reframe our positions in an effort to elevate brothers and come to honest agreement or disagreement in good faith.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Isn’t it interesting how proponents of evil always talk about the supreme power and universality of evil?

                  Quite a coincidence, that.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  A leftist cacopriest (but i repeat myself) converges pre-existing organizations into yet more platforms for preaching zir’s leftist religion, irrespective of whatever purpose it may have originally been serving.

                  The Polygon exerts power through proxies, cutouts, and sock-puppets. Our good friend observes the evil of the theocracy wearing corporations as skinsuits, and ascribes that evil to the dead corpses of the very victims they killed in the first place.

                • Adam says:

                  Everyone benefits when honest men become capitalists.

                  What happens when an honest capitalist becomes a dishonest one? Or when a dishonest man inherits one?

                  Is going out of business the only justice for misconduct among businessmen?

                  Again it could be that the cure is worse than the disease. And I could be demoralized with my own experience over the last 25 years. These are all honest questions I’m asking and what I consider valid concerns.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Adam, you are asking good questions in my mind. Your statements could be plucked directly from my thoughts. I worry about what happens when the good go wrong, or too much power gets put in the hands of too few men.

                  …and that is because there’s a leftist faggot living in my brain. The training I received bit too deep, both formal and informal. I got too much pussy as a reward for virtue signaling, or my Puritan roots are too strong, or something, but forever the term “capitalist” has a negative connotation to me, and my gut level instinct is to provide oversight for merchants to make sure they stay on the right side of history. I am wrong, my senses are wrong, and I cannot be trusted.

                  I’m not a pilot, but I have investigated a few and I remain enthralled with disasters. There’s a common thread in many plane crashed wherein the pilot had functioning instruments and excellent training, but they trusted their gut and pancaked with all hands lost. The insidious nature of the Cathedral is that they plant ideas, inclinations, and sentiments in your brain and convince you they merely pointed out what was already there. I have learned, painfully and slowly, that in certain circumstances, I just can’t be trusted to infer the correct responses, approaches, and perspectives.

                  This may not apply to you or your senses, but can you objectively say it does not apply? When I write out “capitalist,” what image springs to mind, and does that image colour your perspective?

                  I’m not attacking or insulting you, just telling you the way it is for me. I have a gut level aversion to “capitalists.” This is why I belong on a farm raising children and crops, not sitting in an office dictating how capitalists make more capital.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Those who quibble with sayings like ‘might makes right’ often vastly underestimate how difficult might is.

                  Prominence is hard, not easy. Ideas like ‘what happens if someone bad is prominent’ implicitly come from a point of view that takes power for granted, and not something that in of itself is dependent on and a function of virtue – though in more transcendent contexts the chains of causality involved are often equally distant beyond the inferential horizons of most.

                  People, families, companies, countries, civilizations… are constantly failing all the time.

                  There is nothing in this world that exists except by recurrent heroic effort of genius to keep things lifted out of the dust and into the sky.

                  Any capital granted by windfall of happenstance alone quickly falls back down to the dust within the span of a generation, or less.

                  ‘Opportunity’ is a presupposition for ability to create such conditions of opportunity in the first place.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  >There is nothing in this world that exists except by recurrent heroic effort of genius to keep things lifted out of the dust and into the sky.

                  This is intensely profound, yet I don’t think I’ll ever in my heart believe it. In this line, I am forever tainted. I will always have this faggot leftist whispering sweet lies into my mind. I know it is true, I see that it is true, but I don’t believe it naturally. I have to force myself, in many situations to say to myself: “no, you are wrong about that, that person is not the enemy, you just have broken instincts.”

                  I don’t think I am alone in this, and wiser men than I need to put some real thought into combatting this proclivity towards insanity that disguises itself as compassion or rationality or good sense.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Napoleon was once famously known for preferring the luckiest officers to be his generals – which, advertently or not, touches on a deep wisdom of perennial dynamics of Being.

                  Factors underlining the success of something or other are often complex, diffuse, and difficult to gain information on, sometimes even to the principles involved themselves – which is even before you get into intentional dissimulation of such for reasons of invidiousness.

                  Whereas, the proclamation of ‘i want this man precisely *because* he is lucky’, ends up doing an end run around all that; Creation itself becomes your selection mechanism, elevating those whose fitness passes through its filters.

                  The more transcedent the context, the more different different teleologies can overlap, and their ultimate ends trailing off beyond a given inferential horizon; and it is this myopia, an inability to *conceive* of something, perceived as *a lack of existence for that something*, which is a generative root for much ill throughout the history of civilizations.

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  A soft voice may turn away wrath, but the only way to turn away envy is the stick. The only argument a leftist respects is argumentum ad bacculum. Kill a commie for mommy; better dead than red; get back to work, slave; okay, groomer.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Fair enough Wulf, but I think Adam deserves the benefit of the doubt. He appears to be on the wrong side of this specific issue, and correction is needed, but we will, in my opinion, unnecessarily sacrifice coordination and cooperation if we vilify tribe members for being wrong on a given issue. It could very well be the case that there’s much wrong and this incorrect position is an indication of that, but it could just as likely be that Adam is falling for the same bullshit proggy propaganda in which nearly all men of the West are steeped in.

                  To be fair, this is not a simple issue. Jim invoked the Forbes 400 list, and I wonder how many of them are real capitalists, and how many are priestly skinwalkers inhabiting the shorn integument of a capitalist. As well, how many capitalists are parroting priestly platitudes just to get by? I can’t think of a single major corporation that has not gone all in on BLM, tranny, and ESG bullshit.

                  Here’s a related but separate inquiry: are all capitalists Merchants by default, or can Warriors and Priests be capitalists?

                • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

                  He is not just wrong, he is trying to sneak in a payload. Some people are evil, capitalists are people, therefore all capitalists do evil and need to be controlled. When it gets put like that it is easy to see. He is making a leftist argument for controlling capital. You cannot maintain doctrinal integrity if you sacrifice it for cooperation. This is a non-negotiable issue for neoreaction.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  Much managerialist malfeasance in practice consists primarily of just different forms of kicking the can down the road.

                  ‘What if person in charge of stuff is bad – should put someone else in charge of stuff’.

                  And how are you putting someone else in charge of someone else’s stuff? What if they are bad too? What if, in fact, it is that very process of replacing authority over someone’s stuff with someone else, that is most attractive and amenable to ‘bad people’ in the first place?

                  It’s this selective cognitive blind spot that is endemic in all these sorts of arguments. ‘This person with authority over something could misuse that authority; therefore, in an abundance of caution, we should remove that authority’. And then whose authority is it then? Like the underpants gnomes you are supposed to cross your eyes and not notice the big gap of step ??? in the plan between the first step of intervention and the last step of perfect human felicity. It is cargo-cult thinking, that by removing the immediately obvious representative of agency (the originating owner and operator of something), agency has been removed altogether – laundering responsibility over something in hopes the buck gets lost somewhere along the way.

                  ‘Other people having power is scary; therefore they should not have power’.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Being wrong on some issues is okay but being a feminist or being a socialist of any kind are not issues where it is okay.

                  Genuinely leftists businessmen (though IMHO there are far more managerial priestly types who fit this description) would be treated as leftists… and IMHO leftists all have to go.

                  Businessmen who are just Mr Burns unscrupulous… well psychopaths tend to do something blatantly and horribly illegal eventually and they’ll face civil or criminal trouble (which in our system will be FAR less corrupt and more harsh as in order to restore a high trust society you’ll need a generation of Vlad the Impaler like justice for corruption and dishonesty… you can’t restore high trust without punishing even defection with extreme severity at least for a number of decades).

                  Monopolies if you’re worried about that are a problem of government collusion with business which in our system will not really exist outside of infrastructure businesses and the military…

                • i says:

                  Speaking of Capitalism. Why is modernity in terms of architecture so ghastly and hideous?

                  How are the Transcendentals of Goodness, Truth and Goodness severed from one another rather than being a Unity as it should.

                  As God manages to do in making the natural world, the Garden of Eden/New Jerusalem.

                  And the Being of God himself being Goodness, Truth and Beauty as One in Perfection.

                  In terms of how it turns out. The capacity to combine Beauty with Function has been shot in contrast to earlier Ages of Europe.

                • jim says:

                  > Why is modernity in terms of architecture so ghastly and hideous?

                  Demon worship. Observe what a society far more capitalist than our own (England before 1820) built while Christian.

                  Christian architecture imitates Christ, by meeting man on the human scale, bridging the human scale to the scale of building, and pointing at the sky, thus at the divine. Brutalist architecture does not meet man at the human scale, but looks down on man from above, saying “I am vast, I am, I am mighty, I will crush you”.

                  Every building built in a Christian ruled society is a little Church or a small Cathedral, every building built in a society ruled by demon worshipers is a demonic temple of human sacrifice.

                • ten says:

                  Post ww2 architecture is not only inhuman and threatening. Soulless drone shacks, replacing the chaotic individuality of an actual slum with hivecells of decaying plaster in tortuous pastel. Architect villas like some stupid failure of a futuristic drawing you made in art class, hidden in the bottom drawer.
                  Some shape that might be interesting if you found it in a smooth piece of calcinated flintstone on a sunset beach, but exploded to gargantuan museum size dislodged mid city as macrogeometric litter.

                  Modern buildings that emanate malice and evil are better than the dross pointless failures, the abject shit phoned in by loser hacks. Stupid and bad ideas performed by stupid and bad people for stupid and bad reasons in stupid and bad ways.

                • Neurotoxin says:

                  The ugly brutalist “modern” architecture was indeed created by bad guys, specifically 20th century socialists. Thomas Wolfe hilariously documents this in his short book From Bauhaus to Our House.

                  In particular, an amusing theme is the race, staring after WWI, to design buildings that are definitely, positively, “not bourgeois.” You couldn’t have roofs with two slopes meeting in a peak because that was “bourgeois” …until some theoretician proved that a monopitch roof (one slope, no peak) was OK because not bourgeois. (Wolfe: “The Dutch really knew how to bourgeois-proof a building.”)

                  One brash Marxist architect designed buildings with red facades – he’d yell “Red front!” in case anyone missed the point – until holiness spiraling theoreticians leapt ahead of him by proving that color was so, so bourgeois, and he was left in the dust. That was no doubt when the only acceptable colors became white, gray, and black, with generous helpings of glass.

                • i says:

                  There is also another person who wrote about this phenomenon:

                  Those Architectural schools ought to be wiped off the face of the earth for saddling us with such dystopian horrors.

          • The Cominator says:

            “Profit from land development and home building should not be discouraged.”

            I didn’t say it should, merely that one should not be able to buy existing homes with credit. One should be able to take a loan to BUILD a new house… or to knock down a smaller residence to build a much bigger one.

            “Usury on real estate loans should be eliminated”

            Usury is an ill defined term I’m saying no loans for existing real estate period pay cash.

            ” as once you eliminate progressivism”

            I’m probably the most hardcore person here on doing that given that I believe in a Final Solution to the People who actually voted for Biden problem… but subsidized credit will always cause prices in something to rise faster than inflation year over year (with occasional pullbacks) so you have to get rid of mortgages too. You can have the FDIC and you can have mortgage loans… but you can’t have both not even after you send every prog up the chimney.

            • Fidelis says:

              Just make it legal to build again, alongside your general plan for social improvement, and you will have no problem with house prices. Speculation on real estate through loans means that capital cannot be put to some higher yielding asset, means the speculators lose their lunch. No state power necessary.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Speculation on real estate through loans means that capital cannot be put to some higher yielding asset”

                There are only two asset groups which allow the kind of leverage allowed in real estate and both are so dangerous that no sane person without inside information will touch them with his own money…

                Forex and Futures. Real Estates somewhat lower yield than tech stocks still attracts speculators because of the leverage… that leverage needs to be removed.

                • Fidelis says:

                  Attempting to salve the peculiarities imposed by overregulation through yet more policy. Not sure why you have fixated so hard on this particular solution of yours, but it is silly. You won’t get any decent yield at all if buyers and investors drive up prices *and then those high prices make it profitable to build more houses.* Eternally rising real estate costs are entirely the result of making building illegal, not this boogeyman hobbyist and otherwise speculator.

                • The Cominator says:

                  I’m for making it legal to build…

                  I’m even for building on credit, I’m merely saying that there should be no purchase of existing homes on credit. I’ve seen nothing good come of it for decades…

                • jim says:

                  This would do little direct economic harm, and would make it harder for someone who builds a house to move. Mobility reduces neighborhood cohesion and security, so has a harmful externality.

                  Renting also has a harmful externality, since renters are less motivated to maintain good relations with their neighbors and maintain neighborhood safety. Renting is more harmful than selling on credit.

  43. i says:

    They are targeting the Autistic children for trooning:

    They are going after the 4chan demographic aren’t they.

    • The Cominator says:

      It will fail… Probably the least likely group to buy into this bullshit.

      • Karl says:

        Is consent of a child required for medical treatment? Maybe for now, but are
        you confident that will be a requirement in the future?

        It is a holiness spiral. Unless it is stopped, it will devour everyone including autistic children.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          This is true, but it isn’t a one way street. As the Cathedral becomes more brittle and dumber, they grow more petulant and hasty. “Oft evil will will evil mar.” Their Great replacement strategy has been effective, yes, but mestizos are also fast becoming the bigger threat to their control. They can try to pivot to another group, bet the mestizos are here and holding, and there are plenty of cases that demonstrate they are quite capable of being based after becoming red pilled. Even their favorite gay-torean guard, American blacks, are generating warriors for reaction. Kanye may fail, but I don’t think he will be the last negro to wake up to what’s happening.

          For every autist they groom into shooting up a place, they are generating even more autists hellbent on their destruction. This is merely a silver lining, and the storm clouds remain.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            Gallup polling found 1 out of 6 Generation Z kids identify as LGBT. There is going to be a lot of damage over the next couple of decades.

            I saw some estimates that the figure is likely to reach 1 out of 4 in the near future.

            I’m a lot more pessimistic than Cominator. They are starting extremely young with these kids, and in places like California, are pushing them onto all sorts of drugs. Once they get on the drugs it’s pretty much over for the kid.

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              Honestly, and this breaks my heart to write this… good. I hope the tainted and poisoned decline as quickly, or even faster, than the apparent established trajectory. Humans learn best by example, and if the demon worshippers wish to stack the gelded bodies of their children in a pile at moloch’s clawed feet, let us be sure to make sure there is no end of documentary evidence for their peers to see and learn from.

  44. alf says:

    What an absolutely lovely post. Instant addition to the required Jim reading list.

    Academia bears the same relationship to technology and industry as niggers bear to civilization.

    I enjoy DIY, and have over the years build a workplace I’m pretty happy with. Got lots of cool toys, like a miter saw, drill press, MIG welding machine and of course the trustworthy brushless cordless drill.

    The technology behind all that equipment is amazing. And many of its innovations are pretty recent too. Take something like plumbing — up til recently it was standard practice to solder water pipes. Messy stuff. But now they have this nifty pressure gun that presses pipes together in a few seconds.

    All of this innovation is the real driver behind civilisation. And who made it possible? Was the brushless drill invented in a PhD paper? Nope, none of it came from academia. It was all capitalists.

  45. Phobos says:

    I have to say, anytime I wander too far away from anything NRx on the dissident right corner of the internet like Gab and Poast, most of the discourse is diluted with purple pilled Nazis who spew commie crap and if pointed out as spewing commie crap will accuse you of being a Jew shill because free market capitalism is a Jew conspiracy. Worst of all is the schizoid “Kubrick filmed the moon landing” tier conspiracy bullshit. The people who believe that crap are provably insane as any argument you make against it they will take as proof for it and will simply go on questioning the fundamental reality of ever more basic propositions until you are left with only the breath in your nostrils. And even that can’t be trusted. Except of course our perfect visual capability for noticing the Earth’s flatness.

    • jim says:

      > If pointed out as spewing commie crap will accuse you of being a Jew shill because free market capitalism is a Jew conspiracy.

      Nearly all of those guys are Soros shills. Turn the topic around to (((Soros))), (((Victoria Nuland))), and (((Zelensky))) and the third positionists cry “Rothschilds Rothschilds Rothschilds” meaning “pay no attention to the man behind the curtain”.

      The Rothschilds lost most of their wealth and power in 1930. There is no one called Rothschild on the Forbes 400. They all dropped off the bottom of that list long ago, frequently pursued by angry creditors.

      • i says:

        I do wonder if the “Synagogue of Satan” are the original “Hello fellow Jews” who manage to get other Jews to ingroup around them so they can continue their dastardly deeds.

        And are indirectly responsible for the massacres of Jews in the Dark Ages and Middle Ages.

        So ruined would the Jewish reputation will be. That the entire world will fight against future Israel.

        • Skippy says:

          Judah and Levi seems to have been that to Israel (the twelve tribes).

          On the other hand, the Joseph of Genesis is already an anti-semitic stereotype of a Jew.

          • i says:

            Joseph of Genesis is considered as a Righteous Man. However.

            Judah and Levi were quite based tribes back in the day. Until Idolatry infected them too.

            • skippy says:

              Joseph uses hocus pocus to co-opt the Egyptian government, creates a financial crisis in Egypt, sends Egyptian grain to Israel, dispossesses the native landowners, enslaves the workers, scatters them throughout the country, and then invites the other Jews to join him. I am not sure what is righteous about that. No European would write a hero like this, or view him as a hero if not for the reflected glory of the New Testament.

              • Redbible says:

                Joseph uses hocus pocus to co-opt the Egyptian government

                No, the King of Egypt thought Joesph would do a good job of running things, so gave him the power to do so.

                creates a financial crisis in Egypt

                Ah yes, you are telling us that Joesph created the socialism in Egypt, rather than seeing that said socialism was on track to create a famine, and thus made sure that stockpiles of food were created.

                sends Egyptian grain to Israel

                That Israel (which at this time is just an extended family, not a nation) paid for.

                dispossesses the native landowners

                Again, if Egypt is already socialist, then he isn’t the one who did this, it was already happening.

                enslaves the workers

                Are you mixing up your ancient Egypt bible stories? Because I’m pretty sure that is the King of Egypt enslaving the Israelites after Joseph’s help.

                scatters them throughout the country

                As yes, using more of the land is very evil.

                and then invites the other Jews to join him

                First, it would be Israelites, not Jews, since the 12 tribes haven’t been scattered yet, and Two, the Israelites are just currently Jospeh’s extended family, and not a nation.

                You attempt to make Joseph out to be some crazy tier villain, when that’s just isn’t what’s there.

                • skippy says:

                  Joseph is a typical seditious Jewish pseudo-elite who carries out a communist revolution in Egypt and the text barely disguises that fact.

                  Before the Hellenic age and the Septaguint foreigners could not read this text. They were never meant to be able to.

                • Aidan says:

                  Your perception of these events is colored by the modern Jewish retelling of them. The Isrealites were a janissary people in a collapsing, degenerate society, and when it went balls up, they fled.

                  You are talking about seditious Jews, when Joseph was a pastoralist barbarian who did not know how to read or write when he first went there. The Isrealite settlement in Egypt was like the Visigoth settlements in the Roman Empire.

                • skippy says:

                  The text of Genesis is clear that Joseph took power in Egypt by ingratiating himself immediately with the upper elite via tricks (dream interpretation etc.). He was not a Swiss Guard who had power thrust upon him by some decadent elite in the style of Stilicho.

                • skippy says:

                  Unless you mean the modern Jews (well, the Jews who wrote the Masoretic text and before?) changed the story to make it less Stilicho-y and more Jew-y. Maybe I guess. No solid evidence one way or another.

                • i says:


                  Either its preserved by the supernatural providence of God and is the Truth.

                  Joseph dodged adultery and didn’t do anything wrong that would get God to rebuke him.

                  Or God has failed.

                • skippy says:

                  That would be the Judeo-Christianity line.

                  The Genesis-Exodus cycle is very much the Jewish story of getting into a country, infiltrating its elite, leveraging that infiltration for broader advantages, stealing and destroying everything, and then running away.

                  A spirit completely absent in the New Testament, which is basically a warning about Jews.

              • i says:


                Pelagian nonsense. Both the Apostle and Jesus regarded the Old Testament as completely factual.

                And Jews are presented as mostly failures in Righteousness. Joseph on the other hand never did anything wrong. But is a type of Christ.

                • i says:

                  Marcionite nonsense is what I meant to say.

                • skippy says:

                  1. Nowhere did I say I am a Christian.

                  2. Having read the Gospel, nobody could recognize the behavior of Joeseph in that of Jesus.

                  You are either a Jew or an atheist saying, “I do not believe this, but you should believe it.”

                  Boomer Judeao-Christianity is dead.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  Joseph might not have been acting out of malice, but the long-term outcome of his policies did result in the Pharoah owning all the land and people who had previously been it’s owners becoming slaves.

                  And sooner or later there’s a new government, which is not so nice to the people who benefited most under the old one.

                  Many of the people considered righteous in Scripture were far from perfect. It’s not the same thing.

                • skippy says:

                  On a plain reading of the story Joseph is a righteous man because he enslaved all these people to his family who then poured into the country. That makes sense for the secret religious texts of an exclusivist materialistic religion.

                  The Old Testament has some great lines, especially from the time when Israel was a kingdom, but dangerous for outsiders to worship it.

                • i says:


                  That is the viewpoint of the Christianity of the Church Fathers all along.


                  Fair point. Although its when the native Egyptian Dynasty expelled the Hyksos rulers that oppression came.

                • skippy says:

                  I’m not arguing for or against any interpretation of Christianity.

                  I replied to a comment arguing (as many do on various grounds) that the disagreeable Jews we see today are not the “real” Jews, and that the “real” Jews are in fact the most wonderful, most good, most inspired, “Chosen” people that they always claimed to be.

                  What I wrote was simply that in their earliest written history the Jews describe themselves doing exactly the same stuff to the civilization of the day that they are still doing now.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  Depends what is meant by what is a “real” Jew?

                  Some people use “real” to mean “ideal”, nowadays.

                  Yes, the Old Testament does not paint a nice picture of how the Israelites generally behaved towards over peoples, or even towards each other.
                  The historical norm for them seems to be almost complete disobedience to God’s actual commands, while meticulously following a complex pile of rules that they made up themselves.

                  Now the debate as to whether modern Ashkenazi Jews are really descended from the ancient tribe of Judah, or from the Khazars of central Asia, is a whole different topic. I don’t claim to know the true facts there.
                  It’s certainly an interesting idea, that Jacob the swindler has now himself been swindled out of his birthright, so to speak…
                  But what is that birthright? The wages of Judaism, ultimately, is damnation.
                  The Bible is rather clear on that.
                  Only Jesus saves.

                • i says:


                  The Biblical record shows that there are a few wonderful ancestors of Jews. Flawed but generally Righteous due to their Faith in God.

                  Abraham was called by God and he obeyed without knowing the final outcome of that obedience. And even went so far as to be willing to give up Isaac after God promised Isaac to him to be his heir believing God will raise him from the dead.

                  But Jews later didn’t do so well. And were very evil.


                  As for the rules it was meant to be like a school master outlining what a Holy and Righteous society looks like.

                  They fell short. Hence the symbolism of the Tabernacle and Animal Sacrifices.

                  Fulfilled by Jesus Christ.

                  The real requirement is in the end because of human inadequacy:

                  “Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as Righteousness.”

                  The same for God’s own son. And also the Baptism of the Holy Spirit after salvation which supernaturally changes a Man from the inside to be Righteous like Jesus Christ.

                • skippy says:

                  The reality is the Jews have been tolerated in Europe for so long in large part because of the mood association between the New and Old Testaments that has no basis in their content.

                  The Jews have always been very clear – at least to themselves – about what they are.

                  Since the Hellenistic age, others who had the ability to see what was written plainly in front of their eyes could have had the same clarity.

                • i says:

                  The reality is the Jews have been tolerated in Europe for so long in large part because of the mood association between the New and Old Testaments that has no basis in their content.

                  It has everything to do with the content. The symbology of the Old Testament are shadows of Cosmic reality.

                  Of Christ and of access to an Absolutely Holy God who dwells in the 3rd Heaven.

                  Not to mention that Jesus Christ considers himself the same God as the God of the Old Testament. Who said to the Jews that he existed as God.

                  Not to mention that the Title “King of the Jews” is an accurate description of God in the flesh.

                  The New Testament is clearly in its content derived from the Old Testament in its symbology, quotations and so on.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  “The reality is the Jews have been tolerated in Europe for so long in large part because of the mood association between the New and Old Testaments that has no basis in their content.”

                  Many Jews will complain long and loud about how terribly persecuted they were in Europe, and will blame all that persecution on Christianity.
                  How they might have been treated had Europe NOT been Christian is an interesting question.

                  I should hope we all agree that we should reject all attempts to guilt or shame people living today over stuff that happened hundreds of years ago.

                  My personal take is that Jews were actually treated quite mildly, compared to a lot of other people. Rome quite literally exterminated entire populations of white Europeans, simply because their version of Christianity was not exactly the same as that of the Pope. But they never seem to have applied that standard to the Jews.

                • skippy says:

                  Most Jews who entered early Christendom did so having been granted royal charters of monopoly (under various guises) i.e. the Joseph approach, although usually facing much stronger and more ruthlessly sovereigns.

                  The current population of “European Jews”, which mostly lives in Israel and America, originates in European peripheries. A large number of Jews entered Christendom via the Spanish reconquest. This led to a centuries-long struggle between the European and Jewish populations which ended with the preponderance of the European population. The other large group of Jews, and the only remaining significant one, entered Russia via the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Both Russia and Poland-Lithuania suffered left holiness spirals and then were damaged/destroyed respectively by their neighbors.

                • skippy says:

                  The New Testament is an attack on Judaism. Christ attacks all the typical Jewish behaviors, while claiming to be a Jew sort of.

                  “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.”

                  I wonder why he felt the need to say he isn’t come to destroy the law or the prophets?

                  Of course, he gives a hook for those with a quite other agenda to declare that the Talmud Law and the Torah’s war cry against the gentiles are also Christian.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  No He doesn’t. The Talmud is the “tradition of the elders” which the Pharisees treated as more important than the actual Old Testament. Anyone who’s actually read the Gospels knows how Jesus regarded that stuff. They used it to rules-lawyer around the plain meaning of God’s commands.

                • skippy says:

                  You are right.

                  But you may be surprised how few people have actually read the Gospels.

                  It is very difficult to explain most of modern Christianity except that almost nobody, not least pastors, actually reads the words of Christ.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  “Here we find an account of a man who has stepped in a pile of shit with his left foot approaching Jesus; he says, ‘Lord, what should I do?’, and Jesus replies, ‘wash off your left shoe’. However, there is another account here years later where a man who has stepped into a pile of shit with his right foot approaches Jesus, and asks him, ‘Lord, what should I do?’, and Jesus replies, ‘wash off your right shoe’.

                  “Now, if you are intelligent as I am, you might have immediately noticed the contradiction here. One moment he is saying wash off your left shoe, the next moment he is saying wash off your right shoe. Confusing! If God is so great, why can’t he get his story strait and tell me which shoe he wants me to wash off?”

                  This is about the level of what passes for ‘biblical scholarship’ amongst our latter-day daemoniacs.

Leave a Reply