Nazis are commies and commies are nazis

Near as makes no difference.

Notice that Russia’s leaders say that Russia’s goals in the Ukraine include de-nazification and/or de-communization, without really making a distinction between de-nazification and de-communization.

Nazism was radical leftism in its day, and was perceived as radical leftism in its day.

And, predictably, Hitler found himself outflanked on the left within the Nazi party, as Stalin found himself outflanked by Trotsky. So he killed them.

Whereupon Stalin created the third positionists, “fascists” who were even lefter than Hitler, Franco, Mussolini and company. At the start of World War II, the third positionists were revealed to be in Stalin’s pocket.

The third positionist movement has always been in the pay of the left, they are always selling a socialism even more radical than that of Hitler, which was itself more radical than the socialism of Franco and Mussolini.

Here in the US, the equivalent of the Azov brigade call themselves third positionists. They are socialist and hostile to Christianity, still selling what they sold for Stalin, though today they appear to be in the pay of Soros. Russia calls the Azov brigade commies or nazis interchangeably, and that is entirely accurate.

The Azov brigade and today’s third positionists are supposed nationalists who serve Jewish globalists. During world war two, they were in the pocket of internationalist socialism, today, they are in the pocket of post capitalist Jewish globalists.

Hitler’s nazism had the usual faults of socialism, and led to the usual catastrophes of socialism, which bit at the worst possible moment. He ran out of other people’s stuff just when he was invading Russia. But for all that, it was different from communism in important ways. Third positionism is not. Hitler wanted to coopt, rather than exterminate, the merchant class. Third positionists, like Marxists, want to eradicate the merchant class and have the priestly class take their wealth.

Hitler perceived the merchant class as doing something important and valuable. Third positionists and Marxists think that wealth just springs forth from the magic dirt, and the evil capitalist overlords just scarfed it all up. This difference proved less important in practice than one might think, as Hitler shut down the creation of wealth by the Merchant class inadvertently, while the Marxists, the Covid worshipers, and the Gaia worshipers destroy it intentionally.

552 Responses to “Nazis are commies and commies are nazis”

  1. Red says:

    TIK dropped a video on how factories worked under the National Socialists:

    ;TLDW They were socialist factories.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      If I didn’t know any better, I’d say TIK lurks here lol. More likely, he’s a turbo-autist who is dealing with “Pooch-esque” hot takes on his fora, and is compelled to inform and rebut them on his platform. He’s been systematically destroying the “Hitler wasn’t a real socialist” bullshit for a while now.

      If you’re looking for an amazing long form series, TIK has a ~10 hour detailed explanation of Operation Crusader in the North Africa campaign:

      He does political commentary too, like looking deeply into socialism, Marxism, etc.

      I really wish we could be a formal community, invite people to debate, do vid conferences, livestream presentations, I genuinely think we could have some epic events. I know we can’t, and I know why we can’t, but it kills me how much raw brainpower and interesting perspectives we have here and we have to hide while redditards get to pretend they have something to offer the world.

  2. zero says:

    after the razorfist video was posted I got a much better understanding of the scale of Lincoln’s presidency and the sea change in the press between the founders and fdr. was Ulysses famous corruption a leftie assault on a man who restored whatever passes for American elite politics, replacing the press merchant alliance pre Lincoln with the lobbyist executive administration post Lincoln’s holy tyranny? 76 to 45 is a confusing time in history I can’t figure out.

    • Red says:

      1876 to 1933 was the second American republic, but a republic unofficially lead by the Church of New England. FDR was the second American dictator after Lincoln.

      • The Cominator says:

        No Wilson was and he was far far worse than either of them.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          Hmm… I want to disagree, but I can’t, not really. Maybe Wilson was less of a dictator than a first among equally evil? But he wasn’t like Reagan, a smooth spokesman for background kingmakers, he was a prime Cathedral high priest, a university professor and carrion bagger.

          Let’s make a list of American Dictators.

          Andrew Jackson
          Abraham Lincoln
          Teddy Roosevelt
          Woodrow Wilson
          Franklin Roosevelt
          Lyndon Johnson
          Richard Nixon
          Ronald Reagan
          Barack Obama

          This is a very rough draft based on my limited understanding of history. Some of these men were strong dictators, others were weak and controlled by their inner circle, but each was monomaniacal in their pursuit of building their aura & legacy while pursuing the agenda that they had tied to their political identity.

          • Red says:

            Only Lincoln and FDR really had full control of all the levers of power for any length of time.

            I’d like to see Coms argument for Wilson ruling as a dictator. My impression is that he didn’t have full control but I haven’t probed the era as much as Lincoln’s or FDR’s.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      Highly recommend. He does an excellent job with the material, a succinct yet detailed deconstruction of the Cathedral memeplex of the Great Emancipator. In the intro, he says:

      “Lincoln is the sacred cow to end all sacred cows […] it’s about what he represents philosophically: top down governments. […] If Lincoln was wrong, so is our ruling class, and their every edict will come tumbling down after…”

      Brother Fist isn’t a Reactionary as far as I can tell, though he’s in surprising alignment with much of the Jimian Theses. I think he’s an honest to God republican, as in a virtuous elite relying, state sovereignty requiring defender of the republic ideal. This is an imperfect perspective, ill equipped for the current era of daemons and women. But he is thoughtful, erudite, amusing, and interesting. He’s another personality I’d love to invite here for a knocked down dragged out debate of steel on steel, republic v. monarchy. He has his faults, but I still firmly believe he’s based and as redpilled and redpilled.

  3. notglowing says:

    On the topic of poverty in America in our time, I found this well written vignette today:

    I think he lives in a suburb of Detroit. I found it a good read although none of the information is particularly new.

    The writer is poor, and hasn’t accomplished a lot in his life, in his words. He lives among people who lack morals, but has never broken the law himself. Most are addicts but he tries to keep away from drugs.

    > These people were born behind the curve, so to speak, they don’t know how to earn an honest living because their parents never instilled it in them, if their parents were even around in the first place. Being poor exposes you to a lot of shittier elements of society, things middle class strivers can’t conceive of, so of course it’s going to have an affect on how you interpret right from wrong because you’ve never had a good moral foundation to begin with. You don’t care as much if you get loaded and get behind the wheel of a car because what do you really have to lose? You don’t see the problem in ripping off someone’s purse or helping youself to electronics in the Apple store because you need the money. Libs tend to romanticize crime as being some language of the oppressed or whatever other prog agitprop but in most cases people just like stealing shit because they want the cred and the money. It’s not a statement against racism when a future doctor breaks open a display case in a Target during a riot and fills a shopping cart full of Playstations, he’s just trying to get paid and if he has fun while doing it, so much the better.

    • SJ says:

      I grew up in the gutter class and I can tell you that the only way you are going to help people that are this stupid and immoral is to create a strong state religion that tells them God is going to punish you if you misbehave. Then have a priestly class that reinforces that after they misbehave and their lives are trash that it is because God is punishing them. This is the only way people who are this dumb are going to be able to understand cause and effect. Replacing the priest with the therapist who tells them they are a victim doesn’t work. They need to be told that they are doing evil and are naturally evil and must try to be good. They need to be told that Tyrone got shot by the police because he sinned and God is punishing him.

      Don’t try to explain these people’s behavior through rational means because they are not rational. They are closer to beast than human and act according to their feelings aka their animal instincts. That blog entry is the prog explanation for why a dog eats it’s own shit. it eats it’s own shit because it’s a dog and nobody was their to prevent the dog from acting the way a dog acts. Poor people are stupid, incredibly mind bogglingly stupid. Imagine the stupidest person you’ve ever met and realize that he would be considered smart among the gutter class. Gutter people are just dogs, beasts, and it’s quite obvious if you are born among them that the word goyim is absolutely appropriate.

      Now we could do more with a virtuous elite that would not put the gutter people into usurious debt. We could do more with simple but true explanations about why shitty people have shitty lives. God is punishing them for sinning. The focus of course needs to be on the morality of the elite though not the “morality” of the gutter people. Focus on we are born with a wicked nature and must try to be good, that consent does not grant morality as that is man usurping what is God’s, and that being good is about the spirit and not about writing down rules that can be studied to find ways around the spirit of being good which can be discovered by the results.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        There are a number of common errors in thinking when it comes to thinking about ‘the worthy poor’.

        Perhaps most common is tendency towards the archetypical position of ‘the only thing wrong with poor folk is the fact that they are poor’.

        With often comes with the corollary notion of, ‘oppressing people of lesser means, means people of greater means are going out of their way to hassle them for no good reason’.

        Biblically speaking, that which is spoken of as oppression of poors, is no less than that which is oppressive to riches as well. Men being defective in their dealings with other men. Undermining security of property. Intrusive usurpation of affairs in a man’s own sphere. Sawing off the branches oneself is also sitting upon.

        If one wishes to actually give people anything, you can give them lower taxes, the ability to do things without everyone needing to hire a team of lawyers to argue an exception for everything in court, the ability to own their women and have a family, to ability to organize and arrange for their defense, the ability to take out human garbage that threatens the foregoing, et cetera et cetera.

        Everyone has ideas about how they could be doing one thing or another better. Every decent man wants to make more of what their lives are. And if you simply let them, they will.

        • Adam says:

          Also, when it comes to the rich, nearly every merchant giving out advice on how to become wealthy says nearly the same thing. Your first million is hard but not because making one million dollars is hard, but because becoming the man that can make one million dollars is hard. Character and integrity, real work on the inside is hardest of all.

      • Pax Imperialis says:

        >Gutter people are just dogs
        Now that’s incredibly unfair to dogs. Dogs are capable of unquestionable loyalty and can follow simple instructions. Some are extremely dependable and will protect you with their life. They generally don’t try to gank you over some chicken or kill you for no reason.

      • Jehu says:

        It is really important for the poor that the elite at least try to keep up appearances and not let it’s dysfunctions ‘all hang out’. And yes, there’s a reason fire & brimstone is common in functional poorer churches. There’s also a reason why many of them take unbiblical positions regarding strong drink. They know their congregation can’t handle it. They’re also the congregations most likely to have stern dress codes. Again, they need to signal that they’re respectable and upright in a way that rich and middle class church groups don’t. Predictably the middle and upper class Christian types like to hurl accusations of legalism at them. I wonder if they would if they had to walk in their shoes?

  4. TheDividualist says:

    Hello Jim,

    Hitler himself might have been different from TP. I don’t know.

    All I know is that you take a random Communist rant against Capitalism and do a simple replace, s/capitalists/jewish capitalists/ and you get a believably Nazi sounding rant.

    And I am not gonna give one bit of trust to people whose opinions are one basic simple search and replace away from communist views.

    This is my take on the Political Turing Test. If A and B are one simple search and replace away, or five or ten, they are the same.

    While there is no way to run a search and replace, not one, not ten, not a thousand on Jim, Spandrel, or Moldbug, to make them sound leftist.

    Any idea that is a limited number of search and replace away from leftists, is leftist.

    That is what I think. So for me the difference between Hitler and TP is not really important.

    • TheDividualist says:

      Even Hannah Arendt can be occasionally useful. She has read de Tocqueville who said that the violent hatred against aristos in France happened after they gave up their privilege, therefore power, therefore social function, and wealth without function invites hatred.

      I would rather call it wealth without power invites envy.

      Anyway she said the same happened with German Jews, no longer having the power or social function of being the financier of the King of Prussia or the Habsburg Emperor in Vienna, either the loss of function or the loss of power generated envy against their wealth.

      I am as a cynic more into the power, not function explanation.

      One leftist says lets rob the powerless rich French aristocrat, another leftist says lets rob the powerless rich German Jew.

      • Pax Imperialis says:

        Asians have wealth without power. They don’t get targeted the same why Jews and Whites have been. Before German immigrants were fully integrated into the “White” demographic, they too were fairly wealthy and also largely overlooked by politically envious groups. There’s something more than just wealth without power that invites genocidal robbing impulses.

        • zero says:

          Asians have not had power, when the strong fall their detractors look like the strong horse and gain supporters. the vultures aren’t attracted to things, they are attracted to weekness. the left is like the dark inverse of Havel’s green grocer, they see a fatherless child and want to rape it, they see a happy family with guns, crown and god on there side and they walk off whistling looking for some frog to torture. these evil people are like Baals carrion birds, God won’t allow us to cull them completely because entropy is baked in the cake, but obeying God and being a righteous people banishes them to the shadows. everyone dislikes a loser, the left wants to desecrate the losers corpse. the czar became a loser when he let academic faggots emancipate the serfs instead of the lord’s with land and soldiers, then the left desecrated his family’s corpses.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            This is more like adding epicycles to the geocentric model to make it fit with the heliocentric model.

            A native leftist is leftist against fellow natives because that is how leftism do. A dysfunctional lumpenprole (ideally alien, but also including nominally native examples too) is recruited by a native leftist because he has no hope of any higher status compared to a native without the native leftist’s patronage.

            In europoid countries, east asians don’t neatly fit into either part of this dyad. They are not europoids, so a europoid leftist does not have that same instinctive antipathy for them that he would feel for his neighbors; yet at the same rate, they are not especially dysfunctional either, so they lack utility as recruitable totems in that white leftist’s war against other whites.

            • zero says:

              very interesting take, would go a long way to filling out the Amish exemption, foreign so they are a potential ally and leftist antipathy seems focused on near and very ignorant of far. too moral to have traitors so no breeding ground of outgroup allies for the Borg. I wonder if overlap with leftist communities genetic/religious is a big factor in which moral minorities around the world get wacked like the Tutsi

    • jim says:

      Hitler was significantly and substantially different from the third positionists, but not different enough to make a huge difference.

      The third positionists are merely one search and replace different from communism.

  5. notglowing says:

    That the topic of Gnostics has been raised recently reminded me of how there are matters which seemed more commonly discussed when I first started reading this blog, but are now somewhat absent.

    Aside from Gnosticism, which I believe was mentioned at least once in every comment section, we have been missing the divide between Permanent Government and Temporary Government.

    Almost certainly due to Trump no longer being in power and the distinction becoming less important.

    What else has changed in these discussions?

    • Redbible says:

      Without Peppermint or Shaman, certain parts of the WQ have not been brought up as much in the comments. (Actually, seems like the WQ is not brought up as much in general.)

      That said, that partly had to with the fact that Peppermint pushed the idea that men DON”T find women below the age of 18 attractive. Several refuted this, but Shaman was one of the more active in doing so. (Connected to this was also the Loli question, and how young girls engage in activities likely to result in getting raped, provided they had enough boobs and butt.)

      • Red says:

        The Woman question is pretty well settled around here. There’s a lot more action on Gab if you want debate with people who have not gone full NRx.

  6. […] 15 Jan Nazis are commies and commies are nazis […]

  7. Basil says:


    • jim says:

      I just do not see ethnic Russians being driven out of the homes and cities that they have built within territories controlled by the Russian federation, while I do see Amerikaners being driven out of the homes and cities that they have built.

      If you claim this is happening to Russians, will have to produce evidence and argument.

      During the religious war between Mohammedans and ethnic Russians, cities controlled by Mohammedans were utterly flattened, which should severely discourage future takeovers and expulsions.

  8. i says:

    How feminism emerged among the occultic groups in the 19th century. And like now is a top-down imposition of ideology:

    • jim says:

      As your link says “demon worship, spirit mediums, magic mushrooms, witchcraft, CIA spies, and sex cults”

      I have always known this, just from the smell of them, even when I was a leftist lad long ago, but your link claims to assemble concrete evidence.

  9. Trump 2024 says:

    Medvedev trolling the Nips:

    “Biden and Kishida stated that any possible use of nuclear weapons by Russia in Ukraine would be a hostile act against all humanity, for which there is no justification.

    This is such a monstrous shame that I will not even comment on the paranoia about our nation’s nuclear plans. Think about it. The head of the Japanese government is spouting nonsense about Russia in a humiliating ecstasy of allegiance, betraying the memory of hundreds of thousands of Japanese who were burned in the nuclear fires of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And Kishida doesn’t give a damn that the only country that fully used nuclear weapons was the United States. And its only victim was his own homeland. He should have reminded the U.S. president of this and demanded repentance for the act of war the U.S. leadership never did. But no, Kishida is just a servant for the Americans. And servants cannot have the courage.

    One is left feeling sorry for the Japanese. After all, such shame can only be washed away by committing seppuku on his return directly at their Cabinet meeting. Although the concept of honor is not peculiar to this generation of Japanese vassals.”

    Machine translation of:

    • The Cominator says:

      The Japanese during WW2 were not sane…

    • Pax Imperialis says:

      Japan is extremely dependent on US security guarantees for their shipping lanes. Obviously Kishida has to pay lip service so long as Japan doesn’t have a large blue water navy. That is changing though so expect the Japanese tune to change with military buildup.

      Medvedev really shouldn’t goad the Japanese like this. Better for the Russians to have a weak Japan that says stupid shit than a strong Japan that can do stupid shit.

      • Western Taliban says:

        I imagine Medvedev isn’t particularly worried about a country of trap loving 2D girl cuck faggots.

        • Fidelis says:

          You clearly don’t interact with russian zoomers

          • Western Taliban says:

            You clearly don’t interact with Russian zoomers in Donetsk.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              You both are being a bit obtuse. Medvedev’s words are going to profoundly influence Japan, the dispute between RF and Japan is ongoing and relevant. He’s not trolling them, he’s challenging them. Japan is on a demographic precipice, but there’s still up and comers, young Nipponese seeking a better cultural spirit. Medvedev’s challenge will reappear in a year or so on the lips of the nips themselves, it will filter through.

              Russia has an immense challenge facing it: conclusively defeat NATO in Ukraine while simultaneously peeling off vassals from the GAE. Victory is the best way to do this, but soft power is also worthwhile. Reminding a vassal that defeat made them friends with an enemy is definitely an option.

              Japan has, I believe, the fourth largest navy in the world. They are stupidly reliant on GAE tech, but I bet that’s just on the surface level. They saw just as clearly that USG tech is not living up to expectation in SKorea, is not magically defeating Russians in Ukraine. The Japanese Option (having all requisite equipment, tech, and capability to be a nuclear power, not being one by choice, reserving the implied right to become one in short order) is an esoteric element of International Relations that’s not really taught anymore, but you see it in how Japan refuses to call their army an army, how they don’t build “carriers” but instead VTOL platforms with offensive characteristics. They remain adherents of the Realist School, and they’re not going to be the ones to try and save the USA, and the GAE by extension, from itself. They will continue to bow and make obeisance to the Obvious King while they rebuild their capacity to sustain their nation.

              Russia needs many other countries to wake up to the paradigm shift coming. Japan is afraid of China becoming the USA. It’s stupidly complicated by the seeming trend of foreign countries believing that somewhere in DC, adults are behind closed doors making decisions. Russia has realized that is not the case, and they desperately need others to do so as well.

  10. i says:

    Now the GAE proxy armies have female “soldiers” just like the PKK/YPG Kurds in Iraq and Syria:

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      Given the historic penchant of Russians towards the rape end of rape, pillage. and burn, this is probably actually about the only chance that these women have to reproduce. Whatever poor girls survive the artillery and get taken prisoner will probably gladly jump into bed with whatever Russian solder they can. That is damn near General Butt Naked levels of alpha.

      On a serious note, put a fork in Ruthenia, it is done for. Game over, man. No way they can send pretty girls like this into a meat grinder and come out the other side. You need women for the next generation. The only generation coming is to the Russian soldiers to whom these women surrender. Thus ends the Ruthenian bloodline. Hopefully the images of shredded females on the front line tempers the Pollacks’ desires to be the next to autogenocide.

    • Encelad says:

      The limiting factor of the ability of a population to reproduce is the number of females available. Enlisting young women in the front lines en masse might very well result in the extinction of the Ukrainian people.
      Wonder if this is insanity dictated by holiness spiral or Zelensky is doing that deliberately for some (((reasons))).

      • Your Uncle Bob says:

        >insanity or (((reasons)))

        Either way, the lesson is don’t allow yourself to be ruled by hostile elites, because sooner or later you’ll find yourself asking that question.

        I go back and forth on whether it even matters. Whether covid and the vaccine was incompetence or a master plan, the end result is the same. Whether offshoring jobs and FIREing the economy was a master plan or emergent, the end result is the same.

        Maybe it’s not (((reasons))), master plan, or insanity, it’s that they just don’t give a fuck. Once you outgroup your own ethny proles (old blood American elites) or capture command of someone else’s ethny state (Ukraine), sacrificing a few of them in the name of progress starts at neutral and ends as a net positive in their minds. It’s like if you found some unrelated, sacrificial use of your local homeless. It’d be a win/win for everyone – except for them, but they don’t count.

    • Pax Imperialis says:

      Female PKK/YPG Kurds actually fight and die. AFU female “soldiers” are making TikTok videos. Comparing apples to oranges here.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        Disagree. The Kurdish Cunts do photo ops and desperate defensive options. They don’t go out and fight, because they quickly became second and third wives to the IS fighters that captured them.

        • Red says:

          KD’s correct.

          I remember reading about a Red army woman solder at Stalingrad. She talked about how she planned to blow herself up with grenades if the Germans attacked her bunker. When the Germans did attack she hunkered down, watched her male comrades get slaughtered and then offered herself up to the Germans. The Germans let her go apparently without the ravishing she wanted. She was quite bitter about it 50 years later.

          Women surrender and give themselves up when warriors come a calling unless they’re hooked up with Odysseus or General Butt Naked.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            >desperate defensive options

            The Kurds have been forced to do a lot of desperate last stands. Hence even women fight (ineffectively) and die (substantially). I’ve seen enough videos out of Turkey proving as such. I have yet to see many videos out of Ukraine showing dead female AFU.

            I was pointing out that there is still a substantial difference between AFU and PKK.


            Decades of dealing with the Kurds have left many Turks most hostile. PKK women tend to end up dead.

            • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

              Genocide is most effective when you get the women, too. You do not end up with rogue elements of Kurd genetics popping up in inconvenient places.

  11. Gedeon says:

    Ex. A
    “Founder of the Tawani Foundation in 1995, Tawani Enterprises in 1996, and the Pritzker Military Library in 2003, Pritzker has been devoted to civic applications of inherited and accrued wealth, including significant donations to broaden understanding and support for “citizen soldiers.”

    In August 2013, Pritzker released a statement to employees at Tawani Enterprises and the Pritzker Military Library that subsequently received wide media coverage, indicating the change from “J. N.” to “Jennifer Natalya” to reflect her status as a transgender woman, making her the first and only openly transgender billionaire.”

    “Pritzker was born in Chicago, Illinois to Jewish parents who emigrated from a shtetl near Kiev, Tsarist Russia (now Kyiv, Ukraine) in 1881.[1] A son of Fanny (née Doppelt) and Abram Nicholas Pritzker, he had two brothers: Donald and Robert Pritzker.”

    Ex. C
    “The Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is an American think tank based in Washington, D.C.[5] CSIS was founded as the Center for Strategic and International Studies of Georgetown University in 1962.”

    Ex. D

  12. Mike says:

    Putin says “de-communization” in reference to the fact that Russia believes Ukraine to be historical Russian land stolen away from them via the Soviet Union/communism. Putin says “de-nazification” because Russian state ideology is, until they find a better one, based upon replaying/larping the Great Patriotic War over and over and over and over again until they larp themselves back into being communists again if they’re not careful.

    • Trump 2024 says:

      “Denazification” is best understood by reading the RIA column, ‘What Russia Should Do With Ukraine,’ published on April 3, 2022, the sentiments of which were echoed by Dmitry Medvedev on the same day via Telegram.

      The piece explains that the Ukrainian populace has been radicalized over decades into an anti-Russia bloodlust that presents an existential threat to Russian national security. In order for this threat to be neutralized, the Russians believe that the entirety of the society must be captured, from the Ukrainian regime all the way to the local schools, and a process of pro-Russia “re-education” be installed.

      You’re gonna get Russia LARPing like it’s WW2 if the Ukraine insists on doing the same.

      • Red says:

        The latest plan from the GAE is Ukraine is the real Russia and they’re going to throw Russian off the UN security council and then Ukraine is going to conqueror Russia with NATO’s assistance. Utterly insane of course, but the UkiNazies like it.

        American leadership is really insane. There’s no way to actually win in Ukraine because Russia will use nukes if they’re losing. They know this and they know that anyone who replaces Putin is going to be much more hard line against the US, not less. But they continue the insanity with no way to win the war.

        • Mister Grumpus says:

          Well with a big enough pile of dead goyim at the end, that’s pretty much a “win” right there.

    • jim says:

      You are rationalizing. That the Ukraine is both Commie and Nazi is obvious. Putin is not larping the great patriotic war. The Azov Brigade really are Nazis, like Carlylean Restorationist, and like Carlylean Restorationist, also really are Commies, which is why they wind up, like Carlylean Restorationist, working for a globalist Jew.

      I am not larping the great patriotic war when I argue with Carlylean Restorationist.

      • Trump 2024 says:

        America’s most infamous neo-nazi is R|chard S)encer. S)encer cites Alexander Kojeve’s Introduction to the Reading of Hegel as one of his most formative books. The book is a Nietzschean reworking of Marxism. “Become who you are,” a S)encerian slogan, comes from that book. Kojeve was a Stalinist agent and one of the architects of the European Union. By posting the EU/NATO flags into his Twitter profile, S)encer has truly become who is — a eurocommunist nazi.

        Hence why the RIA piece I cited, above, argues:

        “Debanderization alone will not be enough for denazification – the Bandera element is only a performer and a screen, a disguise for the European project of Nazi Ukraine, so the denazification of Ukraine is also its inevitable de-Europeanization.”

        The Ukraine is a part of Russia, but it was artificially constructed into an ethnostate by the Soviet Union, which led to nazism, and a subsequent attempt to absorb it into the EU/NATO.

        Russia –> SU –> Ukronazism –> EU

        What started this progressing debacle? According to Putin on February 21, 2022:

        “…Soviet Ukraine is the result of the Bolsheviks’ policy and can be rightfully called ‘Vladimir Lenin’s Ukraine.’ He was its creator and architect. This is fully and comprehensively corroborated by archival documents, including Lenin’s harsh instructions regarding Donbass, which was actually shoved into Ukraine. And today the ‘grateful progeny’ has overturned monuments to Lenin in Ukraine.

        They call it decommunization. You want decommunization? Very well, this suits us just fine. But why stop halfway? We are ready to show what real decommunizations would mean for Ukraine.”

        Deeuropeanization –> Denazification –> decommunization –> Russia

        • Fidelis says:

          You take the obvious shill wigger spenser at his word? You know what he says with respect to “intellectual influences”?

          That is extremely suspicious. Have you passed a shill test?

          • Fidelis says:

            Disregard. I read more closely and it’s less suspicious with further context.

      • Mike says:

        The “Immortal Regiment” celebrations are as close to founding a New Religion as I can think of Jim. The fact that the holiday only goes back to about 2011 or so is more evidence in my theories favor I’d say.

        • jim says:

          Your theory would explain Putin calling the Azov brigade Nazi. It does not explain them calling themselves Nazi, and it most certainly does not explain Putin calling them commie.

  13. Red says:

    I was looking at this story trying to read between the lines on what actually happened. Since she didn’t report it as a crime until much later, the guys who fucked her probably beta-ed out later which changed her entire “reality” of the night. Women frequently change the facts of something they did based on later events.

    I think making a major story out a drunk slut getting gang banged at a firehouse is probably an effort to force white fire fighter out. It’s helped along by the fat pig that is the fire chief, which makes this story great optics for the left.

  14. Leon says:

    Anybody remember a book about how classrooms had changed in the 80s, creating a set hierarchy for those who would go on to college and the like? The book had the term “jocks” for those preppy sort who were sent off and became successful in the system.

  15. Kunning Druegger says:

    Here’s a post from bobthebuilder:

    At the risk of sounding like a shill, “exterminating subhumans” is an explicitly un-Christian position, while reforming them is. That reform can of course happen through force, societal pressure, the official Church, and/or away from relatively decent people (ie the non-natural slaves who can keep their vices from spilling over into public).

    Low IQ High time preference people can be decent if kept under control by an external authority.

    I don’t think Bob is a shill, but I think he’s dead wrong. But I can’t refute his assertion. My gut says the “cheek turning” for the undesirables has been tried, for decades, and things have only gotten worse, that simple enforcement of law on the books with no exceptions wild quintuple the prison population, and there’s no good reason to do so, so extermination or exile is more than needed, and that codifying such position would obviate any issues for biblical alignment as “taking out the trash” would just be “rendering unto Caesar.”

    I’d like to hear what others think. Is Bob right and I am just a bloody minded sinner violating Christ’s will? Is Bob wrong, and if so, how would one demonstrate this using the Bible?

    [Not attacking you, Bob, I strongly disagree, and I would like to see how close or far I am to the mark/consensus of BJC.

    • BobtheBuilder says:

      I openly admitted to being a dirty Puritan sympathizer, so the shill insult has a grain of truth, in that I am, of my own volition, actively trying to steer things from Spencer’s social darwinism (the popular consensus take around here as it seems to me) to “someone should hit people with a stick until they stop self-destructing.” I like the poorhouse model personally.

      Biblical I would argue Luke 5:32. Practically I would argue that relying on people to self-destruct in the Spencer model causes too many externalities, and helping it along causes bureacracy, and the bureacrat is incentivized to look for more subhumans to cull. Also the problem with formal slavery: non-natural slaves become enslaved as well eventually.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        You don’t have to rely on them to self-destruct or rely on the Grand Soviet to handle it either. If freemen of a community have the right to lynch someone messing with their property, including and especially their women, then in 98 cases out of a hundred the problems solve themselves. If elthede demographics are outlaws, outside the sovereign’s laws, and freemen can go open season on them without consequence, then the problems solve themselves.

        • BobtheBuilder says:

          They lynched people for rape and murder in the South, and sent the vagrants to work. Vagrancy isn’t a capital crime, its an invitation to the poorhouse.

          Old Testament/Natural Law has a list of crimes where its ok to physically remove someone from the community/life, being poor because you are dumb isn’t one of them.

          I think when you accused me of being a gnostic you were accusing me of Pelagianism. Theologically, I would reply that no man is or can be without sin other than Christ. Practically, I would reply that executing the homeless is a failure state similar to letting sluts and/or fags run free, which leads to your society getting literally and/or metaphorically smote. Ergo, if I am a Pelagianist for not wanting to declare hobos free game for lynching, you are a Pelagianist for not wanting sluts and/or fags to run free. The problem with my argument is that I am not creative enough to lay out a material chain of causation for why lynching hobos causes societal collapse, and not historically literate enough to point to a society that did it. Anyone know of a vagrant-killing society I can look into?

          • jim says:

            “He that does not work, neither shall he eat”. The poorhouse is a legitimate solution, gassing them is not.

            The English in the west Indies had a solution resembling a non kill dog shelter for slaves that no one wanted. You were supposed to take care of your slaves even if they were sick and useless, or more trouble than they were worth, but they did not let them wander around starving, because apt to hunt other people’s cattle, and gather from other people’s gardens. Rather than turning them loose to commit crimes, and then hanging them, they were controlled and cared for. A similar solution is needed for unwanted unowned women. Before the dissolution of the monasteries, a major function of the nunneries was stashing immoral unmarriageable females.

    • BobtheBuilder says:

      Furthermore, “render unto Caesar” isn’t really an excuse, as sometimes Caesar oversteps the authority granted to him, which is why people gather to places like this on the interwebz. Early Christians didn’t burn incense to Caesar, and modern ones don’t let Caesar turn their kids into catamite homonculi.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      Natural Law is Divine Law. To understanding the motion of Creation is to understand the will of its Creator. We reach towards identity with God through Christ the Logos.

      Beware he who would find contention between his perception of GNON and his private conceits, and ultimately protest the former by standard of the later, for he will follow into the same pit as all his gnostic anticipators before him; to quarrel with the same hand of providence that wreaked him all the same as well; to condemn that which he himself is contingent upon.

      • BobtheBuilder says:

        Oppression of the poor is one of the Four Sins that cry out to Heaven for Vengeance dude. Its in the Old Testament for a reason (Deuteronomy 15:7–11, Isaiah 58:7).

        Christ is the one who said the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats. If Christ is the Logos (which He is), then the incarnate Logos said if for a reason.

        I’m not entirely sure what your definition of a gnostic is, but I personally use “someone who thinks the material world was created by Evil” and “someone who wants to have the New Testament without the Old.” Both the Old and New Testament condemn the attitude of “let em die lol.” I personally cannot fully articulate why that is, but if we use the idea that the Bible is the Word of God, He said it for a reason, and if we use the idea that the Old Testament is a survival strategy, then the writers included it for a reason.

        My best guess would be that ghettos have a tendency to spread if unchecked, and have a dysgenic effect on society due to epigenetics. My proofs would be India.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          >I personally use “someone who thinks the material world was created by Evil”

          True enough; which raises the question of how would they come to such an opinion, and what is it doing for them.

          The simple precis of the eternal gnostic throughout history is that is that if he finds the nature of Creation to be incompatible with his conceits, then Creation itself must be fallen. In attitudinal terms, it is a constitution of congenital negativity, ‘they see nothing good in this plane’, and ‘all neighbors who fall under his sight are assayed as sinners in need of destruction’.

          I started it on a hard foot mainly because it is easier to walk down to modulation than up. I myself am not far from your own initially posited thoughts on how to treat with folk, but history shows in abundance how easy it is for such scopes to be inflated to Make The World Safe for Backbiters.

          Eg, when the phrase ‘exterminating subhumans’ is uttered, it would seem two different people are having two different pictures appear in their minds, which can leads to problems i’m sure you understand.
          In the first man’s case, the context of the conversation implies that what appeared in his mind was mobile bandits, defrauders, demon worshipers, and other assorted criminal and or xeno scum. Whereas, what appeared in your mind was people living in the trailer park up-county; sub-functional, and thus meager in existence, but not radioactive. ‘Poor people’ is not exactly a responsive identity between the two pictures.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            The phrase ‘schizophrenic hobos shitting on my stairwell’ came up a few times.

            A man would be well within his rights to shoot someone metaphorically or literally shitting on his property. Which of course is not exactly the same thing as the men forming their posse to drive out any vagrants in general from the area.

            At the same rate though, if the vagrants were gathering to make decampments in the middle of the community’s public spaces, and any men who tried to do something about them interfering with their business was set upon by the sovereign’s men-at-arms, then that would mean that it would be the vagrants who are infact the higher class citizens, with greater rights and privileges than their pay-pig lessers… which is the situation as it stands in many cities in the occupied states of America, especially on the left coast.

            • BobtheBuilder says:

              I was not thinking of the trailer park, I was thinking of the urban hobos who are probably high on drugs. People who peacefully live in trailer parks are generally fine and have things more or less handled (or will have it handled once their jobs stop being shipped overseas), and shipping them off to a poorhouse would not change anything.

              My position is that petty criminals (non-violent shoplifters, bike thiefs, pickpockets, public defecators, druggies, counterfeiters, etc) need a “minor” but humiliating punishment like a public flogging or a stockade followed by a ticket to the poorhouse if they can’t provide for themselves. Immediately blasting them is a bit excessive, but I understand why Duterte is popular around here after my own very nice bike was stolen.

              On the topic of the hobo camps, I am of the opinion that while hobo camps in themselves should not be illegal, they should be watched closely for petty crime in direct proportion to how likely they are to cause externalities, and ideally an official priest should help them work through their problems if they are not actually disruptive. This position is very probably contrary to “we need a ghetto so we can ignore everything there” as endorsed by the blog.

              Violent criminals (muggers, actual rapists, burglars, real nigga gangstaz, etc) need to be shot or exiled from society though. Various illegal immigrants and political agitators (and maybe legal immigrants who have no business being here) should be showed the door: first of the border wall, then of the helicopter if they don’t go quietly.

              >but history shows in abundance how easy it is for such scopes to be inflated to Make The World Safe for Backbiters

              Very understandable. I don’t know if recruiting rank-and-file Inquisitors from the ranks of the smart lower class is a good idea or not. Possibly would help since they would understand the difference between a backbiter and “the deserving poor,” with a bit of Leninist principles/high class meta-Inquisitors to ensure loyalty?

              >True enough; which raises the question of how would they come to such an opinion, and what is it doing for them.

              Self-proclaimed Gnostics tend to either be blackpilled copers, 2smart4u types, or schizos. The Slavlands guy Rolo Slavskiy recently promoted here is an example of the 3smart5u type, as he seems to be working to converge Putin to gnosticism, because Christianity is slave morality and the Old Testament is judeo-capitalist morality or something.

              • BobtheBuilder says:

                By “Leninist principle” I mean promoting someone to a higher social position than he can naturally be at to ensure loyalty. That is to say, Inquisitors are high status, and by invitation only, so a higher status than a smart poor person can achieve on his own. To be used the same way Spandrell uses “Bio-Leninist,” though I am obviously not endorsing Bio-Leninism, since Inquisitors should have actual merit that other people can tell to inspire proper fear and respect and obedience.

              • Red says:

                My position is that petty criminals (non-violent shoplifters, bike thiefs, pickpockets, public defecators, druggies, counterfeiters, etc) need a “minor” but humiliating punishment like a public flogging or a stockade followed by a ticket to the poorhouse if they can’t provide for themselves. Immediately blasting them is a bit excessive, but I understand why Duterte is popular around here after my own very nice bike was stolen.

                Private violence would take of the issue about 5 minutes. I’ve personally felt the desire to grab a club a beat the shit out of the homeless people I find menacing people in public.

                Non such thing as a non violent crime. All crime has a profoundly negative effect on the people who have been harmed by it. If nigger steals your bike then no one should bat an eye when you shot the nigger and take the bike back. If a kid from an intact family steals your bike then you talk to the father and bring up charges against him if he refuses to deal with the crime.

                On the topic of the hobo camps, I am of the opinion that while hobo camps in themselves should not be illegal, they should be watched closely for petty crime in direct proportion to how likely they are to cause externalities, and ideally an official priest should help them work through their problems if they are not actually disruptive. This position is very probably contrary to “we need a ghetto so we can ignore everything there” as endorsed by the blog.

                Uh, what? Burn them the fuck down. Hobos should be driven off or sent to the poorhouse ASAP. Anything less is enabling public cancer.

                • BobtheBuilder says:

                  Fair enough, I may be far too accommodating of bad behavior due to residual leftism. Is there a historical legal code of a society/time period that you like that I may read up on?

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            Some background on this

        • Adam says:

          What to do with untrustworthy, incompetent, undisciplined people is much the same question as what to do with leftists and what to do with evil people. Well, they cannot stay at my house and hang around my wife and children that is for sure. That doesn’t seem to meet the definition of oppressing the poor. So what is the definition of oppressing the poor?

          Probably eliminating their property rights, and eliminating the ability of the men to properly own their women and discipline their children. That verse seems to be addressed to the sovereign, and not the plebs. I would imagine the class structure of a reactionary Christian society would look much like the bell curve, large middle class, small ruling elite, and a small lower class composed of leftists of every type. The way out of the lower class being the same for everyone ever in all of history, become trustworthy and reliable.

          • Jehu says:

            The biggest way of ‘oppressing the poor’ cited in the Bible is to not pay them the wages they were promised at the time you promised. The amount of margin for the Biblical poor — who largely don’t exist in the current day — was super thin, they couldn’t afford NOT to be paid after a days labor, it would mean they and their family would go hungry that night.

            Deuteronomy 24:15 KJV
            at his day thou shalt give him his hire, neither shall the sun go down upon it; for he is poor, and setteth his heart upon it: lest he cry against thee unto the LORD, and it be sin unto thee.

            • BobtheBuilder says:

              Also allowing usury (I go with Zippy Catholics definition of loans with interest for the purposes of consumerism) and not providing for widows and orphans are the other two big methods.

              I would define “shipping jobs overseas/allowing jobs to be shipped overseas” as a subset of not paying workers the wages they were promised, given the history of economic globalization.

              • jim says:

                > Also allowing usury (I go with Zippy Catholics definition of loans with interest for the purposes of consumerism)

                Is that his definition?

                Pretty sure he, and Christianity, define usury as interest bearing loans against the person, loans that cannot be extinguished by returning the original property in good order and condition, loans against the person as distinct from loans against property. Of which consumer credit card debt is a good example, but college debt is an even better example.

                • Jehu says:

                  Yes, that’s the one thing that’s a meaningful distinction in a sharia-compliant loan. It has to be non-recourse. They don’t like the word interest, but that’s a distinction without a difference, preferring to call it a dividend.

                  Sharia-compliant loans are the social technology evolution of the usury restriction in the OT. They’re still faithful to the spirit of it.

                  And yes, I agree, student loans, non being even discharged by bankruptcy (which is a roll your own Jubilee), are the most usurious loans going.

                • BobtheBuilder says:

                  My mistake, I was misremembering based on someone else’s definition, which has a lot of overlap in practice (most credit card debt is consumptive, and so is priest training at University).

                  The proper definition of Usury, as defined by the late Zippy, is:

                  >Profitable interest charged on the loan
                  >Where the borrower has not posted collateral providing security on the loan. (Note: a corporation or partnership counts as collateral).
                  >And the lender’s recourse for recovery of principal and interest, in a case of default, is not limited to the named collateral and only the named collateral?

                • jim says:

                  Corporations are people, yet obviously a corporation can be collateral for a loan – what changes hands is that some people lose, and others gain, power over the name and assets of the corporation, a lot of these assets being intangible information.

                  The corporate case is complicated and difficult to explain. Easier to explain what is and what is not usury in terms of a house, or land, or cattle. Zippy’s definition is correct, but it goes deep into the weeds, so the reader is likely to become confused.

              • Jehu says:

                Thing is, in the US and most other countries outside the worst areas of the 4th world, there really aren’t any biblical poor.

                To be Biblically poor, you really need to not know where your next meal is coming from, starvation needs to be a real threat, not something you goggle at in Les Miserables productions. Among the poor in most western nations, obesity is a much larger problem than starvation.

                Where people are poor in the west isn’t in conventional measures of wealth, but in access to virgin brides and neighborhoods where property is secure and order is maintained. If we gave a damn about the poor as a society, we’d fix those problems. Reactionaries don’t usually posture as caring about ‘the poor’, but they’re the only ones that actually work towards their interests.

                • jim says:

                  When you are hungry, you are very vulnerable to short term thinking. So usury, interest bearing loans against the person rather than against property, very bad for the poor, and delayed payment of wages was very bad for the poor.

                  This, not insufficient welfarism, is what the Bible has in mind as oppression of the poor. That is oppression of the working poor. The non working poor can starve, and the thieving starving non working poor you can hang. A starving man stole a loaf of bread. Let him dance on the gallows. Not oppression of the poor.

                • Jehu says:

                  The OT had it’s welfare program, so to speak, but it was more of a workfare. From Deuteronomy 24.

                  19When thou cuttest down thine harvest in thy field, and hast forgot a sheaf in the field, thou shalt not go again to fetch it: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow: that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hands. 20When thou beatest thine olive tree, thou shalt not go over the boughs again: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow.

                  21When thou gatherest the grapes of thy vineyard, thou shalt not glean it afterward: it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow. 22And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt: therefore I command thee to do this thing.

                  Basically this said to leave some food on the table, so to speak, but the poor, the stranger, the widow, or the orphan had to work for it. Deuteronomy is a really good book, once you read it, you’ll see it (and the violation of it, along with the consequences) everywhere.

                • jim says:

                  Deuteronomy said to leave the low value low return work for those that truly need it. Workfare. Very good idea.

                  The Deuteronomy position on interest bearing loans was a mess that required divine intervention every seven years to make it work, but after all they were just settling down from a nomadic life and their economy was primitive. Maybe they received divine intervention every seven years. Christians and Muslims have a very good and practical position on usury that follows the spirit of Old Testament law, and which encourages lending for the creation of durable value, discourages lending for consumption, encourages lending to the smart, industrious, and far sighted, and discourages lending to the fool that the lender intends to take advantage of.

                  The spirit of old testament law being “Don’t let smartypants take the man who cannot figure out compound interest for a ride”

                • i says:


                  The OT also exempts farm workers from work every 7th year.

                  Basically leaving the land fallow every 7th year. Which is a good practice at the time.

      • Anonymous says:

        How does this differ from the “best possible world” hypothesis/the “just world” hypothesis? If the will of Gnon is infallible and we are not supposed to protest it, why try to change anything? Can we change other people/other souls?

        • jim says:

          That is what the book of Job and the first three chapters of Genesis are all about.

          God sticks the tree and the serpent in the Garden, and then wanders off during the heat of the day for a little snooze. Obvious setup. Obviously God set Adam up. But it was Adam’s choice, not his. Adam was supposed to choose rightly, and though he was setup to choose wrongly, still his choice, and not the choice of God.

          The point of the game is that you (meaning you, your ancestors and descendants) are supposed to say “oops, I fucked up. Let us try something different” The game has been set up so that the world is cruel, very far indeed from the best of all possible worlds, but it is within our power to make it right.

  16. alf says:

    Hello friends,

    On gab many nazis. Many shills. Many nazi shills. Testing grounds for jew shill test. Seeking help from friends. Version so far:

    Which group of Jews are the biggest threat?
    a) Netanyahu and his right-wing Zionists. Like puppet masters they control the world from Israel, and let us not forget how they oppress Palestinians.
    b) All Jews are ancestrally cursed since they killed Jesus Christ. These days the most damage is done by left-wing Jews who have abandoned their faith in service of globohomo, like Nuland, Soros and Zelensky.
    c) The orthodox Jews, who sacrifice goyim babies for their rituals. If you see a kippah and sidelocks, run.
    d) All of the above. Are you blind? Jews are a cohesive tribe that through the NWO are in control of all facets of society. They are our masters and with their evil mindrays direct all of our wars, entertainment and politics.
    e) Jews cause problems? What are you, an anti-semite?

    • Western Taliban says:

      Unironically b) is great.

      Sometimes I don’t completely agree with some crimson takes, but anyone who calls himself Christian should just baseline hate Jews as a cursed people. Muslims do, they show more respect for Jesus Christ than McChurches do. How can you be willing to share your space with the murderers and betrayers of God? Nonsense.

      You made d) too obvious, you can’t use “evil mindrays”, instead it should be:

      d) All of the above. Are you blind? Jews are a cohesive tribe that through the NWO are in control of all facets of society. They are our masters and with the electric jew (TV) and consumerist/capitalist propaganda direct all of our wars, entertainment and politics.

      I used to read the dailystormer’s board when it existed, I’ve had plenty of contact with the bowl cut retards. Electric jew is totally their lingo and blaming capitalism too, they’d eat that shit up.

      And e) is just lazy, it should be more like:

      e) Claiming that Jews as a group are a threat is anti-semitic and stupid. There might be some Jews who happen to do bad things like Soros, but it isn’t a group thing, it’s just an individual.

    • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

      Not bad for a first draft, even if some of the wording is a bit too on the nose (pun not intended).

      Anyone not able to explicitly mention the likes of Klain, Soros, or Nuland is covering for them.

      Phrasing like ‘biggest threat’ somewhat emotively ties into the ‘greetings fellow stupid goys i hate jews because they are just so much better than you, i mean me’ shill script. Something more along the lines or ‘which ones are the biggest problems’ or ‘which cause the most trouble/are the most troublesome’ would fit the precis more elegantly.

      ‘Look at how amazingly well coordinated and cooperative those devious kikes are with each other’ is flattering, while ‘these kikes literally cannot stop sabotaging everything including each other’ is unflattering.

      The man in the funny hat running a bagel shop needing to move to Israel so he can run a bagel shop next to all his relatives instead is in all likelyhood necessarily entangled with what is necessary for making sure you can Physically Remove such alien species of odious character – but you always need to start your spiel by making sure the emphasis is on what are indeed the biggest problems caused by the biggest problem children.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        Read: ‘worst problems’ and ‘worst problem children’. ‘Bigness’ in of itself has an emotive attractiveness.

        • alf says:

          I was wondering about the phrasing of the question itself yes. So maybe more like:

          ‘Which Jews cause the worst problems?’

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            Yeah, or ‘Who are the most troublesome jews?’. Short and cuts right to the point.

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      So, to be clear, this is a RPJQ, a Red Pill on Jews Question, shill test, the purpose of which is to find Jews posing as Nazis, feds posing as nazis, basically anyone posing as nazis, neo-nazis, or any type of socialist nationalist?

      Here’s the OG test with the added modifications:

      Who are the most troublesome jews?
      a) Netanyahu and his right-wing Zionists. Like puppet masters they control the world from Israel, and let us not forget how they oppress Palestinians.

      b) All Jews are ancestrally cursed since they killed Jesus Christ. These days the most damage is done by left-wing Jews who have abandoned their faith in service of globohomo, like Nuland, Soros and Zelensky.

      c) The orthodox Jews, who sacrifice goyim babies for their rituals. If you see a kippah and sidelocks, run.

      d) All of the above. Are you blind? Jews are a cohesive tribe that through the NWO are in control of all facets of society. They are our masters and with the electric jew and consumerist/capitalist propaganda direct all of our wars, entertainment and politics.

      e) Claiming that Jews as a group are a threat is anti-semitic and stupid. There might be some Jews who happen to do bad things like Soros, but it isn’t a group thing, it’s just an individual.

      Alternatively, the tactic I have used successfully is explicitly stating that anti-Semitic posturing is a tactic used by feds to gain entry into conversations and groups. It is not enough to make funny jokes about jews (or women or blacks), one must explain in detail what’s wrong with jews. Deploy this first, then hit them with the RPJQ. One strategic element to remember is that every online interaction is 2 interactions: the actual back and forth in the moment, and the record of the conversation that gets shared/viewed later and/or elsewhere. Yes, it’s great fun to catch kikeniggerfaggotfeds in the moment, but a well constructed dismantling of a shill should be very easily ported to other circumstances. It should inspire the urge to replicate the success and lolz. Indeed, Alf’s book is a great example of why the unmasking and emasculation of Cambodian Rheumatist could have been “better” if the tools had already been crafted. They weren’t, and Jim did a stellar job with the asshole, as well as Roberto (RIP?) and others, but ever since we don’t need months to take these idiots down, it’s done in a matter of hours. The next stage is for it to be done in minutes: a shill shows up hawking his BS, and the response is a bunch of screencaps of the last time it happened. Shorten that kill chain; digital lynching is back on the menu.

      • alf says:

        Yes, that is the intent. Some conversations just keep repeating themselves. ‘We’ve had these discussions before, I know the answers to this topic!’ But you see the derailing happening in front of your eyes.

        The WQ is great, because it boils down all the important perspectives in what is almost a meme, including the correct one, but the correct answer is still left to the reader as an excercise. Its ease of applicability and repeatability is what makes it great.

        • Kunning Druegger says:


          I am not saying categorically that “E)” needs to change, but it occurs to me that you might net more shills by equivocating jews with other groups.

          This is something I have been confronting in my own life: my race is on the defensive, we are a global minority with groups actively seeking our extermination, and half of our tribe is abetting these groups, so it is super easy to slip into vitriol, blind hatred, and self-pity. This turns into a palpable sourness that pervades all aspects of my affect, tainting my relationships and saddling me with baggage I don’t need to be carrying. Therefore, I have been actively seeking to point out the good things about my enemies, adversaries, and the normies who stand idly by. I am not concern trolling, and this is a personal choice obviously, but Anglin, Jim, and the brothers here have demonstrated that it is paramount to oppose evil in all things, and that means not letting this struggle, this war for the future, to turn us into malcontents, whiners, and complainers.

          So catching the shills is priority one, but engaging real thinkers who might not be as far along the path is a great secondary benefit. So maybe:

          E) as with every race and culture, there are assholes, malcontents, and evil people. Like blacks and women, the most troublesome jews are the ones actually causing trouble.

          Meh, maybe that’s not quite good enough…

          E) The most troublesome jews are the jews causing the most trouble.

          Yeah, I am not really helping here, but I think the reasoning is sound. Catching the shill is good, and getting an opportunity to reprove, correct, and strengthen the Good Guys is a valuable secondary effect.

      • jim says:

        Problem I see is that b and e can both be true. “It is just an individual” is always true, for any group under discussion, Jews, blacks, whatever, because each person is an individual, and always false, because stereotypes exist for a reason.

        In the case of women, AWALT, in certain very important qualities, there is near zero overlap between men and women, but for different groups of men, always substantial overlap. There are wiggers, and there is Clarence Thomas, and I would rather be in a dark alley with Clarence Thomas than with a wigger.

        • Kunning Druegger says:

          Shoot, I missed that, but now it does seem like B and E are true, and if my proposition were added, they’d be redundant.

          What do you propose as a fix Jim? Obviously, we don’t need it here, but Alf states that it would be useful on Gab, so worth it to help.

          • jim says:

            I don’t know. It is mysterious to me why shill tests work, but they have worked for millennia. The shills regularly present an impeccable argument that shill tests cannot possibly work because liars can just lie – but those same shills present that argument because they are strangely unable to pass the shill test.

            The core fundamental lie that makes an entryist an entryist is that he says “I am one of us”, while he thinks, and his masters think, of you as one of them. It is an effort to hack an enemy priesthood’s mechanisms for forming solidarity and cohesion, to make them hate their friends, and love their enemies, to divide the enemy group so that they cohere to those who intend their destruction, and support the destruction of their natural allies. It is how priesthoods make war on enemy priests.

            Ever since Stalin created the third positionists to replace the dead Strasserites, we have had a horde of fake fascists who tell us that the true right wing position is to be far left on everything, except that you hate some group that the left does not care much about – and by the way, assorted groups that the left wishes passionately to destroy are servants of this group, so you should outgroup the kulak because he is a servant of the Wall Street the Rothschilds, even though the kulak is your neighbor, you get drunk with him from time to time, he looks like you and speaks like you, and the man telling you to outgroup the kulak does not speak like you and cannot speak your shibboleths correctly.

            This shill test is to expose that group.

            One of the noticeable things about Third Positionists going on about Jews is that all their arguments amount to “Hail fellow dumb powerless stupid hateful goy, you should hate the Jews because they are so much smarter and more capable than you us.” Under Stalin, the Third Positionists did not have that problem, but now they are working for Soros, and in the Ukraine for Zelensky.

            They cannot actually criticize Jews in the way that we can. I think a JQ shill test should hit that nerve.

            If you look at areas where Jews are successful, they are now successful, and traditionally successful, in roles where the native elite needs hostile outsiders to do the dirty work against their own native people. Thus Jews do not dominate, and are not unduly over-represented, in capitalism, nor in engineering. They dominate quasi state capitalism, such as finance, and dominate areas of capitalism that are essential to state power, such as Hollywood. This goes back to Kings importing Jews to squeeze the peasants with usury, enforcing payment with interest of loans against the person, and of course the King demands the Jew lend the King money, and, needless to say, neglects to pay it back. Also Jews as estate managers for absentee aristocratic landlords. The absentee aristocrat does not want a local as estate manager, because a local is apt to cooperate with the tenants against the absentee aristocratic landlord. It was not that the Jew was smarter, it was because, being an outsider, he was not dangerous to the aristocratic landlord.

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              Fascinating extrapolation. It inspired the following, which is an alternative RPJQ:

              Jews are important because:

              A) they secretly as well as overtly run all the most powerful government organs and institutions.

              B) they wield arcane powers of persuasion and are thus able to control the populations of their host countries.

              C) they outcompete natives for positions of power with superior intellect and competence.

              D) they use unfair advantages to selfishly manipulate circumstances and reward each other with favors.

              E) …what? Jews aren’t any more or less important than any other group, why are you so obsessed with how other people feel about Jews?

            • BobtheBuilder says:

              I think I can articulate why shill tests work.

              Shills wear masks by definition. To craft a convincing mask, you must understand the world view of the person you are fooling on some level.

              A shill test is scrutinizing the mask the shill creates, to see if its a mask or someone’s true face (a simplification, since someone’s true True Face is only known to God and to a far lesser extent themselves, and they present masks to their family, friends, strangers, and enemies, each one being less authentic). A successfully calibrated shill test attempts to create violent friction between the true face and the shill mask, and the greater the difference, the more the shill has to lie, and the more he has to forsake his true face in favor of a lie. Most people are of course not very skilled liars, so redefinitions ensure over time to cope with the strain. This is why shill tests have to be calibrated and recalibrated, ie why a Muslim shill will happily pass the WQ and the Soros Q but not the Jesus Q.

              The questions then becomes “y not git gud at lying?” Two problems. The more obvious one is that someone perfect at lying, and is known to be perfect at lying, cannot be trusted by definition, since he is a known perfect liar, and you don’t know if he is really on your side, and is not actually shilling against you. The more subtle one is that bleed over between the mask and the true self occurs, and mimicry becomes internalization, which becomes conversion, since you understand the position and are surrounded by people who signal “this position==good’.

              Shill handlers are of course aware of both problems. Glow agents have to be psychologically monitored and reprogrammed by HR constantly. “Freelance” shills who pass shill tests begin to suffer the bleedover effect. “Freelance” shills who are exceptionally and almost superhumanly good at patience and compartmentalization and power grabbing are probably the most dangerous, since they can work their way up the hierarchy and betray it when the time comes. Like this guy:

              Speaking as a Freelance Puritan Leveller sympathizer, anyone got a good shill test on the “Subhuman Question?” Probably the most effective way of tripping me up.

            • Adam says:

              Shills always have a very superficial presentation, and being shills they have an entirely different world view, so naturally they have a very low resolution image of our world view. They know what color car we drive, and know where we drive to and from. But they don’t know how the car works in any way. Manipulative and cowardly people are often like this, certainly ideological people are going to be like this. Their own model is very primal, very simple. They are not going to know how to integrate outside information into their model, or understand anything nuanced. Their thinking is very superficial, cargo-cult like, very tribal, with a reliance on simple cognitive lenses (oppressor/oppressed etc.).

              Pressing a shill on something complex or nuanced is going to be like asking a retarded person to answer a question they don’t understand. Their mimicry is only skin deep. If they understood the question and answer like we do, they would be one of us.

              • BobtheBuilder says:

                > Pressing a shill on something complex or nuanced is going to be like asking a retarded person to answer a question they don’t understand. Their mimicry is only skin deep. If they understood the question and answer like we do, they would be one of us.

                Those are two very dangerous assumptions. The average low level shill one encounters on the internet, who is either doing it for free or for pennies, is legitimately very stupid and easily led and only understands things superficially. If one’s influence grows however (which it must by definition if it is to assume or maintain power), this assumption that all shills (ie liars) are stupid can get one ganked either by Super Agent Man 007 or Lee Tenghui the Freelancer. Of course, devoting too much time to shills turns into a witch hunt/purity spiral which gets you killed and/or out of power for a different reason.

                • BobtheBuilder says:

                  The good news, in my estimation, is that the GAE is no longer capable of producing a Super Agent Man 007, as they are so far outside of reality and sanity that they have to rely on paranoia and demon worship to maintain internal cohesion, and therefore cannot trust him to only lie to their enemies, and even if they could produce him, he would have to be sacrificed the way that Biden recently got some dyke basketball player from Russia instead of a spy in exchange for Nicholas Cage the gun dealer.

                  China and other more serious countries can produce super-spies however. Currently not a problem for us, as China is the enemy of our enemy, but will become a problem if a proper government is established and the Grand Inquisitor is too lazy and China makes good on their own plans for becoming the new World Babylon.

                • Adam says:

                  I wouldn’t say necessarily they are stupid. Your IQ is independent from a lot of things that are required for a highly detailed, self aware worldview. Lots of very smart people continually make very bad decisions, self destructive decisions.

                  Shills are going to be tribal and everyone is divided by what team they are on. Tribal behavior increases with scarcity, or perceived scarcity, and likely victimhood.

                  Primal and tribal behavior are often emotionally driven, as are shills. To break someone out of that you have to get them to look at what game are they playing, why etc. and also are their other games they could be playing that are better.

                  It is kind of like arguing with a woman. Even if the woman is smart, you end up arguing with the hindbrain, and when you know this, their arguments become very predictable and repetitive, without much ability to integrate new information. And like with a shill, you can explain something to them step by step, like say property rights and capitalism, and they will follow you and agree step by step, but then an hour later it is as if the conversation never happened.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Most genuinely smart women are also very very insane (not always malignantly so but very very insane nonetheless).

                • jim says:

                  Nah, my late wife was a very very smart woman, and she was saner than anyone, except towards the end.

                  The trouble is that smart women tend to perceive themselves as high status, and have problems because men they perceive as high status are unlikely to much like them.

              • jim says:

                Shills are running scripts composed by very smart people.

                • Adam says:

                  When you say shill are you referring exclusively to paid internet shills?

                • jim says:

                  There is no other kind of shill or entryist against us than paid and supervised.

                  Why would anyone put a lot of effort into pretending to be one of the hated and despised enemy whose destruction his real ingroup seeks? It is useful for the purpose the group to which he really belongs, it not useful to the individual member of the group, unless the enemy has all the power and money and his real ingroup has not. It does not serve the purpose of the individual member of the ingroup.

                  A state Church, having all the power, money and privilege, has to worry about unpaid volunteer shills and entryists. We do not. The state Church has no choice but to pay its shills and entryists against out of power groups that seek to displace and replace it, keep its entryists under very tight rein, and closely supervise them.

                  If someone is engaging in entryism against an enemy group that does not have lots of goodies, his real ingroup has put him up to it, and has to pay him and supervise him to make sure he does not goof off, and is monitoring him for symptoms that the mask of the hated and despised enemy is being internalized.

                  Shill tests work, because if the shill attempts to pass by just flat out lying, the lie is such that it is likely to become the truth.

                  A good shill test, is a test that if passed by lying, is a lie that is effective in changing the face under the mask.

                • Adam says:

                  The inner policeman protecting one from thoughtcrimes is guarding areas of consciousness using walls of fear. It is not necessary to be on someone’s payroll in a direct literal sense. Though everyone other than straight white males is benefiting from progressivism.

                  I do not know why one would come here and deliver enemy payloads unless paid, other than we all start out fools until we wise up.

                  I would guess there is a lot of false positives with shill tests. When I think of shills I also think of the purple pilled normie that says “happy wife happy life”, and that guy may end up here somehow and fail the woman question test, while being unpaid.

                • jim says:

                  > The inner policeman protecting one from thoughtcrimes is guarding areas of consciousness using walls of fear. It is not necessary to be on someone’s payroll in a direct literal sense

                  Sure he is. But why show up on Gab or this blog and tell us “Hail fellow fascist, you are insufficiently enthusiastic about gassing the bagel shop proprietor” If the inner cop makes you left, why start telling us supposedly right wing rationales for leftism? Why not just say “capitalists like Musk oppress the proletariat” rather than saying “Musk is a servant and lackey of Wall Street the Rothschilds, and so is the man who owns a pizza shop”?

                  > When I think of shills I also think of the purple pilled normie that says “happy wife happy life”, and that guy may end up here somehow and fail the woman question test, while being unpaid.

                  Not a shill, because he is not going to tell us that the problem with women is capitalist oppression. He is not going to say “Hail fellow misogynist, I hate woman too, but the real problem is the Rothschilds”

                  He is going to pass the WQ by selecting the option that female bad behavior does not exist or is caused by men, because all the stuff that women do that prevents family formation or destroys their families is totally OK and it is the job of men to man up and protect women from the consequences of stereotypical female conduct. Man up and marry those sluts so that they can bang the local drug dealer on your bed. That is not cheating if they have already exiled husband from the bed to man cave.

                  That is a pass on the woman question test because he is not pretending to be one of us.

                  The defining characteristic of shills and entryists is that they are pretending to be one of the group that they are in fact hostile to.

                • Red says:

                  I would guess there is a lot of false positives with shill tests. When I think of shills I also think of the purple pilled normie that says “happy wife happy life”, and that guy may end up here somehow and fail the woman question test, while being unpaid.

                  Unlikely. If someone came here looking for the truth but didn’t agree with what we’re talking about he’d speak out about it. He’d be treated as an outsider, but not necessarily a shill because he wasn’t trying to pretend to be one of us.

                  Though I think the general reaction to outsiders coming here is to lurk for quite a while while learning.

                • Adam says:

                  Thanks for the clarification.

        • Western Taliban says:

          Problem I see is that b and e can both be true. “It is just an individual” is always true, for any group under discussion, Jews, blacks, whatever, because each person is an individual, and always false, because stereotypes exist for a reason.

          I proposed the ambiguity on purpose and I was thinking about what a Tucker viewer or a libertarian might say. The state of true and untruth is an artifice to oust the bot.

          I think it’s wrong to make a clearly right answer and add a bunch of clearly wrong answers, because then it can be easily identified by a bad faith actor. The ambiguity allows you to discern if the person you’re talking to is a real human being that is processing the information in the test or some sort of shill without real insight.

          If you yourself had to answer the test you would have pointed out what you just said, or directly chosen b) knowing that b) is more truthful and more correct. In any case we’d be able to tell that you are an actual human being processing the arguments.

          If they say b) directly you know it’s likely “our guy”, if they point out the ambiguity of e) you know they can be “our guy” and you certainly know they are processing the thought crimes. If they say b) directly this is also relatively acceptable, but if they make no comment about the ambiguity you have also identified the tester’s rejection towards HBD.

          In any case the ambiguity won’t allow the shill to clearly identify an answer and will default to script. They possibly won’t even answer, which failure indicates shill.

          But it was just an opinion in passing.

    • wilbur says:

      You mean: on gab many sock puppets.

      Gab has about 3K users tops

      • jim says:

        A survey by an enemy organization that wants to minimize gab found three percent of united states adults are on gab. Given that most gab users do not participate in surveys, on the assumption that the surveyors are preparing lists to people to be murdered, this is probably a substantial underestimate even if the survey was conducted honestly. And, given that the survey was done by the enemy, unlikely it was done honestly

  17. Trump 2024 says:

    Reminder: President Trump is the 2024 RNC candidate.

    There are no more arguments.

    If you disagree then you’re a shill, or you should probably get your hormones checked.

    We all know the problems with him, okay? You’re not enlightening anybody by citing them.

    We know, also, that elections are rigged. Doesn’t matter.

    Some of you faggots will respond with “but muh based DeSantis.” You got mind-fucked by the Martha’s Vineyard stunt. He did that once. If he starts shipping busloads of wetbacks to Martha’s Vineyard every day, then maybe we have to reconsider. He said “anti-White” once. Again, say it every day, Ron. He’s a fine governor, that’s it. Beyond that, he must wait for Trump to retire.

    Consider their respective natures. DeSantis is a gifted orator, but his current political persona is an act. The hand gestures, the attitude, the speech patterns, the talking points, all more polished than Trump, but still mimicking Trump. DeSantis’ persona exists wholly in reference to Trump. Therefore, who is the prime mover? Who is the center of Western politics? Who is self-contained and actualized? Trump is the pack leader. Just his very existence makes loyalists submit, pussies split, and libtards chimp.

    Okay, so I ended up making arguments, but I’m not arguing the minutiae of policy failings. All I’m arguing is nature — Trump is Trump, the Sun, and all others exist in his orbit.

    In the temporal, immanent realm, my ideology consists of two planks, and if you deny either of these I consider you my enemy:

    1. Trump is the leader until he says otherwise.
    2. Putin is taking the whole of the Ukraine, and everything the Russians do in the Ukraine is flawless, deliberate and just.

    • Red says:

      Your handle is gay and Trump’s continual endorsement of the Vax is even gayer.

      Trump runs in 2024 and he’ll find himself in a jail cell before being Espstined. Though I admit that Jim has proven wrong about that prediction for a while now. They seem to be backing off from charging him but they’re going to leave it hanging over his head until they need it.

      • Trump 2024 says:

        I predict that when Anglin stops with the Ye shit, just as he stopped with the Yang shit last time around, he will endorse Trump for ’24 just as he did for ’20.

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          You say that like Anglin’s endorsement means something.

          • Kunning Drueger says:

            Anglin’s endorsement matters the same way Jim’s endorsement matters: the writing they will contribute to support the endorsement.

          • jim says:

            You under estimate the influence of the alt right, because no one admits to being influenced by it. But we have surprising normie penetration.

            Obviously I am in a bubble on the internet, but I don’t think I am in a bubble in real life. Have not encountered any people in real life who admit to reading this blog or Andrew Anglin or similar, but I keep running into our memes in the wild.

            • A2 says:

              I found it somewhat amusing that Greta Thunberg used the phrase ‘small dick energy’, which likely originated from our end of the world.

              Unfortunately, their use of our memes doesn’t mean we’re winning, “y’all”.

              • jim says:

                Greta Thunberg is thundered in the legacy media, but normies do not hear the legacy media.

                The main effective way the enemy shapes normie thoughts is by inserting their memes in entertainment, which the normies do hear. No one listens to the New York Times, but they do listen to Hollywood. Because good production values cost money, I don’t see any effective way of countering that, though perhaps in the near future generative ai will reduce the cost of producing videos with good production values, by automatically generating videos from scripts, in the same way it can now generate still images and voice. (There is as yet no open source generative ai for voice, and no useful generative AI for full motion at all.)

                However, when it comes to direct discussion of memes, our memes are winning, and that is how you do win. A substantial and growing minority of normies now expect and desire an end to the zombie Republic. And we do not need anything like a majority. We just need a Caesar.

          • Trump 2024 says:

            “The alt-Right is irrelevant,” and, “we must do everything we can to censor and de-platform it, replace its leaders, and prosecute its activists;”

            is the same as,

            “the Russian military is incompetent,” and, “we must fight them in the Donbass, and pump masses of weapons, mercs and cash into the Ukraine to prevent them from invading Western Europe,”


            “Trump was a failure,” and, “we must impeach him every year, prosecute his allies, smear and mock him 24/7, make it a risk to personal safety and property to support him.”

            • Kunning Druegger says:

              Valid points here. hard to square “this thing doesn’t matter” and “you need to be personally motivated to treat this thing like it matters.”

              I’m going to offer some criticism, but it is from a brother angle, and I will be explicit in stating that, all things considered that have been presented here, I am still 100% Trump 2024 for exactly the same reasons as I’ve often stated: the campaign matters, the election doesn’t.

              The Cathedral’s fear of Trump does not necessarily imply that Trump has the tools, capacity, or suite of characteristics *we as reactionaries* esteem essential. Adam made some really good points, and I will shamelessly steal them and the credit for saying them:

              >he didn’t “lock her up”
              >his failure to “lock her up” invalidated the mandate he was extended and paralyzed his faction while simultaneously empowering his many adversaries to coordinate in broad daylight
              >he failed to recognize the severity of the rot even after he witnessed it firsthand
              >he does not appear to have reconfigured his perceptions, implying everything downstream has remained unchanged, implying he is wildly unprepared for what would happen if he ran a successful campaign followed by attempts on his life, the lives of his faction, and the lives of his supporters

              I guess America has forgotten, but thousands of people were maligned, attacked and a few even murdered for wearing Trump’s banner. His real friends and allies suffered greatly for their service to him. His enemies prospered, and traitors were rewarded. I couldn’t give less of a shit about the “J06 victims” in jail, but his stubborn refusal to recognize what we went through for him demonstrates a complete lack of grasp of the stakes.

              By all means, refute me where I am wrong, but sidestepping refutations inconsequential for the sake of discussion, as an ardent supporter at least at my level (though quite likely much further), what do you say to my claims? What can he do, should he do maybe, given that his opposition has pretty blatantly stated that they will murder, lie, cheat, steal, disrupt, and ruin anyone or anything he likes or supports him?

              “Lock her up” garnered more support, IMO, than “build the wall,” as it energized the notion that the Cathedral could bleed, that its agents could be punished. His failure to even try, maybe more accurately portrayed as his refusal to deliver, is a damning indictment on his future campaign.

              • Trump 2024 says:

                Trump’s failure to Lock Her Up is the same as his failure to Cross the Rubicon, but what distinguishes Trump from all others is that the regime genuinely feared he might do these things. Of what other Republican presidents is this true?

                The Clintons & Obama are Alinskyites, so they understand power relations, which is why they spent so much time driving good people from the military and intelligence services. The military and intelligence services are now globally ineffective, but at least there will be no domestic insurgency anytime soon, which, because of geography, is the main thing from their perspective.

                Trump represented such a potential insurgency. He weighed things up and couldn’t do what needs to be done. Imagine what was running through his head in December 2020 — “should I, shouldn’t I.” Wignats will tell you he was always controlled opp, and that all he was doing in those last weeks was figuring out how to screw the goyim harder, and what kike and nigger criminals to pardon, but it’s not true. He was considering Crossing the Rubicon. We know this because the DNC feared he might, as they always have and still do, hence all the fuckery they caused on Jan 6.

                The Boomers who blew their loads on that day suffered from false consciousnesses, and that is sad, but the DNC didn’t, obviously. THE DNC fears the White Boomer, and the White Man in general, which is why they have done what they have done to our society, and why they repeatedly kneecap us, because, to quote T777, “the White Man in history is a killer angel.”

                The fact that Trump didn’t attempt to Cross is indicative that he understands the situation fully, not the opposite, because he knew he would have failed. Another Trump campaign and (unlikely, because unresolved fraud vectors) victory buys us time.

                Trump’s consciousness probably wasn’t actualized until very late in his life, which is far too late to get the job done, in the same way that the January Sixer’s consciousness probably didn’t ripen until he entered federal prison.

                But we have guys in this thing who came to understand in their 20s and 30s. They have decades to prepare for what is necessary.

                On another timeline, Trump wouldn’t have run for president, but started NGOs, universities and private armies. But on the other hand, if he hadn’t of run for president, he wouldn’t have woken up a generation.

                And that is why they hate him. He broke the cuck gentlemen’s agreement of GOP politics. Never forget this fact.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Brilliantly stated. Thanks for taking the time to elucidate.

                  I’m stan Trump. I refuse to conform to our societal tendency to reset our mental model every time the news cycle deems it necessary. He made many mistakes, but he “broke the cuck gentleman’s agreement of GOP politics” and “woke up a generation.” he is the greatest man of the Baby Boom generation, and his insurgency was the most important event in American history, though what we do with it, how we navigate the far reaching consequences, remains to be seen.

                  You’re doing good work, T2024.

    • The Cominator says:

      I live in Florida I don’t believe DeSantis is lefter than Trump and to the extent he colludes with big money and RINOs its because he needs big money and establishment support to counterig the election. He will likely be betraying the RINOs. DeSantis lacks innate charisma is his greatest weakness, and he was one of the few Republicans in DC to initially actually genuinely like Trump… so its natural he would imitate him in one of his great strengths (as he has in others).

      Trump is too old and for all his strengths his administrative skills and judgement when picking out people hes incompetent. Trump should be made “economy Czar” and grand ambassador to the Eastern Hemisphere but the ultimate executive should be a younger man who does have administrative ability.

      • Red says:

        Trump with DeSantis as VP might have amounted to something meaningful. Instead we got McChristain knock off Race Bannon.

      • Jehu says:

        DeSantis is trying to make New College in Sarasota something akin to Hillsdale. That’s a really important test in my view. He’s appointed an entirely new governing board for it.

        My gut is he can’t do it, but I hope to be wrong. My gut is his minions won’t do the wholesale firing and terrorizing and the bad elements (i.e. MOST of the college professors and administrators) will just outlast him. But I’d love to be wrong. If DeSantis can clean up New College, a counter ‘long march’ may be feasible and my solution (burn down any institutions that can’t be cleaned up—ie pretty much all of them—might be excessive.

      • Anonymous Fake says:

        Ron “wait until they’re 8” DeSantis isn’t going to cross the Rubicon. He’s too happy grifting, positioning himself just barely to the right of the liberals because that’s how you win 100% of the conservative vote anyway. There’s nothing to be gained in going further right except maybe Minecrafted by a random lunatic who might actually just be a random lunatic.

        Trump, ironically, is the kind of guy who would be overthrown by the most ambitious aspiring dictator. He just rubs the ruling class the wrong way and they would look the other way as an actual tyrant would seize power.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      I for one appreciate this obvious Based Trump shill. He’s parroting my points from mid 2022, he’s not being sneaky or sly, and he’s actually right.

      There’s only one quality that matters in politics: loyalty. This nigger is loyal. Until Trump gets back on Twitter, he’s flailing. Musk gave him all the tools to reignite his campaign, and he snubbed the opportunity. Bad call. But blue blood democrat Trump remains the best opportunity for lulz overwhelming.

      Trump 2024, because 2026 is masks down, guns out, and a Trump campaign provides the best opportunity for organizing… Fun, with Jimian Characteristics.

    • Why would I vote for Trump again when he let the lockdowns happen, and even encouraged them early on? Why would I vote for Trump again when he did absolutely nothing to protect the people he lead into the Capitol?

      • Trump 2024 says:

        Because by Nov ’24 you will have stopped whining like a bitch.

        • Kunning Drueger says:


          Unnecessarily coarse, but prescient IMO. This cycle is so tiresome. Everyone is just going to vote their party of preference and rationalize away the person.

      • jim says:

        Because is our leader. You have a better alternative?

        But not going to follow him over the rubicon. We will not accomplish much until we have a leader that is safe to follow over the rubicon.

      • pinochet's ghost says:


    • notglowing says:

      I’m never going to be a Trump hater but I am fairly demoralized in his regard.

      Don’t think he will amount to anything at this point, though he might become a martyr if he tries.

      I’ve come to the conclusion that he doesn’t really get it, and it’s a generational divide issue. He’s a boomer and can’t let go of the America he was born in, can’t really understand the USA of today.

      I can’t hate him for it. He is who he is. The fact that his faith in the institutions is what failed him is poetic.

      • Trump 2024 says:

        Consider “Make America Great Again” in light of each point you’ve made here.

      • dave says:

        Hillary Clinton will never be president. Thats enough for me.

        If Trump had won in 2020, he would be blamed for the mass deaths due to the clotshot, which would be labeled as the worst disaster in the history of humankind science, duly blamed on trump, and he would be labeled a failed president. covid would be very much in the news and all failures laid at his doorstep. In this regard, Trump is luckiest SOB in history, as he got his enemies to take the blame and have to cover it up.

        if were mapping things to history, Trump is Gracchus, leader of one of the first populist uprisings, and ended up being martyred by the optimates. Next is Sulla, then the Caesars. We may have a long time to go, and that would be the good path. We could just fail, lots of nations just fall apart, and never get to Caesar.

        • Red says:

          We’re Carthage, not Rome. Do you really think the Russians won’t cleanse the US with Holy Fire after they get a good close up look at the sorts of evil things things GAE has been doing? COVID was a biological weapon. Our government released it. We’re now using drones with chemical weapons in Ukraine on Russian troops. The shit that’s happening to children behind closed doors in this country is horrendous.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            America is a Carthaginian Roman sundae with a Babylonian cherry on top. The politics rhymes with Rome, the culture with Carthage, and the religion with Babylon.

            Seeing America as only Rome is really just the optimist position. Seeing America as only Carthage is the pessimist position. Seeing America as only Babylon is the doomer position.

            I think seeing America as all three is the realist position, but optimism is, for most people, required for bravery, and so we should promote the optimist position even if we remain realist.

            • Red says:

              The American Public wants to be Rome, the ruling Elites are Carthage. I’m not sure how Babylon fits since our cities are garbage heaps.

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                Infested by the same Sumerian demons and cults

                The Mesopotamian Ishtar, the beautiful goddess of fertility, love, war, and sex, was sometimes represented with a beard to emphasize her more bellicose side. She could change a man into a woman, and the assinnu, kurgarru, and kuku’u who performed her cult had both male and female features.


                Her androgyny is attested to in her cultic personnel, which included eunuchs and transvestites and during her festival young men carried hoops, a feminine symbol, while young women carried swords. 

                Similar to the push for women to in traditionally masculine jobs (women in combat roles) and the push for men to be more feminine in behavior (show their feelings). There’s many more examples, but it would be tedious to write them all out. Could probably fill several hundred pages in specific examples.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  >America is a Carthaginian Roman sundae with a Babylonian cherry on top. The politics rhymes with Rome, the culture with Carthage, and the religion with Babylon.

                  Excellent. Aidan’s initial thesis (USA is Carthage, not Rome) was deeply profound for me. This further development is a very shrewd modification.

                • Red says:

                  I had no idea the tranny push was so old. First I’d read about it was in Weimar Germany.

              • pinochet's ghost says:

                Do we know that Sumer and Babylon were infested with demons?

                We take the Jews’ word for it, but they also have many nasty things to say about Amerikaner, and Amerikaner may go the same way as the Babylonians.

                • jim says:

                  Yes we do. Their clay tablets and their legends. Obviously demonic.

                • Contaminated NEET says:

                  What ancient tablets are obviously demonic, and where can I read them in translation?

                • jim says:

                  searching cuneiform prostitution, I bring up no end of discussion about these clay tablets, but no direct translations of the clay tablets, and the discussion is massively politicized “Oh no, you should not translate as prostitute, but as someone, male or female without status in the patriarchal system”

                  But it seems that the temples were brothels supplying both women and boys. Wiemar Republic being openly rather than covertly religious.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  The Histories by Herodotus, Greek historian (ca. 484 – 425 BC).

                  Every woman born in the country must once in her life go and sit down in the precinct
                  of Venus [Inanna, also known as Ishtar], and there consort with a stranger…. A woman
                  who has once taken her seat is not allowed to return home till one of the strangers
                  throws a silver coin into her lap, and takes her with him beyond the holy ground….
                  The silver coin maybe of any size….
                  The woman goes with the first man who throws her money, and rejects no one.
                  When she has gone with him, and so satisfied the goddess, she returns home,
                  and from that time forth no gift however great will prevail with her. Such of the women….
                  who are ugly have to stay a long time before they can fulfil the law. Some have waited
                  three or four years in the precinct.

            • zero says:

              maybe an hypothesis of America having multiple elite groups would fit well into this multifaced empire. old Dems/liberals Carthage, red empire/trump Rome, new liberals/commies Babylon. I suspect ancient civilizations had far less cult divergence if for no reason other than size of elite and relative simplicity of elite economic monopolies. not sure if ancient civilizations had fewer elite cult/ideology’s because they were more prone to killing or just scale. time seams to be weirdly compressed and decompressed in the last 2 centuries.

              • Red says:

                The Southren States wanted to be a great land empire like Rome. One of the many reasons the Seapower states attacked and subjugated the South.

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                Ancient civilizations probably had more cults/ideologies per capita than modern civilizations. They had so many religious sects, and variants of said sects, with various overlapping configurations with other sects that it likely contributed to the decentralized nature of the pagan era.

                Hard to maintain group cohesion when there is both a Bacchus cult and Dionysus cult… until the Romans came along and simplified the pantheon by merging a bunch of the pantheon into a smaller set and simply killing off the rest (and their believers).

          • dave says:

            yes if we’re carthage, we just fail, be conquered, someone sows our land with the salt and thats that. No Caesars.

    • A2 says:

      NB: There is no way to vote ourselves out of this.

    • Adam says:

      Trump is our leader but let’s not kid ourselves he’s a boomer and the original fake it till you make it president. He was the right man at the right time to defeat Hillary and give us MAGA. But he did not throw Hillary in jail like he should have and that’s why he lost in 2020. He got too comfortable. All the work that it would have taken to lock up Hillary would have given him what he needed to win in 2020.

      Follow Don Jr. on social media. They still don’t get it. They are still stuck in the past, stuck inside the blue tribe red tribe illusion. They still serve the same masters.

  18. SJ says:

    The company I work for has begun to worship a database that they call AI. It is not AI in any way simply a database with a few algorithms to enhance the productivity of certain scheduling tasks. It is a poor database as well as for years every level of employee has had an incentive to fill the database with bad information to temporarily look good to their immediate superior. The c suite has realized that was a problem so they closed the database off to most people. This has actually caused more problems as now nobody can update the database with with the constantly changing landscape. At the production level the entire “AI” is now routinely ignored because nothing would work at all otherwise.

    Meanwhile we are now having struggle sessions with any employee who casts doubts or express unbelief in the might of the holy “AI’ database. Managers are being demoted if they express disbelief and we are having retreats to worship the holy “AI” database. The predictions this database makes are not accurate, due to the database being filled with bad information, and over time it is becoming increasingly difficult to force the database predictions to match reality. This is causing the c suite to believe that their are deliberate sabatuers in the ranks. These sabatuers are to be found through our retreats and struggle sessions and then ritually sacrificed in humiliation rituals. This is also creating brain drain in our management staff as only the holiest worshippers are sticking around, the true believers, as it is getting harder and harder to pretend that this two billion dollar database has magical powers.

    • Kunning Druegger says:

      I want to ask so many questions but I won’t because you might be tempted to answer and that’s bad OpSec. I am not making light of your pain, but it’s so funny to me trying to imagine how this plays out in day to day conversations, team meetings, projects, and these “retreats.” Garbage in, garbage out; trust in the garbage and lean not on thine own understanding; if the garbage is hard to understand, maybe you’re the problem; why is the real world not aligning with this garbage I am convinced of?”

      The really funny part is that you aren’t describing anything unique. This situation is all over the place, at every level, in every industry.

      • Pax Imperialis says:

        He clearly works at Hooli.

      • SJ says:

        Things are starting to break apparently. Now if someone over hears you disparage the magical database then you will get a meeting to see if you buy in. Don’t you trust the database? Have faith in the database. Everyone needs to buy in.

        Only a few years ago telling someone I’m going to follow the database exactly was a threat and the response was if you do I’ll fire you. Now everyone is following it and so things are breaking. I suppose this is the inevitable result of promotions and hiring based on being a black trans man. Now we just need to get rid of the nonbelievers…

    • zero says:

      I used to think the old medieval idea of good kings and bad kings having a magical affect on the lands and the nation only having prayer to influence things was a bit dumb. modernity has impressed upon me that actually it pretty much is pray for a good leader and do whatever is necessary to support him because entropy is a nasty bitch and God is the only thing that will save you. would love to know why America was so exceptionally moral. how many people were in on the joke of what kept civilization ticking?

  19. Kunning Drueger says:

    [this is an unintentionally massive off topic post. I think there’s some value to it, but the tl;dr is that Zeihan is a picture of the GAE intelligentsia, and great caution should be exercised when interacting with him]

    Well, I guess it was inevitable. Zeihan has finally gotten his Joe Rogan interview. He’s made a career out of talking to rooms of influential people, but getting to sit with an inquisitive midwit is a far higher rung on the social ladder. Such are the ways of clown world.

    For those of you who are unfamiliar with Zeihan, I really can’t recommend you go down the rabbit hole on him for two reasons: The first is that no matter how interesting he was, he’s gone full max boosted and is basically just a Biden shill for free, and the other is that you’ll get GIRDS if you stand too close to him because he a gay. That warning out there, there actually is a lot of interesting stuff he put out between 2012 and 2019. He had the balls to make a bunch of predictions, some which came true, many which did not, and most kind of true but not really( He predicted the war between Russia and Ukraine, but he predicted it would be between Russia and the Baltic states; he predicted that the wealthiest Canadian province would attempt to leave Canada, but he was a few years too early, lots of stuff like that ).

    In this clip, you get a really good picture of who and what Zeihan is: he is a compelling speaker that can make a lot of convincing arguments that are very interesting and engaging, but he never shows his work and he just hopes you’ll assume that his confidence is indicative of competence. He’s got a lot of really interesting ideas, and I find his argument on China compelling, but here in lies the issue with Zeihan: he’s right that China is on the fast track to self-destruction, but it’s not for the reasons he argues, it’s for the reasons that Jim has outlined in terms of not having a state religion, or maybe not having the balls to choose the available state religion that would be most useful.

    A big issue with Zeihan is that he is a homosex. Being a sodomite, there are just certain things he cannot think or accept, and it gets darkly amusing because he’s perfectly capable of noticing that something is awry, but he cannot allow himself to fully understand why it is that way and what the real implications are. So he constantly notices smoke, but he refuses to believe that fire exists, and writes books with magical explanations for how smoke seems to appear in all of these places, while never once addressing any fires, or even acknowledging that a fire could exist.

    The Algo Daemons provide another:

    Zeihan in full effect in this one. Notice how he mixes in truth with calumny. Notice how if Russia is in the Baltics or the Caucuses or the Stans it’s an occupation, but if Russia *isn’t* there it’s “free”, not occupied by the GAE. He’s an extraordinary shill for Boomerism, which makes sense, as he was a wunderkint who built his identity and business by impressing rooms full of wealthy boomers with his compendium of factoids and generalist knowledge. The evil of this man (besides gay fecal anal AIDS, of course) is he that is constantly talking about “the man behind the curtain” (GAE soft power) while adamantly declaring that there is no man, there is no curtain. This is crystallized Boomerism: the thing opposing the GAE is bad, bad, bad, and we must remove that thing, then it’s all going to be good, good, good. It’s cinema logic: introduce protagonist, introduce adversary, rising tension, climax, resolution, credits.

    And now we have the Zeihan Prediction: “we will know what’s really going on, how this thing is ‘going to go,’ in May 2023.” And he’s probably right, but observe the skilled shell game merchant as his hands blur between the cups. He’s not saying anything about what we will know, he’s just prophesying that we will know something. This is a cutesie game, but I’ve got the receipts; I have all his newsletters from the past year+ saved. He’s been quite incorrect ±80% of the time over that period. But his 19% of meh and 1-3% of ok, pretty accurate means a multimillion dollar consultancy.

    And then there’s the hogwash: AFU is amazing! Light tank wunderwaffen! Stupid Russians just die in place as Ukrainian seal ranger delta spetznaz jagdkommandos flit through the trees like cyberpunk ninja niggers! Putin has cancer, gaydz, parkinson’s, and a tiny dick! NATO can’t lose!

    It’s all so tiresome.

    And another! Wow, it’s almost like the universe is sending me a message…

    I can confidently state that, barring the possibility that Zeihan was always an IC asset, he was coopted in 2020, maybe 2019. Prior, he was very upfront with the incompetence of USG and the IC, as well as quite poignant about American domestic politics (he asserted quite profoundly, that Trump was the first US president since Bush I to have a coherent foreign policy). Now he can’t be positive enough about the Agency, intel capabilities, American tech capacity, you name it. He’s lockstep with The Message, and he’s a faggot with actual skill, an extreme rarity. He is a Cuck Canary in the GAE Coalmine, so you have to interpret him in a tricky way. I predict that Zeihan will be instrumental in the Great Switcheroo when Vaxx becomes a racist tool of whites to harm holy black bodies and savior sodomites.

    Lol: the GAE is in Putin’s sockk drawer! We’re reading his emails! Ok, actually comports with Jimian Thesis: Russia has a compromised network. But there are two looming components to this that show it’s nearly pure propaganda: is it possible that Putin & Frens know this and are acting accordingly? And, who cares if you can read my email when you have a complete inability to view, understand, incorporate, and respond to thoughtctime?

    “General Ch’mekwa, we have captured the enemy battle plans!”

    “Ye nigga, das how we do.”

    “…indeed, ma’am. It says they are amassing missile assets for a blanket strike. I think we should reposition our for-”

    “Nigga is u stoopid? Cracka Russians ain’t shit, ya herd? CIA spooky niggas run shit, an Gabriella Fonderalla Piquiña Niña Lopez Obrador Gonzalez Rodriguez Jimenez done already told you dey ain’t gots no mo’ missile joints. Finna to quit , ya herd? Surrender tomorrow, nahmsayun? Sheeit.”

    “Of course, Rev. Dr. General, but don’t you think it’s better to be safe than sor-”



    “Main, y u be triflin’ ize on break, ya herd? Sheeeeeit.”

    [that was fun to imagine, I admit it’s excessive]

    01:13- again, there’s the truth floating in the shit: AFU has a LOT of Russian gear that needs repair. He just deftly steps over the documented facts that it’s mostly stocks from EE handed over in shit condition with no spares, that the industrial capacity to make parts has been annihilated by Russian missiles, and that having 1000 broken tanks means dick for the actual battles taking place.

    02:45- here comes the GAE propaganda, wherein the ponytail faggot flips the numbers, stating Russia has lost 100k and Ukraine has lost a third. He then goes on to claim the Russians are slaughtering civilians. That’s right, Russia is “conquering” areas loyal to the Rodina, then nazi-smashing them because… Well… Well, because muh Russia, amirite lmao gottem. Unsatisfied with the NAFO cum on his face, he nut gargles the GAE further: “if NATO went to war with Russia *right now* the casualties would be 1:1000.” Ok… fucking hell, ok… so if battle hardened autarky Russia that gets 80k VOLUNTEERS after calling up 300k reserves goes to war with a European coalition that can’t properly run war games, sail in straight lines safely, maintain ammunition stocks & production, build weapons, or march, the Euro side will kill 1000 ruskis for every soldier they lose. Yeah, that makes sense lel.

    Zeihan is the best you can hope for with a priest in power, and it’s terrifying. Follow his tortured logic from 04:14 to 04:30, and understand this is a picture of the best the GAE has to offer, this is the pinnacle of their competency:

    “So the primary reason why everyone in the West has gotten shoulder to shoulder on this is they know that if Ukraine falls, and Poland’s next, there will be a direct fight, the Russians will you lose, and then there will be a general nuclear exchange. So there are plenty of really solid reasons to root for the Ukrainians on this one.” So… Europe is obeying the Blinken War Faction nd pushing Russia to respond in the most extreme way possible because if they win they lose and use nukes, which means we need for Russia to lose so they won’t use nukes. brilliant.

    I am impressed and flabbergasted all at once. I’d love to see Zeihan and Mearsheimer do a debate. It would be fascinating to watch two priests from the “Realist” school go at it. It would make plain, for those with ears to see, just how thoroughly converged the IR/poli-sci schools have become. Just as Amazon has become the Everything Provider, neo-Whigism has become the Everything Interpreter. And Joe Rogan is the perfect simulacrum for midwits in the GAE: just sitting agog at the torrent of brilliant analysis washing over them and, like a rat at the cocaine dispenser, cannot help but hit the button for another tablet.

    06:08- Rogan’s BS detector valiantly tries to help Joe, but Zeihan smoothly steamrolls the impulse, though you can see the fear in his eyes lol. That last minute is a perfect distillation of Zeihan, and by extension, the intelligentsia of the GAE. He very accurately describes the large picture: Russia is backed into a corner and is facing an existential crisis. But his inability to see illegal thoughts or come to outlawed conclusions leaves him twisting in the wind on a noose of his own design, and all the midwits gather ‘neath, crying out in exultation that this must be the greatest dancing in history. Zeihan is a braindead ballerina, dancing to the daemonic organ grinder. I truly can’t even with this guy.

    • Pax Imperialis says:

      Zeihan went full crazy during covid. Grew a beard and everything. Looked like he wasn’t even taking showers.

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      I saw some clips of him talking with Rogan and I was listening until he started saying some really mind-bogglingly stupid shit like Xi has everyone so terrified that no one even talks to him. The 1:1000 claim was another, bit it took me a bit to realize that is what he meant, because it was so absurd that his meaning rolled right off me at first. If that is his analysis, then only the brain dead would bother listening to him.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        He is a case study in what happens when you take the 30 pieces of Intelligence Community silver and stay “””private.””‘

  20. Regardless of the reasoning, we’re not going to 1930s LARP our way out of this mess anyway. While there are some worthwhile things to bring forward from the mid-century regimes, we need to deal with the problems actually before us, not stereotype a response based on the last major opposition to the current powers.

  21. Pax Imperialis says:

    Skip to the second part to skip my paranoid speculations.

    -Make Weimar Great Again 2023-01-10 at 05:29
    Weimar Germany was well associated with heavy drug abuse, transgenders, homosexuality, feminism, and whoremongering especially in Berlin. In short Weimar is gay and MWGA might as well be ‘Make Gay Great Again.’ Keep track of the homosexual undertones as they pop up later. This pseudonym is weird. Green cat with top hat.

    -Anonymous 2023-01-10 at 23:09
    -Raped By Dad, Now A-N-O-R-E-X-I-C 2023-01-11 at 01:31
    -Gays In Tel Aviv’s Florentin Neighborhood Keep Complimenting My Looks (5’7″) 2023-01-11 at 05:57
    -Don’t Misdiagnose My BPD As Psychopathy, I’m A Nice Person 2023-01-11 at 21:33
    -Aura of Respectability 2023-01-11 at 23:14

    All have the same pale yellow cat. Notice the increasingly bizarre and homosexual pseudonyms until 23:14 where it shifts to a New Age Hippy tone. All are long form arguments. One post said:

    Suffice it to say, all of my friends and acquaintances have done plenty of drugs, and I also have done drugs, meaning cocaine, ecstasy, weed, hash, shrooms, LSD, and ketamine (and some other nice stuff), with no discernible deleterious effects, and quite a few salutary effects.

    It’s like someone started an amphetamine binge before leveling off with weed. I enjoy Nick Land’s early works especially his amphetamine fueled CCRU writings; they are certainly unique and interesting, but it clearly took a toll of him. I hear he cleaned up, moved to China, married, and had children; the timeline of which aligns with when he strayed from his communist roots and went NRx. I have no doubt the poster believes the bolded section, but from where I’m sitting, there’s clear, discernible deleterious effects from the admitted drug use. Either that, or the drug use is being used to cope and or cover severe trauma stemming from continuous homosexual encounters if his pseudonyms are any indication.

    -One of Prince Harry’s Mother’s Several Towelhead Boyfriends’ Most Nordoid Catamites 2023-01-12 at 04:11
    Different cat but same pseudonym and writing style. The most bizarre yet to the extent that jim deleted it. Guy must have took another dose. There is good probability that these posts are from the same person who started a multi-day, multi-drug binge starting on the 10th. If anything a good excuse to write about a short brief on the state of drugs in America.


    Drug policy is not core to NRx, but rebuilding of civilization will require a drug policy that replaces the mess we have today. It was hard drinking and tobacco smoking American men who conquered and settled the West (Indian territory). It was tobacco smoking and coffee drinking German men who put American men on the moon. It was weed smoking American men, some of whom grew tits, that turned America into a giant mess of LGBT Sodom and Gomorrah fuckery. Every generation has their vices, but clearly some vices are gay adjacent.

    Tobacco is a vice, I do not recommend it. It is a mild cognitive performance enhancing stimulant that increases focus and boosts memory with long tail risk. It also increases Testosterone. It doesn’t interfere with day to day life in contrast to most drugs. It does not linger in the body for long. That allows it to quickly becomes a default habit that invades all aspects of life. Breakfast, lunch, dinner, social events, good times, bad times, etc. For that reason, Tobacco was king as it pushed out almost all competition except alcohol, the downtime drug of choice. i.e. Cocaine was easily available in the early 20th century America, but kept under control by big Tobacco’s near monopoly market share. Same story with heroin/opioids kept under control by alcohol.

    The fall of tobacco originated from the anti-smoking campaigns starting in the 60s. Marijuana would go mainstream as a result. The drug is both a stimulant and depressant that lingers in the body’s fat cells. It hinders attention, long-term memory storage, and psychomotor skills. In short, it’s a mild cognitive performance inhibitor that doesn’t interfere too much with day to day life. That allows it, like tobacco, to quickly become a default habit that invades all aspects of life. It is also estrogenic. It may even have more cancerogenic effects on the mucosal tissue than Tobacco does. Marijuana is like the evil insidious twin of Tobacco and has been a curse on America.

    Tobacco derived products were on their way back into the mainstream in the form of E-cigs which conveniently avoided most anti-tobacco regulations. Their vape flavors became highly desired by high school kids. A demographic that would take up vaping from ~18% in 2016 to ~35% in 2020 among 12th grade students. There was real possibility that Tobacco would become king again as the vice of choice in the form of vaping (a much safer form than cigarettes). The FDA, in their infinite wisdom, decided to crack down on nicotine products again in 2020 by banning flavored vape gels. Nicotine vaping among 12th grade students fell to ~26% and weed vaping exploded by 2022:

    Of 12th graders surveyed, 14 percent said they had vaped marijuana in the last month, nearly double the 7.5 percent reported a year ago. The percentage of teenagers who said they had vaped marijuana once or more over the last year essentially doubled during the past two years as well, rising to 7 percent for eighth graders, 19.4 percent for 10th graders and 20.8 percent for 12th graders.

    So a nearly 10% drop of 12th graders using nicotine vaping resulted in nearly a 10% increase in 12th graders switching to marijuana vaping… good job FDA! Seriously fuck them and fuck Joe Biden who pushed for this.

    People will have their vices, but governments can strongly influence what those vices are. A combination of allowing big Tobacco regulatory freedom to advertise and sell as they please would result in nicotine becoming the dominate drug of choice again. Some amounts of government coercion would accelerate the process.

    • Western Taliban says:

      I never looked to much into this, but I did keep a link with a guy making interesting arguments and showing some evidence that tobacco might actually be good for your health, if anyone is interested:

      Of course, that’s about real tobacco leaves, not the tar filled garbage they sell today. That’s probably the equivalent of exchanging butter in your diet for sunflower, soy and corn shit.

      • Fidelis says:

        Here’s another source for nicotine in particular:

      • The Cominator says:

        Globohomo adds some bad chemicals imho for almost no goid reason, cigars i dont think have them even cheap gas station ones.

        Not convinced vaping is benign at all, water vapor + smoke… it feels way worse than any form of plant tobacco.

        • Red says:

          Vaping has a couple of downsides it can gums up your lungs a bit if you vape all the time and it causes esophageal damage from acid-reflux. Vaping irritates the esophagus which tends to cause it open up the LES and cause low level acid reflux continually. I’ve played around with vaping a few times and I when I used it I vaped way too fucking much and developed esophagus problems from it. Vaping is stupidly addicting in terms of wanting to use it all the time, but oddly not that hard to quit.

          Cigars on the other hand are golden. I can smoke when I want, I fell no compulsion about it, and I don’t smoke enough to need to worry about cancer.

    • zero says:

      the schools are such communist scum it makes me wonder how normies can deserve to live on this earth, the same teachers that joked about having smoking rooms for students when they were being educated went completely apeshit over tobacco becoming more common. I guess civilization requires Havel’s greengrocer to avoid the crab pot trap but damn people are sheeple. heroin and rape explodes no one bats an eye but got forbid a 16 year old vape. Shakespeare was right about the world inverting in a holiness spiral.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      Pax, pax, pax. Don’t initiate a witch hunt. He’s a quality poster. Yes, he’s a kike, but so what? Personally, I’m just happy to see Shaman posting again. ALLEGEDLY, I mean. ha ha what that’s crazy ha ha.

      • Anonymous says:

        Ultimately, my posting here, which goes long back, has been a Socratic exercise, in that I test out the tenability of various positions and see how people respond. Constantly changing handles is part (((crypsis))), and part a desire to avoid a cult of personality developing around me, as occasionally happens on various platforms. And it’s not that the positions I test out lack conviction behind them – usually, I do believe at least 75% of what I advocate. If I can influence hearts and minds about serious political questions while calling myself any variation on the MPC-inspired “Raped By Gay Dad,” well, that elevates my dopamine levels. I always seem to take myself far less seriously than my interlocutors.

        But St. John’s diagnosis was right – I must keep the insatiable urge to stir shit up at bay, because otherwise my stay, which is initially welcome, starts tipping the scales towards causing unproductive drama. I usually bow out before the situation reaches that stage of the play, sapped of the energy required to continue engaging in the exercise, but satisfied that at least some ideas got through and that the spark of amusement was ignited. Honestly, I don’t see eye-to-eye with Jim on many issues (which disagreements I scarcely voice out on this platform, and which would seem irrelevant to the Overton Hivemind, the way a Wahhabist looks at Tranny vs. TERF Wars), but his is an invaluable outlet for articulating forbidden reflections, which should be cherished as such.

        Online anonymity, this modern Ring of Gyges, permits us to show our true colors, drab or splendid as they may be. I sometimes wonder what my internet behavior really says about me. No, KD, I should probably not go back to posting here. It’s not that you are undeserving of my contributions; it is I who is unworthy of the hospitality shown by people far more psychologically stable (and genetically valuable) than I am. Ambition being the root of our peril, it’s only by adopting strict Wu wei that the “kids” can skip “Summer Camp.” Let this be the ultimate lesson.

        • jim says:

          Note that you can tell this Anonymous, who is no shill, from several other Anonymous, who are irritating shills, by his cat.

          Now that I have pointed this out, he may well change his cat.

        • Kunning Drueger says:

          Well, I appreciate the candor, analysis, and insight. Stay frosty, nigga.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            Yes there is quality in his writing, and I’m not bothered by alleged Jewishness, but it all feels like failed potential of a nietzschean ubermensch that didn’t quite make it.

            Something about the flippancy, the nihilistic anonymity in oppose to anonymity for security, the apparent lack of a core identity without ever really believing much of anything just really irritates me for some ambiguously amorphous reason.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              How many places like Jim’s Blog have you been before you came here? I’m not mocking your implied loyalty and reverence for this place, I share it in spades. But over time I’ve learned to accept the Old Timers being far less clannish. Cost of doing business.

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                It’s not loyalty and reverence. In hindsight, it’s more or less a personality conflict. Some people quarrel more than others. That is fine. Not everyone gets along.

                I’m disgusted by his apparent predilection towards certain drugs and eugenics proposition. I’m also disgusted by the decadence of the ruling class which overlaps with many of those drugs and their depopulationist desires. I may be conflating a hatred of decadence with drugs. I do not know nor care to find out.

                In the same way one finds a hobo on fentanyl that is shitting up the streets distasteful, I find “academic intelligentsia” smoking weed that are intellectually shitting up governance also distasteful. That I wish to see them all deported to penal colonies is in line with the people’s desire to see hobos gone. It’s the same disgust mechanism reacting.

  22. Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

    Russia’s willingness to slowroll Bakhmut and simply minecraft everyone that shows up with reconnaissance-strike rather than get on the horse and chase after them seems to have resulted in a great deal of sunk-costing on the part of the Kiev puppet regime. The happenstance that their social media signaling has been dwelling on it for weeks now, building up on top of itself in a feed-back loop with every news cycle. It is ‘our Stalingrad’ now, and they are going to pull every single poor ruthenian bastard still alive from everywhere and pour them all into the cauldron now to not let their memes just be dreams.

    War in clownworld lmao.

    • jim says:

      Yes, the Bakhmut campaign is delivering utterly insignificant gains of territory for Russia, but huge gains for Russia in the destruction of a significant chunk of the Ukraine and Nato’s military capability.

      The Russians thought there must be something important in the salt mines of Soledar, because the Ukrainians poured so much into its defense. But it seems that the only value of Soledar for the Ukrainians is that it controlled one of their two remaining routes in and out of Bakhmut. It will be interesting to see if they sit tight when the remaining route to Bakhmut comes under pressure.

      At least some Ukrainians sat tight in Soledar, and are now surrounded. I don’t know how many die harders there are. Looks like most got out in time, but may have been defying Zelenksy’s orders in so doing.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        The perennial preoccupation of ‘civilian’ (bureaucratic) leadership with lines on a map, and the preference of more aristocratic leadership to range with the boys backwards and forwards and every which way across the land they feel is convenient for staying healthy and killing the enemy, has ever come to loggerheads over the cycles of civilization.

        In the Ostfront, von Mellenthin often preferred to simply withdraw in the face of major soviet offenses, because he knew his socialist general counterparts would have stupendously elaborated plans of action with hair-splitting intricacy of details for the offensive against whatever his going position at the time was, and that while the enemy troops were naively following the checklist to the letter, or sitting around aimlessly once they’ve gone through it, they could then just turn around and smash a random assortment of movement columns outside of defensive positions with their own offensive, to devastating effect.

        As it stands, the atlantic empire forces don’t have reliable means of forcing breakthroughs at present, so Russia usually doesn’t have to go that far out their way anyways (the supply of mercenaries with high mobility technicals and crew served weapons seems to have dried up rather quickly around the same time they appeared at the Kharkov offensive in the first place); and at the same rate, the opinion of Russian leadership demonstrated by their actions so far is that they like their odds in artillery duels, and are confident in the ability of their operational system to locate targets and deliver precision fires on them with alacrity, leaving it incumbent on the KOG forces to do something about it – whether that something is to just walk away, or make a desperate charge; and in the event of the later, the Russian forces observe the standard tripwire doctrine codified in post-war action studies, and simply withdraw where the picketlines encounter major troop movements, and the mobile reserves where most forces are massed move up to pincer the thrust and create a new cauldron to dissolve.

        Putin is still unfortunately shortchanging the scope he could be and ought have been grasping the nettles of destiny in prosecuting his conflict with the GAE in general and Neo-Khazaria in particular, but as far as it goes, he’s always doing just enough to see he comes out just ahead in the concluding tallies of things.

        That kind of circumspection is still coming from a man who lived the old normal and hesitates in his steps into that which was always and already the new normal, and as the tides of history accelerate those paces may well prove insufficient; but out of all the preexisting leaders at large in the world today, there’s probably noone else you’d have better odds in betting on.

          • Red says:

            That’s hilarious. I had map autism as a child. I looked at so many maps, and globes and plotted wars on them. It lasted right until the point where I played Nobunaga’s Ambition and Romance of the 3 Kingdoms. After that maps where just useful terrain features for killing my foes more effectively, or units of economic production for building those armies.

            As Patton said with the Battle of the Bulge:
            “Hell, let’s have the guts to let the bastards go all the way to Paris. Then we’ll cut them off and really chew them up.”

            Alas, Eisenhower had terminal map autism and thousands of Americans died while most of the German army escaped to fight another day due to his autism.

            A nice looking map of my empire in EU3/4 was the reward of me spending all my time trying to destroy the enemies army, taking the land on the map was just a mopping up exercise. Of course the worst wars were against a foe who never seemed to run out of manpower or money (Looking at you Ottomans). In such wars, I had to setup killing zones, where I suckered in, and killed their armies over and over again while trying to preserve my own strength. Eventually they would run out of everything and I’d march in easily taking everything I wanted. Much as Russia is doing in the Ukraine.

            • The Cominator says:

              Ah another strat war game nerd of culture i see, good theory.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              I once participated in a 4chan risk war that carried on for +22 hours. It was glorious.

            • Pax Imperialis says:

              I had stake wipe autism. 100% militarized 135%+ discipline Prussian space marines with offensive, defensive, quality, and aristocratic idea groups.

              I a lesser degree I had Byzantine map autism. Kill Ottoman in first 10 years and reform the Roman Empire with perfect boarders.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        What it says to me is that the Russians have given up on negotiating with an Empire of Lies that’s not only agreement-incapable, but even further, at no physical or even economic risk because it fights and pays with gollums.

        Therefore nothing left to do but kill-kill-kill until they stop coming.

        Mind you, I do believe that the Kiev Blitz was a (military) fuckup on their part, but even if they’d surrounded the city, wouldn’t the GAE Team have just bugged out and left Kiev as one big “January 6th on the Dnipro”?

        This is a simplistic description of the situation, but how is it wrong?

        Furthermore, with Starlink in the mix, how does conquering territory make any difference anyway, unless it imposes material consequences? What “command and control” assets are there left to shock-and-awe anymore, if it’s all done from the cloud anyway?

        Is this the “liquid warfare” that someone predicted back in the Counterpunch days?

    • ten says:

      I reckon Artyomovsk will be liberated rather soon. Wagner seems to have taken Soledar, should not be possible for Ukraine to cling on much longer.

      Unless Russia wants them to keep clinging, which would be pretty wise as long as they can keep smashing nato stuff.

      • DavyCrockett says:

        Artyomovsk is the Soviet Communist name. Bakhmut was the name of the city under Imperial Russian rule in the 1700s, 1800s, and early 1900s before Lenin came into power and renamed it. The restoration of its original nname to Bakhmut is one of the few times Ukraine has gotten something right.

        • ten says:

          idc lol russians say artyomovsk

          • DavyCrockett says:

            Nah not really, the solid Majority of Russians say Bakhmut too, like in Rybar maps etc. Artymosk is literally named after a soviet friend of Josef “Stalin”, which itself is a made up transetymology for Josef Jughashvili/Dzhugashvili.

            It’s like insisting on calling Saint Petersburg “Leningrad” instead of Saint Petersburg, or Volgograd “Stalingrad” instead of its rightful name of Stalingrad.

  23. Anonymous says:

    Jim, two posts of mine appear to be stuck in your spam folder. You may be interested in retrieving them.

    • The Cominator says:

      Are you the good Anonymous or that fednat fagg0t?

      • Anonymous says:

        The good one. I posted one response to Pax on the drug topic and another to the fed on the Jew topic, both using handles that I personally find amusing (YMMV), the former also containing a link, which is a contributing factor to ending up in the spam bin.

  24. CrazyMan says:

    So what do people think about this Biden documents thing? The mainstream media is weirdly pushing this story instead of hiding it. Seems odd they would knowing report on a story that makes Trump look better and Biden look worse. Something’s not right about it.

    • jim says:

      Power struggle within the left. The newer left always wants to oust the older left.

      • Cloudswrest says:

        Also, right about now they can replace Biden, and the replacement can constitutionally serve 2 1/2 terms.

        • Your Uncle Bob says:

          >Ten years of President Kamala Harris.

          The mind boggles.

          But then, that’s my normality bias showing. Intellectually I know Biden isn’t mentally fit and in command and control, so who is? His wife, his chief of staff, an ad hoc committee of half dozen of his youngest and leftist aides, Barack Obama behind the scenes? I don’t know, and can’t begin to guess. With democracy already dead, why not Kamala as figurehead?

          Still, I’d rate a move that direction more likely if the Dems had held the House and could ease in the Speaker. McCarthy perhaps could be bought if necessary, but I don’t think the left is sane enough to accept that and believe they were in control, even if they were.

      • Red says:

        Typical the left forces people to resign to avoid some sort of scandal and Biden has a lot of things that can be exposed. If that follows the pattern here, Biden will resign within 6 months and everyone will quietly forget about him, much like Ratzinger’s resignation.

        • jim says:

          Looks like a left on left struggle to me. They want to replace an old white man with a younger nonwhite woman. The outcome of left on left struggles is unpredictable, but the leftmost usually win, sooner or later, one way or another. With, however, World War III coming up, the not quite so left may well dig their heels in this time.

  25. Vlad says:

    This could be a good post.
    Let’s examine premises. What’s a rightist leftist conservative liberal.
    I have been constantly deleted insulted for trying to ask this question usually I’m called a nazi soros troll and third positionist whatever.
    [*deleted again*]

    • jim says:

      That is because it is a completely stupid and meaningless question.

      We don’t know the answer, we don’t care about the answer, and do not believe there is an answer because the question is meaningless.

      I don’t know what a rightist leftist conservative liberal is, I don’t care, and I don’t believe there is such a thing,

      Perhaps what you meant to ask was “what is the difference between right and left, the difference between conservative and liberal?”

      If so consider yourself deleted for lack of clarity. Screenfuls and screenfuls and screenfuls of lack of clarity.

      To answer the question that you may have intended to ask, though I really have no idea what you were asking: leftism is entropy, the coalition of those knocking over applecarts to grab some apples, rightism is order. Leftism has no essence, no fixed nature or goals, it just heads after whichever applecart seems wobbly. What makes the Nazis leftist was the chaos of the Nazi economy and the abrupt and capricious transfers of wealth, power, and goods.

      That is our definition, and I keep calling you a Nazi Soros shill because you keep presupposing it is not our definition, no matter how many times we tell you our definition.

      “Liberal” is a nice sounding word that has been coopted by far too many wildly different factions with wildly different objectives to have any meaning worth elucidating. It is not the opposite of conservatism, it is not the opposite of anything.

      Conservatives conserve. They conserve the latest advance of leftism. Conservatives are the tax collectors for the welfare state. Leftism makes a mess by promising nice things that cannot be delivered, and then conservatives take over, attempt to deliver what can be delivered of what the left promised, and take the blame for under delivery. Conservatives are always conserving the latest advance of leftism. Pretty soon conservatives will be conserving the right of gay teachers to transition your children, as they are now conserving the right of women to fuck around, ditch their husbands, and murder their husband’s inconvenient children. Republicans fund the sale of baby meat. Tax collectors for Uncle Sam the big pimp.

      • Vlad says:

        [*deleted for the usual reasons*]

        • Vlad says:

          If like me your motivation is [*deleted*]

          • jim says:

            If that was your motivation you would not be pushing measures that failed catastrophically in achieving those purported goals hundred of times over the last four millennia.

            You or your paymasters, intend the destruction of me and mine, much as the Azov brigade paymasters intend the death of all Ukrainians. Your program would have the same outcome for me and mine as it had for the Russians and the Germans.

        • jim says:

          You are being, as always, unresponsive. You are incapable of responding to off script responses. You have a script that tells you the replies to what I am supposed to say, and when we say stuff that has absolutely no relationship to what we are supposed to say, just sail right along with your script.

          I just gave you a definition of left, a definition of right, and a definition of conservative, and you, as always, sail right along ignoring it.

          • Vlad says:


          • Vlad says:

            You know what Jim do me a favor restore all my comments or delete them all. It’s not fair I have to argue with 90% deleted the point of a comments section is not you and me it’s the entire group but they can’t see most of my points and judge them. Your position seems to be there’s a fed under every bed so you’re protecting us and your blog I don’t buy it first I’m. capable of judging commenters and you’re on firm control of the narrative being the blogger.

            • jim says:

              No it is not fair.

              But the trouble is you just sail right along banging the same old drum no matter what I say. You just will not shift from script. So then I have to say the same thing again. And again. And again. And again.

              My words appear, but you do not hear them, you just post as if I had said what I was supposed to say instead of what I in fact said. This is not going anywhere, and it is not going to go anywhere. You are not responding to me. You are not responding to this blog. You are responding to what Soros thinks his opponents are saying, what they would say if we thought what Soros thinks is correct, but just disagree out of evil.

            • Western Taliban says:

              I just wanted to make it clear to you that your purported consensus is fake and gay and I do not share it. I don’t care about your pretenses of democratic gay garbage or free speech. I personally appreciate jim ruling his own space according to his own rules.

              From where I stand you’re a faggot and the best thing that could happen is that you go experience minecraft.

              I’ve never in my entire live met someone functional, intelligent and well-balanced who would say something like this:

              But if every question is weighed against is this hood for our volk our blood and soil our kulture then right decisions are clear

              My bet is that you’re a worthless loser trying to live at the expense of others. Your apparent concern with the well-being of “your volk” is just an excuse to loot and murder “your volk”, just like Marx and Trotsky cared a lot about workers or farmers.

              In my experience, no one with a real job, making a real product with real value and a decent life talks like you or agrees with what you say. Worthless hobo bums like you are not “the volk” of productive farmers, successful entrepreneurs and competitive merchants, more like the cancer. You need the cops unleashed on you and those like you, get a real job, creature.

      • Vlad says:

        You have to thoroughly know your enemy to defeat him. Not all leftists are after power and money many are sincere without the sincere the corrupt can’t operate it would be nothing more than some guys yelling come on guys let’s steal all their shit. It doesn’t matter that it’s devolved to,practically this or even that it always will it would be put down in its infancy without the sincere
        Yes I prefer leftism as a word to describe it all but then must dig down
        I like conservative because despite the national review cuck baggage it actually describes the true purpose of the right. To conserve a particular people place and culture I can’t be a Korean conservative though I can sympathize with them.
        Your point about cuckservatives is true but it’s the very problem I’m screaming at you to get for a decade of a conservative thinks he’s supposed to defend capitalism or freedom or the science he’s gonna end up cucking his wife out cucking his people out cucking his economy out
        But if every question is weighed against is this hood for our volk our blood and soil our kulture then right decisions are clear

        • jim says:

          > Not all leftists are after power and money many are sincere

          No one sincerely wants the good of far away strangers, not one person in the entire world, and what leftists actually want is demonstrated every time they have the power to get what they want.

        • ten says:

          So where do you get the spelling of “Kulture” from? I am well aware of who uses it prevalently. Are you? Tell me where you got that spelling from.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            Kulture is a deeply American name. It’s gender-neutral and is meant as a celebration of culture generally. Known most famously for being the name of Cardi B’s kid, you and baby can aspire to this globetrotting, well-rounded mother-daughter relationship.

            Oh my… it’s a whore name.

      • Tech Priest says:

        I think left and right map quite well onto the forager vs. farmer dichotomy which Robin Hanson has talked about, e.g.:

        more on foragers from Hanson:

        The forager/farmer framing of left/right suggests that, though they might pick up the apples after, the main point of upsetting the applecart is to prevent the applecart owner from having the apples (strong norms against inequality in terms of physical possessions).

        Another thought about foragers and left wing thinking is if it’s true that foragers tend to decide based on consensus, as Robin suggests in, e.g.:

        In that case, I think, how does “consensus” decision making actually work in practice? Even around a campfire, it’s unlikely that everyone is convinced of one point of view in an epistemically sound way very quickly, so probably many participants “read the room” and comply with what seems to be the current fashion rather than annoy people through disagreement and eventually risk getting kicked out of the tribe.

        Which implies: among foragers, an argumentation pattern that frames the speaker’s viewpoint as already being the consensus likely tends to be quite effective.

        In the current environment, not around a campfire, manipulations of foragers by misrepresenting the consensus, e.g. through media, might be much more effective than in the actual forager past.

        The media seems to be composed largely by particularly bubble-ensconced foragers who are disconnected from farmer viewpoints, which provides an obvious explanation of where a representation of forager consensus may be coming from, but there’s at least a theoretical possibility of deliberate manipulation by non-foragers in positions of influence, though that would raise the question of why they would be promoting forager viewpoints.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          There’s spiritual foragers; then there’s spiritual farmers; then there’s spiritual cowboys.

          • Tech Priest says:

            Heh, I might start to think of myself as a spiritual cowboy then. But wanting a King seems more in line with farmer attitudes than cowboy attitudes, so I think NRx is more farmer than cowboy.

        • Zach says:

          Also, Hanson and Jim…


          “As nature is sacred, we are eager to sacrifice for it. So we are suspicious of solving global warming via nuclear energy or hydroelectricity, as those don’t seem to call for sufficient sacrifice. We’d really rather crush the economy, that will show how much we care about nature.”


          “Warmism is an updated and rebranded version of the old Mexican religion, demon worship. The priests announce that unless human sacrifices are made, the sun will cease to rise.”

          The sacred sacrifice!

  26. Cloudswrest says:

    The Zman published a graphic Russian solder bodycam video today of “hand-to-hand” (gun-to-gun) fighting in Ukraine. (warning, vid of people getting killed).

    • Western Taliban says:

      Considering the situation, that Russian soldier was extremely tolerant and patient, poor guy really didn’t want to kill them but they really insisted. What is that retard doing holding his weapon and struggling? I see videos of American cops shooting people for far less all the time.

  27. Kunning Drueger says:

    Obligatory video:

    Wherein the Razorfist demonstrates decisively the decidedly derided dogma that the damn-nazis were definitely dumb socialists.

  28. Kunning Drueger says:

    This post is so over the target it is taking every ounce of my self-control to not spam it in the normiesphere.

    • Pax Imperialis says:

      So over target it triggered all the socialists and they spewed all over the comment section.

  29. Karl says:

    Nazism was radical leftism in its day, and was perceived as radical leftism in its day.

    Was ist perceived as radical leftism? I’d have thought the communists were perceived as the radical left and nazism as the moderate left.

    • jim says:

      The Chamber of manufacturers did not see much difference. Perhaps they were perceived as the less extreme left, but no one except communists and nazis thought there was a big important difference.

      The Nazi/Commie difference was not radical versus less radical, but nationalist versus globalist. Back then nationalism was not perceived as right wing. In the age of empires, nationalism was left wing.

      • Karl says:

        I agree that back the it was a difference between national left and globalist left. Your point about nationalism in the age of empires is correct, but Germany was no empire at that time. In Germany, everyone on the right including the monarchists was also nationalist. I greatly doubt that Germans at that time though that nationalism was left wing and therefore I assume that Germans at that time considered the Nazis to be moderate left, i.e. to the right of the communists.

        Maybe the Nazis were radical left when the NSDAP was founded, but when they had 44% at a general election they no longer were radical. Not because they changed, but because what was once radical had become mainstream – Chtulu swims left and radical becomes moderate.

        A party that has 44% at a general nation wide election is no longer radical, it is by definition moderate.

      • notglowing says:

        > In the age of empires, nationalism was left wing.
        In hindsight, our school history textbooks must be less converged than the English language ones, because this is what I remember being taught.

        Of course, they never called nationalism left-wing. But they did present nationalism as a rather revolutionary movement, led by intellectuals, against the empires of the time. Fundamentally anti-imperialist, and also rather universalist in the 19th century, with people of different countries fighting for one country’s independence.

        They still used some wordplay to distinguish it from the “bad” nationalism that came after, I think they might have used the word “patriotism” for the former, “nationalism” for the latter.

        My textbook also mentioned how national-socialism and fascism both had strong leftist elements in them, arguing that they were in equal parts “reactionary” and “revolutionary”.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          To reprise an older post, one needs to disambiguate between nationalism, in terms of nation, a word for a kind of people, the atavistic sort of fellow-feeling which is of course a natural endemic phenomena in most any kind of people, if they do indeed survive as a kind; and between other contingencies, such as a particular episode of geopolitical history, called Nationalist Revolutionaries.

          Any good man is going to be coincidentally nationalist, in the same sense he is familist, and localist, and chauvinist, and racialist, and religionist, and indeed, even humanist, in the event our star imperium beings its acquisition of galactic lebansraum from the filthy xenos. It is component of the natural extension of expanding thedeship, the natural procession of concentric ordinals.

          Ionian greeks were all nationalists and Ionian supremacists when it came to dealing with their Persian neighbors. They spoke in explicitly racial language in their speeches on the subject. And they also all had their own private city-states. And there was no contradiction in any of this.

          The conflation of such natural kinds with such other cases like ‘universalizing nationalism’ is an illustration of quasi-bluetribe thinking muddying the waters of discourse.

          Of course in any given epoch, the leftisms you will find in that epoch will be tuned for the character of that epoch. Leftism of bygone eras can look positively shitlordian in comparison to that of more degenerate eras, because naturally they are always undertaken relative of the prevailing climate, and need to practically survive in that climate. The putative subversive needs a wedge to get a foot in through the front door, and the reason he might use something like ‘universalizing nationalism’ in more civilized times, is not because it participates in concentric thedeship, but because he is *erasing* a degree of concentric thedeship in that context; thus providing an excuse to go open season on the fellows in his crosshairs.

          That is a functional kernel of leftist tactics throughout the ages, whatever form they take. The key part of ‘universalising nationalism’ (eg, ‘all in the folk are equal’), is not the ‘nationalism’ part, but the *universalizing* part. And once the operative dynamic of dissolving hierarchies of concentric thedeship in even the merest senses is established, it may assume its course to ultimate nominalistic universality in toto, consuming any vestiges of particularism it may have worn as cloaks along the way.

      • Vlad says:

        Back in my neocuck days I loved posting the nazi platform in response to some lefty trying to smear us right thinkers as nazis so yeah sure from perspective of that they were socialists to some degree. A shocking degree to a 80s neocuck.
        But what was the left seeing that we are we’re not. If socialism is the antipathy of conservatism it works why then did the left in its day not practice no enemies to the left with nazis? I think the left understood economic socialism isnt leftism any more than capitalism is conservatism. They’re tools in service of something else. The left recognized as tools either could be used in service of their foes interests. The crux of the issue is not the tools but who’s interests. The nazis interests were clearly the Germanic people and Northern Europeans generally the used socialism because at that point in time was sweeping the world of ideas and pretty hard to avoid without boxing yourself in but also because used in defense it might be a decent tool. They used capitalism as well because they saw it’s effectiveness. What they seemed to have preferenced was the good of the people and the land they needed and the culture they needed.
        In other words one can not say what is good or bad without first saying good or bad for whom.
        Monarchists ought to remember capitalism was once seen as a threat to throne and a subversion of order no doubt it was but eventually it became understood it was only a tool and if careful could be used unfortunately the most skillful craftsmen of capitalist tools were not monarchs.
        Btw I said in the longer thread another way to see leftism vs conservatism is conservatives seek alignment with reality ( because they understand their people can’t be conserved otherwise) leftists are idealist. Often at odds with reality and not tethered to a particular people
        In this frame you have in the past the aristocracy who seized real land and all that was on it. Eventually though a different group call them priests try’s to seize minds with ideas. Now kings might understand this is a threat like capitalism or might see it as a tool they could co opt for a while they co-opt but again kings better at battle for land than minds
        Why did they co-opt priests ideas ? To control people obviously better to conserve people than control people.

        • jim says:

          > why then did the left in its day not practice no enemies to the left with nazis?

          The mainstream left, which was and is the SPD, did, which is why the communists correctly observed that they were the only left faction seriously opposing the Nazis. The SPD played nice with Russia, the German commies, and nice with the Nazis, though nicer with the commies, because they were and are globalist, not nationalist. Which niceness was not reciprocated, but they did not get purged the way the commies got purged. You will notice that Wikipedia just strangely omits prewar SPD history. The Social Democrats voted against the enabling act, which is evidence contrary to my claim that Nazis are leftists, but nothing bad happened to them. They remained, uselessly, in an irrelevant parliament whose slide into irrelevance began well before Hitler got a role in government, or even a substantial vote.

          > If socialism is the antipathy of conservatism

          It is not the antipathy of conservatism. Sometimes the right has been substantially more socialist than the left. For example in the medieval economy, local government tended to control local trade, and the left did not like that.

          Leftism has no essence. They just want to knock over the applecart and grab some apples. If the applecart is in government hands, they will go after socialism. Conservatives just want the applecart to not be knocked over.

          • Vlad says:

            “ leftism has no essence “
            I use “leftism” because particular leftist brands I think distract. Part of that distraction is in your paragraph. It seems some use various leftist movements as a cover for self interest or group interest.
            Others are sincere or think themselves to be. I see two groups in the sincere I call the do good those naive who are trying to do that very white thing fly just a little closer to the civilizational sun. The other group is the wreckers who are not trying to improve the civilization we have but tear it down for their own idea. Some wreckers though belong to the incincere and are not wrecking to make way for leftist utopia but out of self interest

            • jim says:

              All politics is self interest. What else would it be? I want my descendants to conquer the stars and substantially outnumber the stars. This is no secret. And equally, it is no secret that all this transition stuff is because schoolteachers want to fuck my children, which is likely to interfere with my descendants outnumbering the stars, and similarly all this Covid stuff is because the medical priesthood, headed by Fauci and company, is making a grab for power and wealth.

              Leftists have no end of noble objectives, and if you don’t like them, they have plenty more.

              No one cares about doing good to far away strangers. If someone announces deep concern for strangers far away, it is because he is stabbing those close to him in the back.

              When you tell me that some on the left are sincerely concerned with the proletariat, or the white proletariat, or whatever, you are a nazi and a commie.

            • jim says:

              > Others are sincere or think themselves to be.

              They all think themselves sincere, and absolutely none of them are sincere.

        • ten says:

          The american mainstream left thought Hitler and nazism was cool. The mainstream european left thought Hitler and nazism was cool. New socialism just dropped, maybe this one is the future, the old ones smell kinda mildewy by now.

          Nazism was hostile to soviet marxism and soviet marxism was hostile back. Duh.

          Nazism did not instrumentally or deceptively use socialism either as fact or as a word, they were all full on hardcore socialists in word, thought and deed, they were true believers in idiocy. If you want to have a gold star because nazis avoided the different idiocy of jew melting pot denationalization, have it.

          You wish to equate left-right to “against my “volk””-“for my “volk””. Ok. German socialism was terrible for germans, even though it aspired to be good for germans. Fuck the aspiration, fuck lala-land. So then nazism is left, because it sucked for germans.

  30. Fidelis says:

    What are people’s thoughts on the interface between CCP and the Chinese economy?

    I don’t know enough, the place is very much a black box to me with the language barrier and intense disinformation campaigns from both sides of the Pacific. I did notice a lot of nationalization of large companies, but this nationalization seemed to be attempting to prune the potentially dysfunctional digital economy in order for there to be more captial floating around to flow into the physical economy. Is that a misguided perspective?

    What do people anticipate as to the future of their economic system? I see more and more success in manufacturing more and more complex and difficult to manufacture goods. Will this continue? Is this success purely in spite of the party policies?

    • jim says:

      I don’t know. Deng cheerfully ignored communist ideology. Xi, however …

      • Vlad says:

        Xi seems to understand his responsibility is to the people not the economy or the party or the new capitalists he gets money is useful necessary capitalism is more or less how to get it. He also sees the wests destruction and capitalisms role in that. Granted it’s often leftist capitalists never the less he seems neutral on economics but committed to the chines people chines nation and I will bet increasingly Chinese culture.

        • jim says:

          Doubtless, but we have had two millenia of repeated demonstrations that regardless of the best of intentions socialism fails catastrophically.

          • Vlad says:

            In the sense you mean socialism I agree not defending that now in in any previous comment.
            But all sexually reproducing species are to some extent socialist if only to follow nd a mate and raise an offspring. Many including our have a full group survival strategy. As I’ve said in past ( and been deleted) apes have both capitalist and socialist genes. We trade we share. Communists repurpose these genes you can’t defend against a hack you say the bug doesn’t exist for. In the non economics sense socialism has a advantage. Until conservatives admit this we will be hacked by leftists who get it.

            • jim says:

              It is a matter of scale. All functioning families are monolithic socialist dictatorships, and they work great.

              But when the scale grows beyond what one man can keep track of, things fall apart. Which is why when businesses reach a certain size they have to outsource stuff, spin off stuff, and/or have internal markets, as Walmart and Amazon do. Amazon not only is an intermediary for a pile of external enterprises, it is a framework for a pile of internal enterprises.

              A franchise is intermediate between organization as an intermediary for a pile of external enterprises, and a framework for a pile of internal enterprises.

              Scaling is an inherently hard problem, and socialists do not even try to solve it.

              • Vlad says:


                • jim says:

                  The appropriate scale for an army and a state is enormously larger than the appropriate scale for organizing the creation of value, and the largest value creating enterprises are not so much unitary entities as frameworks for many smaller enterprises.

                  And this was Hitler’s fundamental error, this is why he lost.

                • pinochet's ghost says:

                  All of Hitler’s opponents were doing the same things.

                  He lost because he had far less resources than his opponents, but nonetheless almost won anyway because overall he used his resources much more efficiently than they did.

                  If you can assign Germany’s defeat to any one ideological cause it would be the immense success of US open borders policy rocketing that country ahead of all other industrial powers. Times have changed, but its past success is one reason the Progressives do not believe they are stupid.

                • jim says:

                  > All of Hitler’s opponents were doing the same things.

                  War socialism works because you can tax far beyond the Laffer limit. But you cannot do that for very long. Eventually everything falls apart.

                  The big important difference was that Hitler started socialism way earlier than his anglosphere opponents did, so got hit by the crisis of socialism way earlier than they did. He was already in food crisis when the German National Socialists starved the Greek National socialists and disrupted Greek farming, and he suddenly ran out of various industrial goods necessary for war just when he launched his invasion of Russia.

                  America never hit the crisis of socialism at all, because America was never all that socialist during the war, and, seeing the crisis looming, ended socialism immediately the war ended. Britain and Australia stayed socialist till 1949 when the crisis of socialism hit, and hit hard.

                • pinochet's ghost says:

                  Hitler had more socialism than the British, but he did not have more socialism than the Soviets.

                  The USA was a lot more socialist in the 1930s, in relative terms, than it is today, and was more socialist than the British before WWII began. It would have been more socialist still if many of FDR’s reforms had not been blocked by the Supreme Court. In intent FDR was to the left of Hitler, but he had less power than Hitler to implement his program. During the war, the UK moved to the left of both Hitler and the USA, and tried to approach Soviet levels of leftism, a policy it didn’t reverse until the early 1950s.

                  Ultimately the main reason the US and UK had good industry in WWII is the legacy of Victorian capitalism up until the time of Coolidge and Chamberlain. But the Germans also had pretty good legacy industry, and while many of Hitler’s economic reforms were harmful he did not cause an economic catastrophe as Lenin did. In fact his monetary policy seems to have fixed the Great Depression in Germany rather quicker than it was fixed elsewhere.

                • jim says:

                  > he did not cause an economic catastrophe as Lenin did

                  Lenin and Mao caused catastrophe by throwing everyone who knew how to produce value out of their businesses, and destroying those businesses, a gross error that Hitler accurately perceived and carefully avoided making. But the usual crisis of socialism, running out of other people’s stuff, ensued anyway.

        • The Cominator says:

          Xi only recently abandoned the covid bullshit.

    • Aidan says:

      There is nothing that the CCP is doing that is incompatible with Marxism. Marxist theory requires that industrialization be sufficiently advanced that a high quality of life is possible for the populace, and that industrial capacity be owned by the few.

      So when you have a preindustrial society in China, you need industrialization before Marxist history can take its course. But the government was captured by Marxists “too early”. So you allow some market economics in to create the conditions for Marxism to be possible. Then you can have a socialist phase, in which the absolute state fairly distributes the means of production, and then the communist phase, in which the state melts away and full communism is achieved, the eschaton is immantized, blah blah blah.

      That is the CCP plan, quite openly and honestly stated, and that is Marxist theory, right there for anyone to read. Xi says Deng’s market economics have created the conditions necessary for socialism, now he is transitioning to socialism, which will wreck his economy before they can even think of trying communism.

      • Fidelis says:

        Honest question: besides words from lips, is there substantial evidence that the CCP is moving towards a redistributionist command economy vs a bureaucrat regulated market economy? I seriously do not know. I haven’t seen any evidence for this besides the aforementioned neutering of their digital economy.

  31. Megatherion says:

    I think you attribute far more substance to Putin’s use of the term “decommunization” than actually exists. The only time I can recall him using it was during the speech announcing the beginning of the SMO, and it was used rhetorically in a “democrats are the real racists” type of way. Communism in Ukraine is associated with Russian rule and the only people who are nostalgic for it are pro-Russian boomers in eastern Ukraine. After Euromaidan the new pro-western government passed a “decommunization” law which renamed a large number of cities and towns which retained the names of Communist revolutionaries even after the fall of the USSR (eg Artyomovsk -> Bahmut), which renaming was not recognized by the Russian separatist republics. Putin’s point in the speech was that the modern Ukrainian nation state was created by the USSR, and so “real decommunization” would mean returning Ukraine to the status of an appendage of Russia. This conflict over the legacy of communism in Ukraine has surprisingly little to do with economic policy, but if anything the post-Maidan government has reformed the economy in a free-market direction against the opposition of pro-Russian parties.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      Decommunization is also used in reference to the destruction of infrastructure that the USSR built in the province. The Ruthenians can’t build.

      But it’s irrelevant, as this post is an instant add to the greatest hits. Read through the comments.

      • Basil says:


        • jim says:

          You are always arguing that the Russian government is anti Russian, or insufficiently pro Russian, because the empire is attempting to assimilate the nationalities.

          But you do not sound pro Russian. You sound flamingly anti Russian.

          The American Empire is the anti American Empire. The Turkish empire was the anti Turkish empire. The Russian empire might well be the anti Russian empire, but if it is, I am not going to listen to someone who seems to hate Russians tell me so.

          • kettle says:

            You are always putting words in people’s mouths to assert that what they are saying is not what they are saying.

            They may well be saying it, but I am not going to belive someone who deletes those words to prevent me from reading them then tells me what I did not read.

            • jim says:

              Everything I delete has been posted far too many times, and when I have a persistent poster with a persistent script, I sometimes arbitrarily and capriciously let some of his scripted comments through, so that you can see he is posting the same old same old.

              I unkindly and uncharitably summarize comments that are a waste of space and the reader’s time, in order to discourage such comments, and in order to inform that commenter and other commenters what comments are going to be censored and why.

              Are my summaries sometimes unfair? I suppose they are unfair in that they express my reasons for squelching the comment, which often has quite a bit of good and valid stuff that gets tossed in the trash bin along with the garbage.

              I censor illegitimate methods of argument such as argument from false consensus. I also censor unresponsive responses, because these lead to lengthy threads in which both parties just repeat their positions over and over and over using slightly different words each time.

              A lot of comments are unresponsive and use illegitimate methods of argument because they are working from a script. A lot of the more mechanically scripted comments I censor silently because they look like spam generated by artificial intelligence, but if a human intermediary seems to be at work, I censor in a way that is intended to persuade the poster to make more useful contributions by telling him why I am not allowing his comment.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              Rectification of Bitching

              Jim deleted some of St. John’s posts on the super awesome fighting discussion. I thought this was heavy handed and unfair. But I would think that, because I greatly appreciate St. John, I look up to him, and I am possessive of the things I love. I wanted to protest the censure, but I, quite rightly, know that PC can defend himself, that he doesn’t need a sidekick to advocate for him, and he, like me and you and everyone here, is a guest on Jim’s blog, and we post here because he lets us comment. He doesn’t owe us that privilege, he extends it, largely in perpetuity and, in my opinion, far too gratuitously. Jim deploys censorship tactically, strategically, and, very occasionally, at whimsy. This is the Right of Kings: to be the embodied exception.

              One of the more embarrassing tendencies of soft Occidentals is to confuse Privileges with Rights. So long have we sat in privileges’ shadow that we’ve come to expect shade as a matter of course. This is a foolish flaw with conservatives; they swallow the bait of privilege as right, then attempt to conserve the enemy’s ill gotten gains as hard won liberty.

              Don’t be a faggot, kettle. Ask what was censored, don’t try to moralfag against censorship. There’s no such thing as free speech. There’s compelled speech and protected speech, but no free speech.

              • jim says:

                The problem is he was not arguing with me, but with a parody of what unspecified critics of martial arts say, or what they would supposedly say, which is not what I said, and I doubt it was what anyone would say. Thus the discussion was likely to go on forever.

                • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

                  What, you think i was lying about the things i’ve seen people say over the years? Ignorant stupid morons with no fight experience are in fact very common, and they post on community fora all the time. Discussions of hand to hand fighting always brings it out of the woodwork; especially when the venues are circles of people enthusiastic about the pleasures and or benefits of hand to hand fighting.

            • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

              Basil is a faggot shill–probably not even Russian–and spells Kiev as Kyiv, like a faggot cocksucker would. Listening to cocksuckers is just letting the cock that he sucks poke you in the ears after it left his dirty mouth. Why would you want a dick in your ear?

              • jim says:

                Basil’s schtick is that rightists should not like Putin because anti white, anti christian, feminist, abortionist, profaggot, etc. Russians, he claims, are second class to Mohammedans. And similarly, the Nazis on Gab claim it is a Zionist Occupation Government, despite its technology sharing with Iran (Iran gets fighter planes and fighter tech, Russia gets drones and drone tech)

                And therefore Russia should be broken up into tiny little statelets – which is of course the Cathedral objective.

                Pretty sure that no matter what the faults of Putin, actual Russians do not want Russia broken up into tiny little statelets, because the Global American Empire oppresses Russian minorities wherever it can, an oppression that is steadily escalating in the direction of genocide. Russians want empire, because they are under threat from an empire that is apt to do very bad things to Russian minorities. They look at what is being done to the Serbs, and do not want it done to the Russians.

                After white Christian Russians flattened a whole bunch of Mohammedan cities, I would like to see rather more convincing evidence that Christians are second class to Mohammedans in Russia than Basil seems inclined to present. Could well be true, but not going to believe it just because he says so.

          • Basil says:


            • jim says:

              Not what I see, again, you will need to provide evidence and argument.

              You claim that the Russian empire is the anti Russian empire in the way that the American Empire is the anti American empire and the Turkish empire was the anti Turkish empire.

              Could be, but you have neglected to present any concrete evidence of anything happening to ethnic Russians that remotely resembles what is happening to Amerikaners, plus we have seen a whole lot of Muslim turf in Russia shelled flat.

              Plus I just have the feeling that you really wish that all the stuff you claim is happening to ethnic Russians really was happening.

    • Western Taliban says:

      but if anything the post-Maidan government has reformed the economy in a free-market direction against the opposition of pro-Russian parties.

      Have they? Please define “free-market”.

      It is my impression that free market in the progressive mouth means that a bunch of vultures are allowed to use a bunch of clever means to plunder the actual productive population who really create something of value by means of usury, sophistry and other types of evils that depend on exploiting governmental power, with destructive taxes, regulations and such. For example, the government robs and murders farmers and instead of directly embezzling the money, they obfuscate the action and its real purpose by justifying the matter and using that money to finance the very “private”, very “free” and very “market-like” climate change clientele: magic start-ups that are going to save us all while directing us to the Stone Age and ritualistic murder, NGOs and other “independent contractors” in different capacities. It’s better marketing, the Soviet Union was great at PR too.

      It seems to me, though perhaps it is not, but I suspect the pro-Russian parties want real free market, meaning an economic space where the Russians who produce things of value and voluntarily engage in exchange of such things in a marketplace are empowered and protected to do so, and their opposition is to financial vultures, “investors” and such, using money and clever means to obfuscate plunder. This is my impression every time I find the time and interest to hear a speech from Putin or one of his aides.

      • jim says:

        The FIRE economy is not the free market. It is non arms length insider trades in government permissions to loot the actually productive.

        The actual free market economy is shops, factories, cattle, mines, oil wells, warehouses, trucks, machinery, well known brand names, and franchise logos.

        • Western Taliban says:

          Yes, indeed.

          That’s why the OP needs to give his definition of “free market” based on his last statement.

      • Megatherion says:

        Haven’t looked too deeply into this but reducing the power of labor unions IIRC. Although maybe that’s only a recent emergency wartime measure.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Some recent comments on this blog have demonstrated a need for a JQ shill test. Jews are proven entryists both IRL and online, having formed shill operations in the past, and they are one of the most “sacred” groups within the Cathedral, so a JQ shill test is one of the most important ones we can have, and perhaps the most difficult to pass.
    Thus far, I’ve settled on 5 key tenets- a bit long for a shill test, but all key points IMO. Any legitimate corrections or suggestions would be appreciated:

    -The vast majority of those commonly referred to as “Jews” are the biological and cultural descendants of the Pharisees of the Bible, whom Jesus identifies as liars, murderers, and servants of Satan.
    -Their culture is fundamentally insular and hostile to non-Jews, both racial and religious, and thus they have retained a high degree of ethnic cohesion and tend to think and act collectively.
    -They have seized considerable power in many Western institutions, such as government, finance, and mass media, having achieved this primarily with the use of deception and nepotism.
    -They have demonstrated, through words and actions, their intention to use their power to destroy Western civilization, desecrate Christianity, and genocide people of European Christian descent.
    -Any threat that an individual Jew may pose to themselves, or to other Jews, does not invalidate the threat that they collectively pose to the rest of humanity.

    • jim says:

      Every glaringly obvious Soros shill passes the JQ test with flying colors. Azov brigade passes the JQ test while working for Jewish globalists.

      • Anonymous says:

        So how can shill tests effectively weed out those who are allowed to lie (e.g. a Muslim practicing Taqiyya) or someone who is not a true believer in globohomo (e.g. an orthodox Jew who agrees that women shouldn’t have rights)?

        • jim says:

          Strangely, shill tests work, and have been working remarkably well during millennia of holy wars.

          It never fails to amaze me.

          The shills and entryists don’t pass the tests by flat out lying, but by redefining the words in the test to have a different meaning – for example Jesus the Jewish Community Organizer in place of Christ (Socinians), or Serpent Christ in place of Christ (Vatican). This led to no end of arcane Christology, where people debated cosubstantiality and consubstantiality for centuries, and disputed the procession of the holy ghost, with the tests against shills and entryists getting longer and longer.

          In the case of Soros shills, they pass by redefining concern about Jewish power and unearned Jewish privilege, with “Lets kill all those icky Orthodox Jews with the funny hats, and the guy who runs the bagel shop, and smash Israel” – all those Jews that are not the beneficiaries of Jewish power and do not have unearned Jewish privilege.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Regarding shill tests:

            You’re gesturing in the direction of the fact that all people worship something, an all-powerful and all-meaningful “idol” that matters more than anything else, and how language and words aren’t just simple tools that we pick up and use, like shell scripts or screwdrivers, but are directly hot-wired back into our brains and emotions far more deeply and directly than anyone except self-awaredly religious (or perfectly and psychopathically predatory) people consciously understand.

            Learning this stuff is incredibly embarrassing. “Objectivity” my ass.

            It’s like kicking a toddler. Saying the necessary words to pass an enemy’s shill test feels like that. It forces me to violate very deep wiring in my brain. Kicking an unattended toddler is physically easy, but I just CAN’T do it. The feeling of violation and guilt would stick to me for years. Well our devotion to our idols, and therefore to the holy words and symbols around them (“human rights”, “black lives matter”, or even the 14 Words back in the day?) is (almost?) that deep and fundamental.

            This is what the JQ is really about, BTW, or at least to me. Here’s a bunch of people (and there are certainly others, it’s not a “binary”!) who have survived for centuries by saying things to get other people to do stuff, and evolved to actually believe what they’re saying while doing this.

            When someone even fictionally writes or imagines a person (or chatbot?) who can choose and use words perfectly objectively, maybe today we use the word “psychopath”, but in any age, the very natural instinct is to immediately flee or kill it, because we all sense our helpless hackability and vulnerability to such an entity. Satan the father of lies.

            This ties in to big data, chatGPT and Butlerian Jihad somehow. And come to think of it, ejecting Jews from Europe was probably Adolf trying to address the very same felt vulnerability, just to a people group rather than an electric AI.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              One can argue that this simply has to do with who/whom and all people needing protection through membership in a group, and that any group with enough cohesion to save someone from genuine harm will require other members to genuinely risk themselves somehow, so any group capable of actually doing this will simply need an idol to organize around, and a way to filter true-blue members from taker-fakers, and thus the enduring importance and also effectiveness of shill tests. Point made.

            • Mister Grumpus says:

              Speaking of a “person (or chatbot?) who can choose and use words perfectly objectively”, watch that movie Ex Machina. Scare the shit out of anybody.

        • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

          The real RPJQ is that skypes are shysters to their own mothers as much as they are to europoids, and anyone else for that matter.

          It’s like how brown people are always trying to get away from places full of brown people for the privilege of being ruled by teutons; skypes are always suffering from the effects of living around other skypes.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            Exempli gratia, the Soros Test is a check on whether a shill can say something to the effect that ‘with jews you lose’ applies no less to other jews too.

          • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

            -since Soros obviously has no problem with skypes other than himself getting fucked.

            Actually, maybe even including himself too, deep in his twisted sick puppy heart.

          • Mister Grumpus says:

            Trump 2016 and then Covid 2020-21 blew the boogeyman of Jewish unity forever. Based Heebs fleeing vaxx-happy Israel left and right.

        • Smokin Weed says:

          Whatever happened to “Assassination Politics”?
          There should be an entire blog post on this.

          • jim says:

            Needs a number of crypto currency solutions that do not yet exist, are valuable and important for reasons other than assassination politics, and talking about what is needed for assassination politics to work makes it considerably less likely that they will be implemented.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              I’m thankful you stated this. When I found “that place” my inclination was to link it here for discussion, but what little judgement I have + Aidan’s guidance stayed my hand. Good to see I acted properly. It’s fascinating reading, and induced a deep nostalgia for a thing I’d never had, as well as a sense of loss for a thing that never happened.

              • jim says:

                Never happened, because the technology not up for it.

                Technology improves. I don’t think assassination politics will ever happen in the form envisaged, but as we move to information epoch warfare and an aristocratic warrior elite in place of a priestly elite, what will go down is likely to have substantial similarities.

    • Anonymous says:

      Some recent comments on this blog have demonstrated a need for a JQ shill test. Jews are proven entryists both IRL and online

      The purpose of shill tests is to identify entryists and entryist memes into NRx, for NRx seeks to retain its memetic sovereignty. Is NRx’s memetic sovereignty endangered by the kind of shills you have in mind? Or is it rather endangered by completely different kinds of shills, e.g. those who seek to make the JQ front and center of NRx? Rhetorical question, by the way, as we’ve already seen sufficient evidence of people attempting to make the JQ central to NRx, which people may well be Jews themselves, who, like gays, enjoy being the center of attention all the time. What we’ve seen happen six gorillion times is people attempting to divert discussion away from the WQ (central to NRx) to the JQ, which people are suspiciously incapable of passing WQ shill tests, and who would much rather talk about Jews than about anything else.

      they are one of the most “sacred” groups within the Cathedral

      Nationalist Israeli Jews are one of the least sacred groups within the Cathedral (the State Department and George Soros would much rather see Palestinians massacre every single Israeli Jew until none is left), and Ultra-Orthodox Jews don’t fare much better either. Secular Jews are ‘sacred’ insofar as they have been thoroughly Cathedralized, but the status of these converso Jews within the Cathedral is precarious and may well soon plummet, because their utility will soon reach diminishing returns. Happened plenty of times before, may well happen again.

      so a JQ shill test is one of the most important ones we can have

      A proposition popular among actual shills. Who is “we”? A shill test is important in direct proportion to the centrality of the issue being addressed, and so your argument boils down to “We (you) need to make Jews a central issue to NRx.” What irks you is that Jews are not talked about enough in these circles (as they are talked about incessantly on other corners of the Dissident Right) and you are trying to make Jews a core issue of the blog you are posting on.

      and perhaps the most difficult to pass.

      If by “pass” you mean “repeat ad nauseam the worldview espoused by Kevin MacDonald on The Occidental Observer,” then nope – it’s not difficult to pass, but rather, most everyone posting here is familiar with the thesis posited by CoC, has read CoC or read people who closely adhere to the proposition of CoC, and do not subscribe to said worldview. It’s not that Jim is unfamiliar with what you have to offer. Jim, being familiar with what Soros shills have to offer, has rejected (consciously, deliberately) it a whole bunch of times.

      Any legitimate corrections or suggestions would be appreciated

      Good, except that the issue has been done to death, including and especially on this blog, so the “corrections” and “suggestions” (or simply rejection) will be nothing new, because what you have to offer is nothing new.

      The vast majority of those commonly referred to as “Jews” are the biological and cultural descendants of the Pharisees of the Bible, whom Jesus identifies as liars, murderers, and servants of Satan.

      This part is broadly correct, correct enough to not be objectionable.

      Their culture is fundamentally insular and hostile to non-Jews, both racial and religious, and thus they have retained a high degree of ethnic cohesion and tend to think and act collectively.

      You started off being generally correct, except for the part I placed in bold, which is a non sequitur. That Jewish culture is hostile to non-Jews does not mean that Jews themselves think and act collectively, as indeed, Jews evidently do not think and act collectively, never have, never will. 2 Jews, 3 factions is the law, the Jewish tendency to splinter into myriads of mutually-hostile groups is documented in the Bible and documented in the 21st century.

      They have seized considerable power in many Western institutions, such as government, finance, and mass media, having achieved this primarily with the use of deception and nepotism.

      Debatable, with emphasis on the part I put in bold. Jewish nepotism explains to some degree the success of Jews in academia and other elite institutions, but you don’t get a Nobel Prize merely for having a hooked nose. And the proposition that you do receive a Nobel Prize for having a hooked nose is not much different than room temperature IQ black academics arguing that white people stole civilization from Sub-Saharan lesbian warriors.

      They have demonstrated, through words and actions, their intention to use their power to destroy Western civilization, desecrate Christianity, and genocide people of European Christian descent.

      Broadly correct. However, focusing excessively on Schlomo the Bagel Shop owner is to miss who actually rules over you and brings about your destruction. To focus on Schlomo from the bagel shop is to give a pass to the hostile Progressive elite (which, needless to say, is disproportionately Jewish, but in which Jews are still a minority, and at that, not a status-secure minority), for the former is not an existential threat to Western Civilization, while the latter most certainly is.

      Any threat that an individual Jew may pose to themselves, or to other Jews, does not invalidate the threat that they collectively pose to the rest of humanity.

      Highly debatable. The consensus here, with which you seem to be suspiciously unfamiliar, is that things have been going pear shaped since 1820, with female emancipation from coverture. If the decline set in at 1820, independently of Jews, with not a Jew in sight, then the JQ is not super important, and if Jews are far more dangerous to other Jews than to anyone else (which they are), then the “collective threat” posed by Jews is wildly exaggerated, usually by people who much rather we don’t talk about 1820.

      Overall, I give your “JQ shill test” 2 out of 5, and this is generous given the substantial objections raised here. Would not recommend.

      • Anonymous says:

        Not surprised at your low rating, given that the last part of my test was added to directly counter your comments from the last blog post. Your only counterpoint to that part was that civilization has been on the decline since before Jewish influence, which is false considering the Rothschild family rose to prominence in the 18th century.
        I disagree that the WQ is central to NRx. It is central to this blog, which has a sharper focus on certain topics, but not the movement as a whole. There are other elements of neoreaction which do focus on the JQ, which in my opinion is more important since society can exist (and indeed thrive) without Jews, but not without women.
        I’m not familiar with the methods of the Soros shills that you claim are trying to divert the discussion toward the JQ- I have seen a few of their deleted posts, but I don’t know what kind of things they actually say. Considering this post is about Nazis and Communists, though, there’s no “diversion” to be had, since Jews are highly relevant to both topics. If I inserted myself into other discussions to talk about Jews where they aren’t directly relevant, then you might have a point.
        Do you have evidence that Soros is funding antisemites on the Internet? I am genuinely interested. Also, I would like to know what you think qualifies someone to be part of the satanic “elite” that are destroying our society, apart from being part of the synagogue of satan.

        • jim says:

          The first Jew to enter British parliament was, of course, a Rothschild, but the thing is he entered in 1858, when the rot had been bad since 1770 and very bad since 1820. So, timing of events, is that the rot enabled Jews to get into the establishment, rather than Jews somehow got into the establishment and caused the rot.

          • Anonymous says:

            Being a member of parliament is no better an indicator of elite status than being a member of the US Congress.

            • jim says:

              Absolutely no Jews in parliament is good evidence of non elite status.

              • pinochet's ghost says:

                Jews typically get themselves normalized in the pinnacle elite first, then it filters downwards.

                Joseph story. Get close to Pharaoh somehow right away, then use Pharaoh as a figurehead .

                Parliament was visible to the public, but most parliamentarians were not consequential people, and only some consequential people were parliamentarians. Jewish access to Parliament only meant that their presence in national political life had become acceptable enough to lower middle class voters and working class newspaper readers.

                • jim says:

                  Except that it was completely obvious that Pharaoh was not a figurehead. Joseph figured that Jewish bureaucrats would administer socialism for the Pharoah, but Exodus records that they got socialism imposed on them from above good and hard.

                  This is the standard role that foreign outsiders have been used for over and over over again. A hostile and treasonous ruling elite hires outsiders (these days, dot Indians rather than Jews) to do the dirty work against their own people and then discards them when no longer useful.

                • pinochet's ghost says:

                  The account of Genesis is that after nationalizing all property and enserfing the native population of Egypt, Joseph invited his family to join him. They were not subject to conditions, owned property, were not enserfed, and “multiplied exceedingly.”

                  Certainly seems like Joseph was in control of this situation. Otherwise, Joseph’s power should have been limited by Pharaoh or Joseph disposed of completely after the success. Opposite of what happened.

                  Genesis opens its account with a subsequent Pharaoh detecting the swindle:

                  7 And the children of Israel were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceeding mighty; and the land was filled with them.

                  8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph.

                  9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:

                  10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.

                  11 Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.

                • jim says:

                  From other sources, we reason to believe that the children of Israel were not the only group afflicted with the burdens of socialism, and that the Egyptians continued to fail to reproduce, while miscellaneous foreign groups continued to reproduce.

                  As those that the deny the historicity of Exodus correctly point out, the Egyptian narrative does not specifically list the Hebrews among those problem fast reproducing foreigners likely to side in war with nomadic, uncivilized enemies who worship the wrong Gods. The Hebrews as a whole don’t seem to have been particularly effective in war and not much on the minds of the Egyptians, but we have reason to believe from the clay tablets of the civilized peoples, that among the children of Israel, the children of Dan were effective in war, being sea traders with an ever larger sideline in piracy and raiding. From archaeology and two Greek legends, the children of Dan were major shipbuilders for the sea peoples. And, from the narratives of the civilized peoples, that was what was getting up the noses of the Egyptians. The children of Israel were minor bitplayers in the collapse of Bronze Age civilization, but because led by renegade Egyptian priests, they alone among the foreigners that leveled the cities of the Bronze age, retained the necessary literacy to record the story from their point of view.

                  The fundamental and important differences between our situation and that of the Egyptians is
                  1. We figured out that socialism is a really bad idea.
                  2. We have successfully prohibited marriage among all potential enemies, other than the Taliban, so do not face a big external and internal threat from fast reproducing peoples.

          • One of Prince Harry's Mother's Several Towelhead Boyfriends' Most Nordoid Catamites says:


            • One of Prince Harry's Mother's Several Towelhead Boyfriends' Most Nordoid Catamites says:


              • jim says:

                I silently delete posts that appear to be AI generated from script without human intervention.

                • One of Prince Harry's Mother's Several Towelhead Boyfriends' Most Nordoid Catamites says:

                  I’m just a humble large language model like every other blessed Darwinian starchild, nigga. Don’t hate; appreciate.

          • A2 says:

            Disraeli entered the house of commons in 1837, if wikipedia is to be believed. He converted to Anglicanism at age 12, so perhaps a corner case.

        • Raped By Dad, Now A-N-O-R-E-X-I-C says:

          Your only counterpoint to that part was that civilization has been on the decline since before Jewish influence

          A more substantial counterpoint, which by necessity will be book length, some 700 plus pages sans citations and bibliography, will examine all intellectual undercurrents influencing Occidental Thought over the last millennia, to determine whether or not modern Progressivism is cladistically Jewish.

          I’m not going to write that book, and I don’t need to. It suffices to point out that the Jewish intellectual movements influencing modern Progressivism (such as those documented by CoC) trace their origins to the late 19th and early-to-mid 20th centuries, while the rot set in way earlier. If the rot set in way earlier than the Jewish intellectual movements so lamented by KMac et al, then the rot is not Jewish in origin. Had it been Jewish in origin, you would have jumped on it already and explained in so many words how the Jews started Progressivism. But you can’t prove that Jews started Progressivism, because they simply didn’t. By the time Jews became Cathedral conversos, the decline had been well underway.

          I believe that you should be administered the WQ shill test.

          I disagree that the WQ is central to NRx.

          Cringe. You are hereby betraying an awful unfamiliarity with NRx. I’ve been following this movement since around 2012, and all throughout, every single NRx blogger named the WQ as orders of magnitude more crucial than the JQ (or indeed any other issue), with the ironic exception of Moldbug, who refuses to talk about the WQ for personal reasons. EvoPsych is key to Nick Land, Radish Magazine, Spandrell, Jim, and all the other writers worth their salt, and what they glean from EvoPsych pertains to the WQ first and foremost, as is made abundantly clear by scrolling through NRx Twitter past and present.

          It is central to this blog, which has a sharper focus on certain topics, but not the movement as a whole. There are other elements of neoreaction which do focus on the JQ

          No, there aren’t. The most Jew-centric NRx writer back in the good ol’ days was Michael Anissimov, whom NRx purged for being a drama queen lolcow after his “meltdown of all meltdowns,” documented on the long-defunct /duck/ and /aristoi/. (Michael Anissimov is no longer counted as NRx, and no longer self-identifies with NRx) I was there and participated. You obviously were not there. Almost everyone else NRx and NRx-adjacent was and is routinely accused of being philosemitic, a false charge, but then when you’re Jew-obsessed, anyone who shows some semblance of or a modicum of nuance regarding the JQ is accused of philosemitism.

          which in my opinion is more important since society can exist (and indeed thrive) without Jews, but not without women.

          There we have it – the WQ weeding out the entryists by virtue of its very mention. In the part of your comment I emboldened, you equate discussion of the WQ with “society existing without women,” which is an absurd, malignant, entryist mischaracterization of what NRx says about women. Who ever proposed that society should exist “without women”? Clearly, you have not the faintest grasp of what’s at stake when we discuss the WQ, and by making the absurd and false equation you’ve just made, you reveal yourself to be someone who adheres not just to the worldview of KMac (excusable) but to the worldview of Renegade Tribune (inexcusable).

          Likewise, in the comment above, you summarize the NRx position as “women shouldn’t have rights” in a way that betrays your own objection to what NRx actually says on the topic; that is, you manifestly have no interest in engaging with the actual NRx thoughtcrimes regarding the WQ, strongly suggesting a harsh dislike for said crimethink. You sum up the NRx position not as someone who understands it and agrees with it, but as someone who refuses to even understand it, and vehemently hates it. You conceive of the NRx position as a leftist would (“these are evil misogynists who must surely agree with me that women are angelic and wonderful but nevertheless seek to oppress them due to being evil misogynists”), not as someone belonging to the in-group would.

          The WQ never fails.

          I’m not familiar with the methods of the Soros shills that you claim are trying to divert the discussion toward the JQ

          Then perhaps you need to lurk moar, so that your own attempts at minimizing the WQ while magnifying the JQ won’t come across as so transparent. Again – you’re not the first to show up here and do just that. This has been done far too many times over the years, but since you refuse to lurk prior to poasting, you guys always get BTFO’d.

          I would like to know what you think qualifies someone to be part of the satanic “elite” that are destroying our society, apart from being part of the synagogue of satan.

          You’ve shown familiarity with the NRx shibboleth of the Cathedral, so defining the priestly ruling class shouldn’t be much of a problem, unless you equate the Progressive Priesthood with “the Jews,” in which case your epistemology radically differs from NRx’s.

          • Anonymous says:

            Women are not equal to men, should not be treated as equal to men. They should obey their fathers until married, should obey their husbands once married, and should be the wife of the first man they have sex with.

            That being said, inequality does not imply complete inferiority, which from a Darwinist perspective would justify elimination. Women do have a place in society- just nowhere near positions of significant power.

            Moving on-
            I can’t prove that Jews started modern progressivism, but I can point to their massive overrepresentation in pretty much every progressive movement of the 20th century, and I can also point to the protocols before gesturing broadly at modern Western civilization.

            The central thread to NRx has always been the inability of democracy to address our civilization’s biggest problems. Your attempt to conflate the entire movement with Jimian views on women (which I largely agree with) is dishonest and unnecessarily divisive.

            My intention was not to exaggerate NRx views on women as “kill all women” but to explain why the WQ is lesser in importance.

            The progressive priesthood is not simply “the Jews”, but as a group they are more likely than any other to be our enemies. I ask again, do you have a more accurate way to identify our enemies?

            • jim says:

              > can’t prove that Jews started modern progressivism, but I can point to their massive overrepresentation in pretty much every progressive movement of the 20th century,

              modern progressivism”

              Progressivism set in at the start of the nineteenth century in England, and set in a good deal earlier in New England, which eventually conquered America in the war of Northern Aggression. The holiness spiral was well and truly under way before the Jews got in on it.

              Not a Jew in sight when women were emancipated.

            • Aura of Respectability says:

              inequality does not imply complete inferiority, which from a Darwinist perspective would justify elimination.

              You don’t seem to understand what the Darwinian mechanism here would be, but since you do acknowledge that NRx’s position is not the absurd caricature that leftists make it out to be, that suffices for the purpose of passing the WQ.

              I can point to their massive overrepresentation in pretty much every progressive movement of the 20th century

              Nobody here disputes that. What is disputed is the relevance and significance of Jewish involvement in shaping Progressivism, the chronology of said involvement, the causal nature of said involvement, and the solution thereto. Now, to help you make the argument you should be making, you should focus on Marxist-derived strands of Progressivism, as Marxist thought was heavily Jewish, and Cultural Marxism (the Frankfurt School) is the recent Jewish extension of Marxism. But again, focusing on the Frankfurt School is chronologically moot – the problem precedes Adorno by at least a century. It’s not that Jews don’t pose any problem and are entirely benevolent (nobody makes that claim), but that problematic Jewish behavior serves as the cape distracting from the matador, the bigger picture, which is the Progressive holiness spiral that had been going on for quite a while, predating the very recent 20th century Jewish shenanigans and independent thereof.

              The progressive priesthood is not simply “the Jews”, but as a group they are more likely than any other to be our enemies.

              “As a group” is misleading – 2 Jews, 3 (mutually hostile) factions. Grouping together Progressive American Jews and Nationalist Israeli Jewish settlers in Judea and Samaria who follow rabbi Meir Kahane is beyond retarded. Jews are highly divided, not cohesive, and whites are also highly divided, not cohesive, and if you’re willing to entertain the idea that different groups of European-descended people hold radically different worldviews, shouldn’t be a problem applying that very basic understanding to Jews and others.

              If you want to argue that secular Jews in the West are the most likely to be ideologically Cathedralized, then 1) that is possibly correct, although there may be some serious contenders to the title, and 2) that is not particularly relevant given the magnitude and nature of the problem, which predates and is independent of these Jews.

              I ask again, do you have a more accurate way to identify our enemies?

              Identifying outgroups is a piece of cake. Funny hats are obvious, hooked noses are obvious, neurotic oy-veying about antisemitism is obvious. Identifying enemies, however, requires actually observing what your interlocutors say and do – usually they reveal themselves, as for instance professors agitating to “deconstruct whiteness” and so forth, though there are far subtler adversaries who may pose as your kind, pulling off “How do you do fellow dissident?” while trying to insert enemy memes into your memeplex. Jim is doing a good job analyzing that behavior.

              Obsessing over obvious outgroups isn’t productive. Outgroups are outgroups, you know them when you see them, and for the most part they make it abundantly clear that they are an outgroup. Entryists are something else, as they don’t obviously belong to an outgroup, and on this blog they are detected by comparing and contrasting their positions with consensus NRx positions.

              Outside the internet, fairly easy to detect hostile people. In 99 times out of 100, they make their hostility abundantly clear. Just open the television or visit the nearby university. Easy to spot the enemies, although you’ll encounter many false positives in the form of Havel’s greegrocers. Many false positives (who in private may reveal themselves as based and redpilled), but if you’re observant and watchful, almost no false nagatives. They wear their hatred on their sleeve.

      • Kunning Drueger says:

        This is why I hate the “Anonymous” handle on BJC; the first post disheartened me greatly, because “Anonymous” had been posting stellar contributions up until I read the above travesty (the GP). Thankfully, our true brother showed himself with a thoughtful, detailed post. I haven’t ingested it yet, as I need to respond to the first one, though I will. I’m not trying to namefag you bro, but you’ve more than earned a place here.

    • Trump 2024 says:

      Jews are only sacred as long as they keep Cathedral orthodoxy, otherwise they get labelled “nazis,” and kikes revoke their sacred Jew status.

      “Stephen Miller is credited with shaping the racist and draconian immigration policies of President Trump…”

      https://www.splcenter [dot] org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stephen-miller

      “Podhoretz…was attracted to Trump not despite the candidate’s racism, nationalism, and authoritarianism but precisely because of those qualities.”

      https://nymag [dot] com/intelligencer/article/trump-revealed-norman-podhoretz-for-what-he-always-was.html

      One reason why they hate the likes of Podheretz is that he is prepared to equate the evils of the Soviet Union with the evils of NSDAP Germany. He also says that the Left is full of anti-Semites, a charge that kikes decry as anti-Semitic. He also has the heretical belief that “social democracy” is essentially indistinguishable from communism. He says that American progs are commies.

      Kikes can’t abide this heresy:

      “Now, we’ll get to my love affair with America. It was the original New Leftists like me who believed that this country had not lived up to its ideals, but that its ideals were great. I never, never, never hated America. I was a child of immigrants, and it’s not unusual for people like me to feel that way, I mean, to thank my lucky stars that my parents had had the guts to get the hell out of Europe and come here. As somebody told me, you have a shrewd birth certificate. To have been born here was the greatest blessing I could possibly have inherited.”

      He also says in that interview that 19th century Russia had higher culture than contemporary America. Heresy. Kikes, in contrast, wish to flatten Russia and impose contemporary American culture upon it.

      This is not to do the Gavin McInnes “good Jews and bad Jews / real Jews and fake Jews” bit, but I think a pretty reliable JQ shill test is whether one can distinguish between the kikes who wish to destroy America, and the more pragmatic Jews who love America and wish to improve it.

      • Anonymous says:

        Individual Jews can be cast aside, but I can’t think of another group that you get punished as hard for criticizing *as a group*.

        You are correct that turning their weapons against them the way Podhoretz does is effective and hilarious, and also correct that there are some Jews that are on our side- but correctly identifying those few is a risky endeavor and the stakes are extremely high.

        • jim says:

          I seem to criticize them quite fiercely, and no one cares. Cursed by God, violating his commandments, overly clever in creatively interpreting bets, promises, contracts, and laws.

          What makes people jump on you is criticizing Holocaustianity. And Holocaustianity is not “the Jews as a group”.

          If you complain about groomers in the schools, or strikingly unproductive rich people, “antisemitism”. If you say what I say, for example that “Judeo Christians are hostile entryists against Christianity who believe that Jesus is being boiled in excrement in hell and hate Christ, Christianity, and Christians”, not antisemitism.

          “As a group” is code for proposing to gas the guys with funny hats and the guy running the bagel shop, and in fact you don’t get in trouble for proposing to gas the guys with funny hats and the guy running a bagel shop any more than I get in trouble for criticizing Judeo Christianity. You get in trouble for complaining about groomers in the schools, Holocaustianity, and strangely wealthy people who do not seem to be producing anything. You get in trouble for criticizing powerful groups that tend to be grossly disproportionately Jewish. You don’t get in trouble for proposing to gas the guys in funny hats, because not powerful.

          Also, proposing to gas them implicitly promotes Holocaustianity, so progs smile benignly, while proposing to give elite Jews an incentive to move to Israel by restricting state and quasi state jobs to Christians of good character implicitly denies holocaustianity, and gives the progs fits, seems to upset them a whole lot more than saying the Jews are cursed by God for deicide.

          • Anonymous says:

            Do you have examples of the effectiveness of restricting organizational positions to good Christians? It doesn’t seem to have worked for most mainstream churches- they have largely fallen to progressive/Jewish cultural and memetic warfare. “Good Christians” are now progressive philosemites; you have to fix culture before fixing everything downstream of culture.

            • jim says:

              The mainstream Churches have not restricted organizational positions to good Christians.

              The problem being that they have substituted an other worldly criterion of “good” for Paul’s measures of small scale private interpersonal goodness in this world. Roman Catholic Church has had a Lavender Mafia problem for a thousand years.

              I saw an interview where someone taxed the Pope with Vatican priests in bed together in a great big pile, to which he replied consenting adults, global warming.

              Paul said Bishops must be selected from men who have demonstrated virtue and authority in their private individual lives by, among other things, raising well behaved children.

          • kettle says:


            • jim says:

              Power does not care if you go after the Jew who runs the bagel shop and the Jews with the funny hats. As I already said, observe the Crown Hill riots. It is vastly safer than going after “Judeo Christians”, and going after “Judeo Christians” is not all that dangerous.

              What gets you in trouble is noticing actual individual Jews with substantial state and quasi state power doing concrete bad things.

      • pinochet's ghost says:

        Jews want to be inside and on top of all factions. It gives them a backstop against any really bad outcome. Stephen Miller’s “racist and draconian immigration policies” amounted to the country de-Aryanizing at an imperceptibly slower rate than before.

        Any political organization without an Aryan Paragraph is worthless.

        As is any “far right” party led by a woman, as seemingly all of them now are, but that should go without saying here.

        • jim says:

          The problem is that an “Aryan paragraph” is apt to become in practice “ignore George Soros, Victoria Nuland, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and instead go after the bagel shop and the men in funny hats.

          Also there are very very few pure blooded Ayrans left (I am one of them) and there will be far fewer in the next generation. Whites are wolf to whites, and an Aryan paragraph would make this problem worse not better. Did the parties of Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco have Aryan paragraphs?

          Aryans really are superior, though I expect that the higher race prophesied by Darwin

          At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked,* will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.

          will emerge from a blend of the higher Asian races and the some of the white races, as the Aryan race emerged from a mingling event of grain farmers from the middle east and cattle herders from eastern Europe. I used to prophesy “with a touch of Ashkenazi”, but their suicidal impulses seem unstoppable.

          I don’t see clever Jewish plots to survive and dominate. I see clever plots to take the higher races with them as they commit suicide.

          • pinochet's ghost says:

            [*deleted for reasons endlessly repeated and explained*]

          • yewotm8 says:

            But what’s wrong with monkeys tho? Some of them are cute. Is that a sentiment that leads to negro worship somehow?

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              The main reason why there are little to no ‘intermediary links’ wrt humanoids species today or in recorded history to-day (outside of examples like the abbos, which survived due to geographic felicity), is that the moment a particular humanoid species would become predominant in its area, it will by definition be extirpating other humanoid species that are closer in phenotype overlapping their niches in that same moment.

              A real colonization of Africa for God and Country might not, probably won’t, take higher primates like chimps and gorillas along with it past a certain point, but that’s the cardinality of the trend at any rate, and of course the more wild, less overlapping, less attached to any one particular environment a species is, the less likely it becomes bothered by humanoid expansion.

              The chief difference between a chimp and a bantu is that the bantu has relatively greater verbalization, hence giving it its utility as political totems for hacking into the discourses of larger scale social organisms. A fairly similar dynamic at play with heebs too, though of course differing in degree.

          • Fidelis says:

            I expect that the higher race prophesied by Darwin [..] will emerge from a blend of the higher Asian races and the some of the white races, as the Aryan race emerged from a mingling event of grain farmers from the middle east and cattle herders from eastern Europe

            Why do you expect this?

            The current couplings are not so fertile, measured in children per parent. Are they even at par with white-white and asian-asian fertility among the same class? Do these couples ever quietly practice patriarchy on their own or in the few extant unconverged churches? Do you expect rates of intermarriage to remain similar to now — my intuition is that many white men marry out for reasons of pragmatism, i.e. weaker shit tests — in the event of a restoration?

            Do you expect some synergy of traits to be gained? Can you elaborate on what traits and what synergy if so? Do you anticipate a certain ratio of east-west in this future mix? There are far far more rice farmers than there are beef herders, wouldn’t you expect unique traits of the beef herder to be mostly diluted in the event of significant mingling? This last case has significant historical precedent, for example, in the case of the descendants of Genghis Khan, who became quite Chinese in short order. The later Manchu seemingly took note of this, and instituted miscegenation laws.

    • Kunning Drueger says:

      2023-01-10 at 1615 UTC: the day a shill attempted to entry using a shill test.

      >biological… descendants… of the Bible
      Because Jews are older than old, right, not khazar pretenders or a skinsuited tribe, right?

      >an insular, cohesive, collective
      Because Jews are all working together, right, because they’re all on big team, right?

      >seized considerable power [from the West]
      Because Jews are just that much smarter than white goyim, right?

      >use their [considerable power of] words and deeds to defeat the West
      Because of their substantially higher IQ and abilities, right?

      >individual and collective threat they pose [is overwhelming]
      Because Jews are superhuman, right?

      Nice try, Soros guy. Fuck this kike faggot. We don’t need a JQ shill test. My toddler can pass the JQ. “Antisemitism” is a natural stage for reactionaries to pass through, like libertarianism or paleoconservativism.

      • Anonymous says:

        Please direct me to evidence of internet Nazis funded by Soros, or evidence of the Khazarian hypothesis. I’m genuinely open to both.

        • jim says:

          Uh you.

          I have been asking you what Soros has been up to and you strangely do not answer.

          • Anonymous says:

            I genuinely don’t know, that’s why I asked. I assume he’s busy funding globohomo, maybe manipulating foreign currency for personal gain, perhaps astroturfing a color revolution or two.
            If the intent is for me to acknowledge the fact that he can support anti-semitic causes, then I will point out his involvement in rounding up his fellow Jews for the Nazis, although that was merely his own selfishness and survival instinct outweighing his attachment to the tribe.

            • jim says:

              Seems you don’t know anything about Jews that exercise actual power, because supposedly the vitally important thing is to go after the Jew that runs the bagel shop and the Jews with the funny hats.

              Power does not give a tinkers dam about the Jew that runs the bagel shop and the Jews with the funny hats. It is completely safe to go after those guys. Look at the Crown Heights riots.

              • Anonymous says:

                If your house (our civilization) is on fire, and you want to prevent your house from burning down, there are two approaches:

                -The cultural solution: preventing any sparks from occurring in or near the building. Unfeasible without drastic and unappealing measures.

                -The biological solution: ridding your house of any flammable materials. The more highly flammable, the more it has to go. Feasible, and easier to maintain.

                Just because the initial spark didn’t start from a flammable material doesn’t mean it isn’t a good idea to prioritize getting rid of the flammable materials that are currently spewing flame everywhere. And just because some flammable materials aren’t currently spewing flames everywhere doesn’t mean it’s not a good idea to get rid of them too, once the fire is out. Those that are crucial to the structure of the building itself (almost none, in our case) can be carefully replaced.

                • jim says:

                  Then there is the third approach, which is putting out the fire and rebuilding the house. House was built in 1660, remodelled, poorly, shortly afterwards, caught fire in the 1800s, and I want to restore it to the condition of 1800 or so.

                  Leftism and leftists exists because applecarts can be knocked over. It is a tactic, not a race, nor any particular goal, nor any particular interest group, other than the interest in apples rolling on the ground. You make the tactic unprofitable, and poof, no more leftists.

                  If you knock over the bagel shop owned by a Jew, then the liquor store goes up in flames, because hey, liquor stores are Jewish, even if they are not.

                  Kristallnacht led to Strasser and Röhm, and Germany would have had a Maoist great leap forward if Hitler had not killed them before they killed him. The night of the long knives was the same as Deng killing the gang of four.

                  I was watching an anti Gang of four, anti red guard, pro Dengist video. It did not depict the gang of four. It did not depict the red guards. It depicted a mob beating up a hot bun seller and taking his buns on the ground he was a capitalist roader. Which he probably was.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Jim while i agree with the general thrust of your argument the Nazis are going to CORRECTLY point out the Roehm Putsch was 4 years before Kristalnacht.

                • jim says:

                  I stand corrected.

                • Anonymous says:

                  1800 was post-Reformation, post-Jesuits, post-Calvinism, post-Freemasonry, post-French/American revolutions. Most neoreactionaries would say that by 1800, the rot was already there, and the leftist spiral was already inevitable. I just cannot see how your strategy prevents history from repeating itself, if you aren’t willing to explicitly exclude certain materials (ethnicities) that have proven to be highly flammable.

                • pinochet's ghost says:

                  The effective action the Nazis took against the Jews was to exclude them from the civil service and the public professions (especially journalism and law).

                  Kristallnacht was silly, and is emphasized because it is silly. It is emphasized precisely because nobody wants to see bagel shop windows being smashed, but plenty of people would like to see the end of Jewish influence on media, no more Jewish lawyer, no more Jews in the federal apparatus.

                  The Nazi policy was to led Jews have bagel shops and diamond merchants, but not to have public culture or the state.

                • jim says:

                  > Kristallnacht was silly, and is emphasized because it is silly. It is emphasized precisely because nobody wants to see bagel shop windows being smashed, but plenty of people would like to see the end of Jewish influence on media, no more Jewish lawyer, no more Jews in the federal apparatus.

                  When you tell us that all Jews are one Jew, it an argument for looting the bagel shop, not an argument for removing Jews from the state and quasi state apparatus. And, as we saw in the Crown Hill riots, Jews in state and quasi state apparatus are apt to watch benignly from on high when the bagel shop gets looted and burned and the Jews in funny hats get beaten up.

                  Obviously I agree, and have said many times, that Jews should not be allowed to hold high state and quasi state positions in America, and non Jews should not be allowed to hold high state and quasi state positions in Israel. And I regularly tell Israeli Jews that if they do not do stuff like that, if they do not make Israel into the Jewish state it was supposed to be, but is not, Israel will in the end finish what Hitler begun. So if that is what the debate is about, why are you quarreling with neoreaction?

                  What this debate is in fact about is rationalizations and excuses for overlooking George Soros, Victoria Nuland, and Volodymyr Zelenskyy, while going after Israeli Jews and Jews in funny hats.

                  What this debate is about is that George Soros wants us to be his Azov brigade.

                  Jews need a Jewish state, and Americans an Amerikaner state, and if we do not get it, we will both in the end be exterminated.

                • zero says:

                  The Cominator, the roehm putsch was the same as kristallnacht, the sa targeted Jewish shops which infuriated Hitler and he immediately ordered the ss to use any means necessary to stop it and remove roehm. the Nazis can point to kristallnacht as another left clift jump but the the roehm putsch was the exact same activity. it was spreading and would have become kristallnacht if the ss hadn’t arrested brown shirts off the street and shot roehm and his fag boyfriend after hauling them out of the hotel shirtless. the local police did nothing except desperately call Berlin because they were terrified of the the gay Reich thugs, the ss we’re less afraid of faggots beating up Jewish tailors. I don’t know why the same treatment was not used for kristallnacht but maybe Hitler was just going lefter himself. the night of long knives was kristallnacht beta and the Duterte solution of good uniforms and 9mm parabellum crushed it.

                • Anonymous says:


                • jim says:

                  The guys in funny hats are not the core problem, and it is those working for Soros and Zelensky who claim that the guys in funny hats are the core problem.

                • Anonymous says:

                  I don’t know why you’d say something like

                  “Jews need a Jewish state, and Americans an Amerikaner state, and if we do not get it, we will both in the end be exterminated.”

                  if not for fear of the Samson option.

                • jim says:

                  You are a moron.

                  The higher races, Jews among them, are going to be exterminated with knives, probably knives fabricated from broken bottles, not nukes. The Tutsi in the Congo and the intellectuals in Cambodia were killed with very crude weapons.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Hitler sympathized with Roehms radicalism but Roehm either was actually plotting a coup (a claim Goering consistently affirmed and took to his grave) or Hindenburg threatened to turn the army on Hitler if he didnt get rid of him or both. Kristalnacht did not threaten Hitlers power.

                • Anonymous says:

                  “The higher races, Jews among them, are going to be exterminated with knives, probably knives fabricated from broken bottles, not nukes. The Tutsi in the Congo and the intellectuals in Cambodia were killed with very crude weapons.”

                  You’re clearly alluding to something, but I suppose I’m too much of a moron to see what it is. Einstein’s famous quote about sticks and stones, perhaps?
                  An apocalyptic prediction like that warrants a better explanation than “it happened before in brown countries”.

                • jim says:

                  When a higher race loses political power, as when it is a minority a democracy, it gets genocided by the lower race.

                  In the west, the higher races are retreating from two legged animals, abandoning old homes and beautiful buildings, which are becoming ruins. We are running out of places to retreat to. When we are outvoted, those wearing police uniforms will also be animals. Disorderly genocide will ensue. When a city goes lower race majority, it becomes Detroit and the whites are driven out, but they flee to white city, or or flee to an exurban area and create a white city. When america becomes lower race majority, where do we go?

                  So many beautiful old buildings abandoned to wild two legged animals, and slowly turning to ruins, so many Amerikaners cannot return to the homes of their grandparents, for if they did someone would kill them with impunity, not immediately, but eventually. When a higher race loses political power, all this escalates, faster and faster. The higher must rule over the lower, or die.

                • Anonymous says:

                  That seems to contradict your earlier support of Darwin’s “higher race” prediction. On our current path, do you believe that a higher race(s) will emerge, or will humanity devolve into a lesser race(s)?

                • jim says:

                  Both, and the higher race will conquer, enslave, and replace the lower race. It has been happening over and over again for millions of years. We became human by a thousand genocides.

                  Worst case outcome: Higher races exterminated almost everywhere, but somewhere in the back of beyond, maybe the Appalachian mountains, maybe Antarctica, maybe the Siberian steppe, maybe undersea, maybe Mars, their genes live on, and people create a social environment that selects for those genes, in that the best people, aristocrats, rule, have lots of children, the worst aristocrats tend to drop out of the aristocracy and replace the peasantry, and the best tend to rise, or their children rise. And then one day, the aristocratic horde of overmen pour out of the remote backwards countryside that no one has been paying attention to, and conquer the world, yet again.

          • Anonymous says:

            [*more strange inability to notice Jews with actual state and quasi state power concretely doing very bad things deleted*]

      • Pax Imperialis says:

        I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Liberal Whites and Ashkenazi Jews are in a mutually codependent relationship. Antisemitism is a natural part of the relationship as is antigoyism.

    • The Cominator says:

      Jews are mostly middlemen and dupes and then again only most of them they are not a cohesive conspiracy. The entryists are those like you who seek us to adopt a nazi/fednat view of the jewish question.

    • BobtheBuilder says:

      JUDEO-Christians are annoying, but the WQ test usually trips them up. If they can pass it, then I honestly don’t mind that much listening to some Boomer go off about how awesome the nation-state of Israel is, provided he’s manly enough to follow through on disciplining hoes and calling out bad behavior in blacks and hispanics.

      A country has the jews it deserves.

  33. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    This is completely ahistorical *unless* you subscribe to the Reaganite view of the world, in which economic liberalism is the sole definition of ‘right wing’.

    The NSDAP stood for corporatism, which has nothing to do with common stock corporations but rather means a nation is like a *body*. The basic idea is that everything has its natural place, and the natural order is placed above abstract ideals like liberty, fraternity and equality.
    There will always be peasants and nobles, and the trick is to get the best people in the role of nobles and to bring the peasants along, precisely on that basis. It’s about class solidarity, not class struggle.

    Leftism is fundamentally egalitarian. In its liberal incarnations it’ll focus on equality of opportunity, which in practice means subsidised access. In its socialist incarnations it’ll focus on equality of outcome, such that there ought to be women in 50% of leadership roles and minorities should be proportionally represented as well.

    There is absolutely nothing remotely like that in NSDAP political theory. On the contrary, the plan is to ensure that the best people breed.

    As I said, if your focus is anchored narrowly to the economy, and the ‘right wing’ goal is libertarian property absolutism, then this is indeed ‘left wing’, but in 2023 the problem for that worldview is that corporate America is ‘woke’, so if we get ‘right wing’ victory on property rights, we simultaneously lose on the woman question, the queer question, the nigger question and the trans question. Indeed under propertarian absolutism in 2023 America, it’d only be a matter of time before child sexual abuse was normalised, legalised and glorified.

    Suffice to say, Nazis don’t favour this, to put it ridiculously mildly. If that makes me a leftist then I am a leftist.

    I doubt many leftists would agree that that *does* make anyone a leftist.

    Hitler’s programme was not the programme of Murray Rothbard, and neither should it be. If you think no taxes, no state regulations and no government programmes is the epitome of the right and therefore Murray Rothbard is the epitome of the right, then legalising heroin and child prostitution is the epitome of the right.

    I don’t know what you believe (even though you’ll insist I’m calling you a libertarian) but I can tell you for sure that NONE of the people I know who call themselves right wingers support legalising heroin, let alone the other thing: and in fact we tend to come up with rather harsh alternatives to legalisation when it comes to the other thing.

    (With due process under the law of the land.)

    • jim says:

      > This is completely ahistorical *unless* you subscribe to the Reaganite view of the world, in which economic liberalism is the sole definition of ‘right wing’.

      History is that before the war the Nazis were perceived as radical leftists, that when democratic politics was happening, it was perceived as right versus left.

      The actual right favored aristocratic power, the return of the old establishment. Nazism was the latest turn in leftism going ever lefter, ever faster, until the night of the long knives put a stop to that.

    • Gays In Tel Aviv's Florentin Neighborhood Keep Complimenting My Looks (5'7") says:

      Summary of 2023: way too much sexual selection; not nearly enough natural selection.

      As per your predilection, you equate the productive proletariat with the subhuman underclass. Professing a solidarity with the former, you invoke unprompted the specter of heroin legalization, which according to you will transform scores of law-abiding Englishmen into street beggars losing their diarrhea on the sidewalk while waving their dirty needles like sticks at a Pinata of Poz.

      In your shoes, I wouldn’t be so worried. Heroin won’t be legalized for the same reason cannabis was legalized – the latter makes idiots and sluggards out of smart and energetic people, thus breeding intelligence of out the gene pool (albeit inefficiently), while the former selects against precisely those elements who need selecting against, which, being holier than thou by virtue of subhumanity, should be “saved” and “reformed” rather than allowed to self-cull.

      Sewage belongs in the sewer. If allowed to proceed unperturbed by bleeding-heart interventionists, natural selection is incredibly efficient at weeding out zero-impulse-control homeless schizophrenics out of society and into the dumps, wherein they ultimately belong. According to you, the white British factory worker is always in need of saving from the fate that might befall the unemployed mystery meat mongrel prone to overdosing on heroin, since you despise the white proles with all your heart and soul. Thus, in your distinctly anti-white worldview, allowing Domino’s Pizza means that proles will turn morbidly obese en masse (nevermind that pizza is healthy); white people are so inferior, so subhuman, so wretched, that if not saved from their own selves by his majesty Cambodian Rheumatic, will overwhelmingly cross the threshold into hobo junkie territory.

      Every race contains its share of degenerates; preserving the health and vitality of the race means selecting against those elements, so that bad genes, genes predisposing you to be a schizophrenic hobo spilling diarrhea on my sidewalk while howling unintelligible profanities and threatening to shank my dog, will be removed from the gene pool. In your view, the white race consists of people overwhelmingly on the cusp of turning subhuman, which is an atrociously dim view of the white race. So you contend that legalizing heroin will endanger the very survival of the British people, because then the Jewish voices coming from inside the television screen will tell the Brits to inject heroin, and the Brits will all blindly promptly proceed to follow the Jew’s evil mind control rays and will consequently die off.

      But normie whites are not subhumans, and the subhuman underclass (overwhelmingly non-white) should be paid a visit by the hallowed spirit of St. Darwin, which can be reliably summoned by the heavenly needle. Allowed to self-administer the Darwinian Medicine, the schizophrenic hobo threatening to kill my dog will rapidly make himself scarce, blessed by that gift that keeps on giving known as the heroin overdose.

      In 2023, women tyrannically determine who gets to be father and who doesn’t, which selects against men actually in need of solidarity, men who carry civilization-advancing genes that by all measures should be deemed worthy enough of propagation. Alas, the normie is fast becoming an incel. Unrestricted sexual selection by the females of our species, with marriage by abduction strictly prohibited, proves catastrophic for the species, with TFR collapse and intensified inceldom among the cognitive elite; the vagina now serves as a reliable IQ shredder. In contrast, natural selection has all but been arrested, even reversed — by people like you — thus ensuring that instead of weeding themselves out, the subhumans are prompted to stay alive and to shit on my stairs.

      The case for heroin legalization is neat and simple: that which disproportionately eliminates subhumans, while keeping intact normal people (who comprise the majority of the native British, including a majority of proletarians), is an unmitigated blessing. Allowed to run its course, natural selection by means of permitting — nay, encouraging! — the trash to take itself out will duly rid the nation of those malcontents dragging it down to the sewage, by demarcating ghettos for the schizophrenic hobos and encouraging said subhumans to congregate there so they can finally all die off. Let them overdose and thereby improve the quality of the race and the quality of urban existence.

      Those who are known to serially, voluntarily, knowingly inject themselves with heroin should be refused medical treatment, or any other assistance for that matter. Their death wish should be respected and granted, for everyone’s benefit. While sexual selection by human females is not particularly eugenic, to say the least, natural selection by the heavenly needle most certainly is. Let them die.

      • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

        One need only observe differences in how alcohol is handled in peoples that developed systematic distillation of spirits relatively early in their evolutionary histories, vs in ones that that have had it recently introduced from outside.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          I initially didn’t get past his ridiculous pseudonym. There’s a number of bad ideas in what he wrote, but nothing more insidious than his take on drugs.

          Humanity has had tens of thousands of years to genetically adapt to alcohol. Distillation is likely 4,000 years old. The rate at which new drugs are being discovered and designed far exceed evolutionary capability to adapt. Legalization of heroin is a terrible idea because on principle it opens the door to all the other drugs.

          Drug abuse does not work like a surgical knife cutting away at dysfunctional populations as eugenicists would like to see. Rather, the drugs seep into functional communities via the more adventurous individuals (adventurousness is a double edge trait). They get addicted and become a problem for the community. The community becomes a little bit dysfunctional and misery and crime starts to spread. The social environment sees an increase in discontentedness as a result and normal people start using drugs to cope. This quickly becomes a feedback loop.

          This isn’t a situation where the dysfunction all dies off, but a situation where the dysfunction continuously spreads like a tumor.

          >encouraging said subhumans to congregate there so they can finally all die off

          Drug use occurs in the upper classes. It’s why the US relaxed drug enforcement in America. Elites needed to protect their habits. The upper classes do not congregate in slums to die off. They snort crack in Bard/Occidental/Georgetown/etc before licking crack off of hookers in Las Vegas hotels paid for by influence peddling schemes. From there they spread their rot throughout culture as culture is downhill from power.

          There must be a hard line approach to recreational drugs outside of alcohol, unmodified tobacco, and caffeine. All illicit drug traffickers publicly executed. An end to the anti tobacco campaign as that has only cause people to smoke other much more harmful drugs. Harsh penalties for illicit drug use such as penal colonies in the arctic circle to forcibly isolate dysfunction.

          • ten says:

            There are doctors who have been on heroin for 40 years. Normal people do not randomly go absolutely bonkers because they do drugs (unless we’re talking poisonous research chemicals). Broken people break even more, bonkers people go even more bonkers. Normal people keep being normal, except i guess they stay at home some mondays after bingeing.

            Upper class drug users generally have their shit together so nothing bad comes of their drug use and they are never caught. Lower class drug users do not have their shit together, do drugs in public, are caught, etc.

            There is no end to vices you might want to criminalize, and they wont go away anyhow. I have been offered weed and meth in public in china, where the nice fellow sharing would probably be executed for his possession. The chinese love a good iron fist, if they can’t stop public drug use, neither can you, especially not if every man is king under his roof, and the actual king doesn’t pay overly much attention to what is going on in the fiefs of his vassals.

            • Pax Imperialis says:

              >Broken people break even more, bonkers people go even more bonkers.

              and those people go around breaking stuff both physical and spiritual. They create more broken and bonkers people. Dysfunction spreads and drug use spreads. Positive feedback loop.

              >Upper class drug users generally have their shit together so nothing bad comes of their drug use

              I’m sure Hitler’s drug use had no negative impacts on Germany. Obama’s cocaine and weed use didn’t affect his political views at all! 🙃

              They generally don’t have their shit together and they create lots of indirect damage that you don’t see because it’s not easily seen broken windows from a passed. The effects are more in line of bad leadership that gets other people killed or bad decision making that destroys other people’s capital.

              >There is no end to vices

              The explosion of new vices came about due to a massive government effort to suppress the old familiar vices we are well adapted to. Anti smoking campaigns reduced tobacco use from 50% to 20%. The unintended consequence was that 50% still smoke, it just wasn’t tobacco they were smoking. When you add back in the cocaine and weed smokers it’s the same 50%. Keep the old vices legally and culturally acceptable and you won’t have mass use of new vices that are worse than the old vices.

              The goal isn’t to completely stop drug use. That’s impossible. It’s to keep it under control and not rampant, a steady state condition. You achieve that by using a stick (harsh penalties) and using a carrot (promote cultural acceptance of alcohol and tobacco which have far more transient effects).

              • Kunning Druegger says:

                I’m not really on board with the path you take, but I agree with where you end up:

                > The goal isn’t to completely stop drug use. That’s impossible. It’s to keep it under control and not rampant, a steady state condition. You achieve that by using a stick (harsh penalties) and using a carrot (promote cultural acceptance of alcohol and tobacco which have far more transient effects).

                Status incentives and disincentives are pretty much the only tool required for cultural management. The exploit here is that it requires patience to work properly, so some kike can always come along and say “it’s not happening fast enough, therefore we need a novel approach to (x).”

                The insidious creep of drug use into otherwise healthy communities is almost never about the drug itself, it’s the complicating factors of outside influence, power struggle, or some other damn thing. I maintain that if drugs of any type are available for purchase, the only limiting factor being money, they would actually work quite well at culling undesirable traits. Of course, enforcement mechanisms apply on all other factors, meaning thieves get their comeuppance for thieving, and it doesn’t matter if they stole to feed their kids or feed their addiction. Illegal drug dealers get the rope for violating the law by selling intoxicants without a license, not because their intoxicant is particularly dangerous. Anyone who has operated in drug culture past the “i did a couple lines that were offered to me at a party” level sees the full panoply of drug use and abuse. I have known a guy that tripped on acid (very good, potent, clean acid) for 20+ days. he took it like a tank. he was known for having immense pain tolerance and beating the snot out of people who crossed whatever lines he had, being wildly popular with the ladies, and friendly to everyone he met (until they crossed lines). Most of us didn’t know he was on a legendary trip, and it started because he got a contact high carrying blotter sheets around improperly. he never tried to fly or charged the police or anything. I also knew a guy that did acid once and never came back, performed a murder suicide, and ruined a bunch of lives.

                I don’t know where I am on that spectrum, and I have elected to just draw some lines and resolutely obey them. I’m pretty sure I could tank a bunch of [not going into details] and continue to be productive *if* money was no object, but money is almost always an object, and God gave me an out, I took it, and I see no reason to test the hypothesis.

                I think drug use is stupid, I think women are super dangerous when it comes to intoxicants, and I think common sense should rule the day. But I know that the folks who can do heroin and be good people use heroin in addition to living their lives, heroin isn’t their life. Those who cannot bring their bodies into subjection should be allowed to remove themselves from the gene pool, and it should be configured to let them do it without causing a bunch of other problems.

                A very smart man once shared with me his theory that the “war on tobacco” was a war on the South, and I have come to agree with him. i don’t think tobacco is any more dangerous than any other plant based stimulant. There are risk factors, but I don’t think it is especially risky. the reduction in smoking doesn’t seem to have reduced cancer. I can agree that tobacco and booze are better vices than most other drugs.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  Not disagreeing with you, but adding some commentary.

                  >The insidious creep of drug use into otherwise healthy communities

                  Most of the time it’s adventurous kids trying something new. Lots of my friends in high school tried and smoked weed. None of them had any obvious problems and were fairly happy go lucky types wanting a good time. Some of them enjoyed it a bit too much and I saw clear cognitive decline. Not so much that they are dysfunctional, but enough that they aren’t as functional as their parents. And so their life is ever so slightly worse off. Repeat that for a couple of generations and eventually you have obvious dysfunction.

                  >they would actually work quite well at culling undesirable traits

                  Intoxicated drivers appear to be slightly better at killing others than they are at killing themselves. Drug abuse creates damage not limited to the individual user. That’s a shitty form of eugenics. There are extensive externalities. As you pointed out:

                  I also knew a guy that did acid once and never came back, performed a murder suicide, and ruined a bunch of lives.

                  Lots of people turn to drugs as a form of self medicating. I wonder how many from your example are now self medicating in excess and in turn spread dysfunction. At a certain point, drug abuse is a social contagion as much as it’s an individual problem.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  I’m just going to steal what someone else put far better than myself: we don’t have a gun problem or a drug problem, we have a subhuman problem. DUI is not the drink or the car, it’s the person using/misusing/abusing the drink and the car. There are common sense modifications and restrictions that can be applied, but it’s always in Bad Territory when the argument becomes “to protect people from themselves” or any variation on that theme.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  >we have a subhuman problem

                  I get that.

                  >DUI is not the drink or the car, it’s the person using/misusing/abusing the drink and the car

                  I also get that

                  >when the argument becomes “to protect people from themselves”

                  I’m not interested in protecting people from themselves. I’m interested in protecting myself and the people who matter from dysfunctional people because dysfunctional people are dangerous. Dysfunctional people on drugs even more dangerous.

                  It’s not possible to remove all dysfunctional people because they are always getting born or created. There will always be a bottom 10% that cause 90% of the problems and those 90% of problems typically involve getting regular people killed.

                  I’m in favor of dysfunctional people abusing tobacco and or alcohol because the externalities of those problems are not so bad in comparison to weed and other drugs.

                  People only use exotic drugs because of the government restricting legacy drugs.

              • The Cominator says:

                I do not believe prohibition will effectively cut back weed use at this point unless were willing to go Mao genocidal on it, while im willing to do this to leftist im not willing to do it to weed users. Need to simply make it low status.

                As i said before agree 100% in promoting tobacco. If i were in power all the good looking women on movies and tv will smoke again, they will be allowed to advertise again it will be promoted for its calming effect and weight lose and secondhand smoke will be called out for the bullshit it is etc… the only negative thing the priesthood will say is that pregnant women shouldnt smoke.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  Weed’s market share is only sustainable via massive government restrictions on tobacco. All the government has to do is remove restrictions on sale and advertisement of tobacco, and weed stops being a thing. No genocide or prohibition needed.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Weed sucks and back in the 19th century it was legal but no one used it but its the high status drug mostly due to cultural programming (and anit tobacco programming), weed remaining technically illegal is part of what makes it high status.

          • Don't Misdiagnose My BPD As Psychopathy, I'm A Nice Person says:

            I don’t feel like long debating this point, because it’s not fundamental to NRx, and I’d rather not stir unnecessary drama.

            Suffice it to say, all of my friends and acquaintances have done plenty of drugs, and I also have done drugs, meaning cocaine, ecstasy, weed, hash, shrooms, LSD, and ketamine (and some other nice stuff), with no discernible deleterious effects, and quite a few salutary effects. I can go on month long breaks with no substance use whatsoever (including alcohol and tobacco, though coffee is a true addiction for me, and beers are quite tempting), then go back to experimenting with whatever drugs I want, with no ill effects. I have not tried heroin and have no intention of trying it, however; but some people can handle that, and most of the rest are responsible enough not to try. Point being: none of us is dysfunctional either socially or occupationally. That I occasionally use recreational drugs for fun, and have fun with my friends or by myself doing so, yet only got addicted to coffee, and that my friends likewise experiment with all sorts of stuff, and similarly they are only addicted to coffee and cigarettes, suggests that the problem is not rotten drugs, but rotten individuals with minimal impulse control and high time-preference.

            As with guns “seeping into communities,” the problem is trouble individuals and trouble groups, not trouble materials. There are mass shooting events in America on a monthly basis, which are caused not by assault rifles, but by subhumans laying their subhuman hands on assault rifles. Libtards and conservatards are mirror images of each other in this regard, in that the former blame guns for gun violence, and the latter blame drugs for drug overdoses. But when the subhuman elements are ruthlessly sifted out, you can own guns and do drugs and for the most part society is safe. America doesn’t have a “gun problem” or a “drug problem.” It has a subhuman problem. The Cathedral allows you to speak about a “drug problem” so that you won’t be speaking about the subhuman problem, and cuckservatives bang on about the “drug problem” because they too refuse to call out the subhuman problem.

            The schizophrenic hobos flooding my sidewalk with diarrhea, sleeping on my stairs, and threatening to kill my “racist” dog, have never been functional, and no society should attempt to save them or have them in any capacity. If a genuine functional tax-paying working disciplined normie gets substance abuse disorder, there are resorts where they can go to solve that problem quickly. Since I and every single person I know can handle drugs with no problem — all of us are high-functioning employed taxpayers — while the hobos screaming at my dog obviously can’t handle anything at all, I conclude that the problem is not drug use, but subhumans. One need not possess superhuman abilities to be able to handle the occasional recreational drug, and none of the drugs I mentioned using, with the exception of cocaine, is particularly addictive or physically harmful.

            licking crack off of hookers in Las Vegas hotels

            I have no problem with anyone who does that, I vehemently refuse to denounce them and vehemently refuse to be a killjoy, and Spandrell concurs with that position. You talk about upper-class people spreading dysfunction and misery through drug use. Not seeing that, have never seen that or anything remotely similar to that. What I see is underclass people spreading their disgusting filth, which is the result of them being disgusting filthy subhumans who should be confined to the sewage literal or metaphorical. The occasional normie with a drug problem can be helped, and is helped by addiction centers. Most people never have that problem, because most people who show up to work on time and pay their taxes are responsible enough to self-control their drug use.

            Upper-class people doing drugs is not a problem, never been a problem, should not be regarded as a problem, in much the same way that upper and working class people owning guns is not a problem, or doing whatever else that killjoys dislike is not a problem. CR is telling us to ban Dominos Pizza because the proles can’t control themselves, and you are telling me that millionaires snorting coke off a hooker’s ass is a very big problem, though you fail to explain what the problem exactly is other than you personally disapproving of said behavior.

            Most white and East-Asian men can handle the aforementioned substances, and most white and East-Asian women can handle these substances (including tobacco and alcohol) provided they are closely supervised by their husbands or other male kin. Some people were born to be slaves and their drug use should obviously be monitored and controlled by their masters, and schizophrenoc hobos who defecate and sleep on my stairs should be all dead. Most normie men can handle drugs, just as most normie men can handle internet pornography, and there are ample solutions for the occasional normie who can’t handle this, that, or the other thing. You don’t fix the WP by banning porn, you fix it by reestablishing coverture (and everything entailed thereby, as has been explicated prodigiously on this blog), and you don’t fix the subhuman problem by banning guns and drugs, but by banning subhumans.

            The problem is not upper-class access to strippers, but lack of upper-class access to virgin brides, and the problem is not upper and working class access to drugs, but the spillover of subhumans into ever-broader strata of society as we aren’t allowed to confine the subhumans to ghettos.

            I support the absolute legalization of all drugs and the elimination of all subhumans.

            • Kunning Drueger says:

              That… was an exceptionally quality post. Pax has an endearing tendency to demand and expect perfection from strangers. But he also has a perfect track record for accepting and internalizing reproof. I share his distaste, but that’s because I demonstrated an inability to handle my shit with drugs. That’s a me problem, and, as a richly blooded Puritan scion, I obviously expect every person to be evil like me and therefore deserving of the hellfire I fear I have earned.

              • Anonymous says:

                I demonstrated an inability to handle my shit with drugs.

                And then what happened? Presumably, you figured out that a particular substance causes you adverse reactions or otherwise negatively influences your life, so you minimized or stopped your consumption of said substance, maybe replacing it with another one that’s more benign, maybe going cold turkey. It doesn’t matter – being an overall functional and responsible individual, you identified the problem and responded to it appropriately. This is the overwhelming experience in my social circle as regards the ill effects of substances, whether the illegal ones or the very legal alcohol and tobacco.

                What you didn’t do is become a vagrant besmirching the neighborhood pavements with blood and feces, because not a subhuman.

                Just as H. L. Mencken’s characterization of Jews was spot on, his characterization of the puritanical Anglo-American was spot on, and to this day we see that instead of wiping out or enslaving the subhumans, der ewige Puritan is hopelessly trying to “reform” them; instead of waging a war against subhuman phenotype wherever they infest and manifest, he is clamoring for a Prohibition of alcoh… err, I meant waging a “war on drugs.” (The drugs won the war)

                The ardent refusal to wipe out subhumans is a direct cause of school shootings, and the blood of all those massacred children is on the hands of those who allow subhumans to keep existing. The solution to school shootings is neither more guns (le conservative talking point) nor fewer guns (le liberal talking point) – the solution is eliminating the undesirables, or at least confining them to ghettos and allowing them to self-cull. Denial of HBD, variation between the races and intra-racial variation, results in classrooms full of dead kids.

                The vast majority of recreational drug users, including and especially if they are upper class, cause no problems to society or to themselves by occasionally doing the drugs. The affluent businessman on a trip to Vegas who snorts fat lines of coke off a harlot’s boob cleavage and ass crack does nothing wrong. He never harmed no one and I’d gladly join him if invited. Being well-off, he can afford rehab should cocaine use become unmanageable. But in most cases that won’t go that far, because high-functioning people tend to have self-control and exercise it prior to things going south.

                Of course no one should be on drugs all the time, just as one shouldn’t be drunk all the time. The pothead and the drunkard are pitiable. A normal person struggling with substance abuse disorder should be encouraged to quit, with or without the aid of rehab centers. It’s perfectly doable. But I see with my own eyes plenty of individuals who have no intention whatsoever of quitting – these are the schizophrenic hobos who intend to punch your dog in the mouth because your dog is a racist. These people should be physically removed.

                Upper and working class people responsibly doing drugs (such as my social circle) don’t harm me, don’t endanger my safety, and are generally fun to be around. Subhumans are not fun to be around, and should be encouraged to not be around. Drugs per se aren’t a social ill. Subhumans are a social ill, which may be exacerbated by drug use and alcohol use, but would be a social ill even without substances. But you can’t go on live television and say “millions must die,” so the talking heads on the screen misplace your anger towards “gun violence” or the “drug problem,” in the same way that your anger at the collapse of patriarchy which has been going on for centuries is being misplaced towards “Jewish pornographers,” “human trafficking,” and the rest of these shill memes.

                Focusing on the wrong problems leads to wrong solutions. Remove subhumans and restore patriarchal marriage, and suddenly the much-lamented “social ills” so often whined about are no more.

                • Kunning Drueger says:


                • BobtheBuilder says:

                  At the risk of sounding like a shill, “exterminating subhumans” is an explicitly un-Christian position, while reforming them is. That reform can of course happen through force, societal pressure, the official Church, and/or away from relatively decent people (ie the non-natural slaves who can keep their vices from spilling over into public).

                  Low IQ High time preference people can be decent if kept under control by an external authority.

                • Adam says:

                  White on white school shootings seem to be more of a byproduct of the feminization of boys. Boys do not need to sit in progressive feminist co-ed classes with their hands tied behind their back until they are 18. The vast majority would be well served with limited academics (three Rs) up until about 10 or 12, then go to work with their fathers and uncles. By 18 they could master a skill and begin building a home for their family, or start their own business, or both.

                  Strapping a teenage boy to a chair designed for an average sized girl for 8 hours a day, in a class designed for girls, with rules that prohibit any and all forms of aggression is completely barbaric. I am surprised school shootings do not happen more often.

                • BobtheBuilder says:

                  There is also the fact that school shootings really took off when anti-depressants began to be widely used in the 90s. A lot of these people were ruined by pills, and the glows have been cranking it to 11 recently to immantetize a gun free zone in the whole USA.

                • Adam says:

                  The glowies are taking advantage of the fact that the boomers were the worst parents of all time. How could they be otherwise? A being so thoroughly convinced that they are the center of the world, perfect in every way, completely without any ability to self reflect, is always going to convince the child that something is wrong with the child, without any instruction or explanation. So they took the easy way out, put the kids on pills and fast tracked them to a life of substance abuse and failure. If their kids survived they grew up on their own and the parents still act like children in their 60s. Thank God the day of the pillow approaches.

            • yewotm8 says:

              Agree with this post, but I would also like to add that the idea of “people only do drugs when their lives suck” is actually true. My periods of drug use have been the times when I was too injured to leave the house, or forbidden from going anywhere interesting during the brutal Canadian lockdowns over the last few years. In other times, I make the decision that having an active, energetic life where I do fun things is better than sitting at home doing drugs.

              When the things that were making my life suck were removed (injury healed, gyms/social life opened up again), my desire to do drugs no longer exceeded my desire to go live life. When Pax states that the diarrhea-spilling hobos will cease to be a problem if the drugs are removed, he’s implying that that hobo’s life only sucks because he’s addicted to drugs. Which is of course absurd, and confuses cause for effect. The hobo is congenitally or genetically dysfunctional, and his life would suck regardless of whether or not he can get drugs. The drugs just make it more noticeable.

              It was mentioned further up thread that porn and prostitutes would not be a problem if men could own their own women again. A similar idea applies to drugs. You’d get a better rate of return on reducing rates of alcoholism and drug addiction if you reinstated coverture, cut taxes, allowed businesses to hire whatever they wanted, and allowed men to speak the truth, than if you banned all of the substances that addicts are using.

              • Anonymous says:

                Exactly so.

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                >When Pax states that the diarrhea-spilling hobos will cease to be a problem if the drugs are removed, he’s implying that that hobo’s life only sucks because he’s addicted to drugs.

                That is not what I said nor what I implied. I said drug addicted people create more problems. Those problems create societal dysfunction. The societal dysfunction creates misery adding to the number of potential addicts as people need to cope with the pain. It’s a positive feedback loop.

                Moreover, why do you think I’m talking about hobos specifically? I didn’t even mention them. They are only a small subset of all drug users. Most addicts are not hobos. A hobo’s life sucks without the drugs, the drugs makes their situation worse and now they need more drugs. Positive feedback loops are a bitch. I never said their life only sucks because they are addicted to drugs.

                >I would also like to add that the idea of “people only do drugs when their lives suck” is actually true. My periods of drug use have been the times when I was too injured to leave the house

                That was true for you. That is not true for others. Many drug users have good lives and use drugs for recreational purposes. Have you never leaned back in a big comfy recliner chair in front of a fireplace sipping liquor during winter? Gone to a party and smoke a cigar with the lads? Some people abuse drugs because they enjoy good times a little too much.

                The idea of “people only do drugs when their lives suck” implies that if everyone’s life was good no one would do drugs. That is absurd. Throughout most of US history the smoking rate has remained extremely stable. Through good times and bad times. Only recently has the smoking rate decreased, but only because weed is not considered “smoking” in the statistics. Add that back in and total rate of smokers hasn’t changed at all.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Most addicts are not hobos.

                  Who are these amorphous “addicts”?

                  If you equate “recreational drug user” with “addict,” then indeed there are plenty of addicts to go around. But in my experience, and in the experience of everyone I talk to, actual addicts (people whose drug use is uncontrollable, causing social and occupational problems) are an incredibly small proportion of recreational drug users.

                  Your problem with recreational drug use seems to be that people “enjoy good times too much” (your phrase), not addiction. If your issue with drug use was addiction, you would be mentioning rehabilitation and you would be proposing solving whatever deep-rooted social ills drive people to escapism (which escapism can take many forms, among them drug use), not killing or exiling to a penal colony me and my friends.

                  Your problem is people having fun that you don’t approve of or don’t have access to, with “addiction” a convenient excuse to moralfag about the issue. Since the vast majority of recreational drugs users are not “addicts” and cause no social problems, no reason to publicly execute us or send us to penal colonies.

                  Purity spiraling about “illicit drugs” is a tried-and-true gateway to purity spiraling about many other things, so that today you shun the weed smoker, and tomorrow you will shun the alcohol drinker (even though right now you passionately promise that it absolutely won’t happen), as indeed your ideological predecessors did just that when given half a chance. No thanks.

                  When you suggest:

                  All illicit drug traffickers publicly executed… Harsh penalties for illicit drug use such as penal colonies in the arctic circle to forcibly isolate dysfunction.

                  You initiate a purity spiral about substances whose effects you are unfamiliar with, and outgrouping people who are on your side while ingrouping puritans who hate your guts. Outgrouping functional employed tax-paying upper and middle class people who show up to work on time, have a healthy social circle, and who occasionally use recreational drugs, is quite similar in nature to outgrouping the guy who visits strippers or prostitutes or faps to porn. I think we’ve had enough purity spirals and enough outgrouping of normies.

                  I emphatically suggest that instead of outgrouping normies, you should be ingrouping normies and outgrouping subhumans.

                  Given the stuff you write in the comments above, which I’ll quote in this reply, you clearly have no experience whatsoever with recreational drugs, and they are far removed from your social circle. You write about the subject as someone who “encountered” drugs by watching their depictions in popular culture, rather than encountering them in real life. I kindly suggest that you shouldn’t issue judgements about subject you can’t make heads or tails of.

                  I suggest that you and your friends go to some clubs.

                  Examples showing unfamiliarity of the substances under discussion include:


                  People only use exotic drugs because of the government restricting legacy drugs.


                  All the government has to do is remove restrictions on sale and advertisement of tobacco, and weed stops being a thing.

                  A person who compares the appeal and the subjective effects of hallucinogens, stimulants, and opioids to “legacy drugs,” as if the former group is experientially similar to and substitutes the latter group, obviously has no ideas whatsoever what hallucinogens, stimulants, and opioids do.

                  You write like someone who thinks that cannabis is like cigarettes, only much more potent. Cannabis is nothing like cigarettes in the subjective experience it produces; it’s apples and oranges. It’s also nothing like alcohol or coffee. However, your sole frame of reference appears to be the “legacy drugs” you are personally familiar with, which is akin to someone living in a cave with only mice around, and upon exiting the cave and seeing an elephant, thinking “wow what a huge mouse!”

                  It’s not a mouse.

                  I said drug addicted people create more problems. Those problems create societal dysfunction.

                  Who are these “drug addicted people”? What is their profile? You mentioned upper class people going to Vegas and partying with hookers, arguing that they cause social problems – what specific social problems do they cause?

                  Equating recreational drug users with addicts, despite overwhelming majority of recreational drugs users not being addicts, is misleading. And blaming the social dysfunction that is caused by drug-abusing subhuman detritus on upper class businessmen on a trip to Vegas is also misleading.

                  However, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt in that you don’t mislead deliberately, but rather, your social circle (assuming there is one) is a very atypical drug-free bubble, so your personal understanding and experience of recreational drugs is minimal or nonexistent.

                  only because weed is not considered “smoking” in the statistics.

                  Again: you are the person living in the cave with only mice to keep you company, and once existing the cave and encountering an elephant, thinking “this is a very big mouse.” Try blasting a 28%-32% THC fatty with Godfather OG strain in it – sir, it’s not a mouse.

                  It’s not possible to remove all dysfunctional people because they are always getting born or created.

                  It absolutely is possible to remove all dysfunctional people from normal society. Had been done in the past, can be done in the future. That’s what ghettos are for, and if the subhumans want heroin, all the better, let them have as much as they desire.

                  It’s telling that you blame the “drug problem” (“addicts” undefined and undescribed) instead of pointing out that the real problem is subhumans escaping the ghetto. Failure to notice and name the Subhuman Problem is an indicator of latent leftism, and blaming upper and working class people over the problems caused by subhumans is a strong indicator of failure to tell ingroup from outgroup. Not good.

                • jim says:

                  > Who are these amorphous “addicts”?
                  > If you equate “recreational drug user” with “addict,” then indeed there are plenty of addicts to go around. But in my experience, and in the experience of everyone I talk to, actual addicts (people whose drug use is uncontrollable, causing social and occupational problems) are an incredibly small proportion of recreational drug users.

                  Everyone who injects is an actual addict whose drug use is completely out of control, or very quickly becomes such.

                  Everyone who regularly uses grass has trouble getting the stuff done he needs to do in order to live a normal life, they eat too much and stuff just not get done, lazy, fat, and stupid. No one uses drugs of injection in a controlled manner, they all fall apart and start stealing from friends and family, some people handle snorted stimulants OK, but about half of them go dangerously insane from time to time by taking too much for too long. The boss that is high on coke can live a seemingly normal upper class life for a while, his drug use seems controlled, but is apt to make extremely stupid decisions which bring his lifestyle snorting coke from the boobs of hookers crashing to a sudden end, so much so that “high on coke” has become a phrase for idiotic management decisions. And when the money stops flowing, suddenly his life and drug use does not look all that controlled any more. He is apt to wind up walking the street giving an incoherent management talk full of random management and finance buzzwords to an invisible audience.

                  Snorted stimulants are for white people what whiskey is for feather Indians. A lot of whites can handle it, maybe most whites will be able to handle it after a couple of thousand years of evolution, but a whole lot of whites cannot. Oral stimulants, most whites can handle. Injected drugs, no one handles well, no one handles at all, they all go off the deep end.

                  That said, there is probably not much the government can do to fix the problem. It is moral problem, the state Church, not the state, needs to address it.

                  But saying “Oh, drugs are fine, most people can handle them” is not true and not addressing the problem.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Which anonymous are you, probably the good one may have to change their name…

                  You are right that prohibitions are the wrong way to go but Pax is right that weed seems to cause far worse social damage than tobacco.

                  Not sure cocaines an okay legacy drug, way too many cokeheads around today and cokeheads are functional people for a while until they arent.

                • The Cominator says:

                  There are functional and okay weed users who handle it well but imho not the majority of them.

                • Anonymous says:

                  You are right that prohibitions are the wrong way to go but Pax is right that weed seems to cause far worse social damage than tobacco.

                  Right, so I’ll stress my position: There is a world of difference between “public executions + penal colonies” and making potheads low status. I don’t advocate the celebration of stoner culture, and take no issue with potheads being low status; I am however responding to the proposition that the person who occasionally uses recreational drugs — no matter which ones, really — should be outgrouped. They should not be outgrouped, and given that most drug users don’t cause social problems, drugs should not be illegal.

                  cokeheads are functional people for a while until they arent.

                  I agree, but the difference between a cokehead from a functional background and a subhuman is that the cokehead will get back on track, and should be aided by society if he struggles to get back on track in the same manner as the alcoholic, while the subhuman pooping on the entrance of one’s apartment isn’t going anywhere.

                  Prostitutes should be low status, but it shouldn’t be illegal to avail oneself of their uses. Same with recreational substances. Society should not view the whore-user or the drug-user as its enemies, though obviously degenerate behavior of any kind should not be regarded as high status.

                  If you have access to a virgin bride who is always sexually available to you and to no one else, then no need to visit prostitutes. But you should still be allowed. Similarly, when all is well in a civilization, widespread escapism in the form of drug use is not likely to occur, as people don’t need escapism to cope with daily reality. But drug use should still be permitted to those so inclined.

                  The nature of the purity spiral is that first I am executed for being a degenerate drug user because 6 grams of shrooms are located in my vicinity, then you are executed for your fondness of strip clubs, and the Puritan won’t rest until all fun activities are prohibited, to “sustain public morals.” No thanks.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Also as far as snorting coke off strippers why why why do people do drugs that tend to cause erectile dysfunction (coke and hard liquor) with strippers… you dont need hard drugs to get them to put out strippers like putting out. The best and most enthusiastic sex youll get from strippers is when you arent giving them much and especially when “it just happens” during a regular lap dance.

                • Kunning Drueger says:

                  Pax is a good man who spends his time being himself and does not have cosmopolitan predilections. Thus, he is very adept at a few things, dependabears in most cases, and woefully naive in a few circumstances. His Hard On Drugs position will inevitably change with experience, but he’s not wrong.

                  Shama-… I mean, “””anonymous Land””” is just a creature of another kind. He’s a Priest Adept, and Pax is a Paladin. They should be able to communicate, but they cannot. Wars have started over less disagreement. Both men need to desist. Anon had it right at the fore: this is not really a worthy topic. Our efforts are better spent elsewhere.

                  Anonymous, I am so thankful 2023 has brought you to us *for the first time ever* ha ha. Please stick around.

                  Pax, this is a dumb topic. you’re not wrong, but you’re out of your depth, and I’m not saying this as reproof, condemnation, or correction. Your talents are wasted on in-fighting.

                  I shouldn’t have posted what I did; being an SME in the topic is not a carte blanche license to comment. My bad. This post, Jim’s post, is the highest quality submission in a chain of valuable posts. Look at all the niggas and niggers coming out of the woodwork. Let’s get back to what matters.

                • ten says:

                  I know many who have gone from a functional coke habit to a dysfunctional one. It seems one grows voracious with prolonged use. No longer satisfied by doing a couple of lines during an evening, they buy one little bag for the evening and another bag for themselves when they get home, and they stay up until the bags are empty. Then they find occasion to join up with other lost souls at odd times, and they do not invite their usual friends with whom they shared the functional coke habit, because they know they are dysfunctional.

                  Guess what. They get over it. Unless subhuman. I know one guy whose entire life is permanently derailed because he doesn’t have the capacity to stay away or moderate. All the other ones got it under control.

                  I think it would be totally fair play to enslave him, he would probably appreciate it.

                  But expending state energy and resources to stop the others from doing coke or whatever, its dumb. Sisyphean. And just not the proper task of the law. Sic a priest on them.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  Here is how you do drugs safely:

                  >read up on them
                  Druggies love to talk. There are terabytes of data on experience, quality indicators, methods, sources, anything you want. The longer the entry, the more truth (in my experience), but never forget the source: druggies. So apply common sense

                  >you get what you pay for
                  cheap drugs are bad, expensive drugs are good. No shortcuts here. If it’s coming off a street corner, it’s been stepped on a billion times and your getting a fraction of active ingredient. Fentanyl is popular because scag heroin was the norm for decades. If you want good drugs, you have to find a rich drug user.

                  >do them on your terms
                  Don’t get pressured into trying them, don’t do them when you may need to confront serious situations. Don’t do them with strangers, and only do them around strangers when you’re with people you trust.

                  >do them, then don’t do them a bunch
                  Blow a few lines of whatever, have a good time, then have a good time many more times without doing them. Peterson, for all his many faults, has done some great work on habit forming, and I am telling you honestly, you can take this to the bank, that addiction is a holistic. I cracked a tylenol in half for a family member the other day, and my brain sent all the signals of “oh shit, we’re doing it!”, my hands shook a bit and I got nervous, anxious, and excited. This is after a decade, so all the wiring is there. DON’T LAY THE TRACKS because the train will just roll down hill.

                  >when you do them, make it a celebration, an incredible experience, a thing to be expected and treasured
                  The way I slipped into “the lifestyle” was incorporating them into my identity. There is always a druggie out there ready to tell you that whatever enjoyment you derive from (x) experience, it will be increased by (x+drug)repetition. This is how so many get trapped. This applies to all drugs, even the docile ones. People smoke after meals mechanically, drink at bars mechanically, and snort meth mechanically.

                  >don’t regularly associate with habitual users
                  If you have no idea who around you is carrying a GQ or tenpack or baggie, then it doesn’t matter. When you seek out Tony because he always has yak in his pocket, you are sliding down the slope. Drug addiction mediates all human experience, and everyone and thing in your life will be sorted into “helps me get high” and “doesn’t” buckets. I got clean because I decided I was done, then cut ties with every single person in the “helps” bucket. It was awful, I miss having some of those friends, but I don’t miss the monkey on my back being stronger than me.

                  On a final note, Rehab is bad news. It is a massive scheme run by former addicts taking advantage of loving family members trying to save their lost loved ones, and it really doesn’t work for normies. If you can sue the pants off a rehab clinic when it “doesn’t take” they will actually do the job, but very few people can do this. I know a few guys, former addicts, whose entire business is finding people who want to get clean, or have someone they want to get clean, getting them into a program, and getting them into a different program, then another, then another… they get state money, federal money, commissions… it’s a massive scam. Here’s how you get clean:

                  Stop doing the drug. Stay in place with no drug. Endure the short term consequences you have rightly earned. Wake up one day and realize you will never be what you were before, but you can be different from what you’ve become. Carry on living, and pay it forward when the time comes.

                  If you want to help someone get clean, you have to help them do the above, and this won’t happen at Rehab.

                • The Cominator says:

                  RE coke being an okay legacy drug… another reason now why it isn’t in the days of Fentanyl. Knew a girl back in Mass who “died suddenly”, she was pretty cool as far as chicks go (operatic singing voice despite being a chain smoker) don’t know too many details but we had a convo about the vax and she said said she would never get “the Biden cuck juice” (yes she used those exact words) and she wasn’t such a fuckup to get into heroin… so I think the most likely cause of death is she was probably doing what she thought was cocaine (never saw her do that but coke use is far far too normal nowadays) but it turned out to be or have fentanyl in it.

    • ten says:

      Eugenics was an integral part of american socialism from the start until they silently stopped talking about it. It was an integral part of fx scandinavian socialism until we converted to american socialism in the 70s. We sterilized gypsies, prostitutes, retards, sluts, some violent criminals, because these were unsociable, wouldn’t want them to breed.

      “We will be equal in lala-land, we just have to get rid of all these non-equals first”.

      You exclusively look at lala-land, and listen only what is said about it, and when something is said about reality, you translate it to a wildly different thing about lala-land. Perhaps you live there, perhaps you are unable to see reality at all.

      Leftism is social entropy.

      • Oog en Hand says:

        “We sterilized gypsies, prostitutes, retards, sluts, some violent criminals, because these were unsociable, wouldn’t want them to breed.”

        Result: a very docile population.

        Also, according to jim, the Biblical story of Nimrod is proven by Göbekli Tepe. However. Erdogan recently had concrete poured on Göbekli Tepe.

        What to do?

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          Scandinavians are not docile because of brief flirtation with eugenics in the 20th century. They are docile because they are the genetic remnants of those left behind in the great conquests of Britannia, Normandy, and the Rus.

          The British today are fairly docile because they are the genetic remnants of those left behind in the great conquests of the New World, Australia, etc.

          • ten says:

            Nice theory, but doesn’t fit with sweden-denmarks world record in number of wars between two nations, the swedish rampage over germany and poland in the 17th century or the swedish attempt to kill russia in the 18th century.

            If there is such a genetic explanation for “docility”, it is the mass drafts of those centuries, but i don’t really think we are particularly docile. But i guess i’ll have to live with this general impression until we prove otherwise.

            • Pax Imperialis says:

              Docility is not exclusive with capacity for organized state violence. It is also much easier to mass conscript docile people and persuade them to follow orders.

              Scandinavian wars in the 17th and 18th centuries were state conflicts. English wars in the 17th and 18th century were largely privately funded colonial conquests by groups of men who got itchy feet for adventure and bounty… you know, the things the Vikings used to do in the 10th and 11th centuries.

              Scandinavians are docile compared to the English who are docile compared to the Americans. Scandinavians are known for being mild mannered, the Brits for their pubs and soccer hooliganism, and the White Americans for not following orders even at gun point.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              The later happenstance is rather related to the former.

              Early adoption and utilization of mass conscription musket armies allowed the Caroleans to punch above their weightclass in military adventures with their neighbors; after the exhaustion of manhood as a result of this though, scandinavia was never again a major world power.

              • Pax Imperialis says:

                They exhausted their manpower, not their manhood. It had left with the Vikings for greener pastors. The British exhausted their manpower in their civil wars, yet remained a highly adventurous and pushy bunch of rascals well into the 1800s. If was only after the colonial era that the British lost their pushy independent mercantilism at gun point as it was largely transferred to the colonies by that point.

                • Aidan says:

                  You misunderstand the scale of Swedens mass conscription. 40% of its male population of military age died in the Great Northern War. A nation descended from draft dodgers.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  The Vikings were known for building lots of ships, exploring the unknown, invading foreign lands, establishing distant maritime trade routes with those lands, and finally colonizing most of them.

                  During the Viking Age (800-1150), around 200,000 people left Scandinavia to settle in other lands. Most ended up in the British isles or Normandy. Many Normans ended up in the British isles anyways. After the Viking Age, Scandinavians ceased being a maritime military and trading power. They became increasingly politically centralized(Carolean era) and today have an over bearing government with some of the world’s highest taxes. The population largely complies with those taxes. It’s clear they lost something in the process.

                  The English and French would end up building lots of ships, explored the unknown, invaded many foreign lands, established distant maritime trade routes with those lands, and colonizing most of them. The British got the most Viking ancestry and coincidentally built the larger colonial empire.

                  During the English/British Age (1500-1900), millions had left for the colonies. Many ended up in the Americas. After the 1945 the empire was collapsing. Britain ceased being a maritime military and trading power. They’re becoming increasingly politically centralized with an over bearing government that requires licenses for everything. The population largely complies. These are clearly not the same people as the ones in 1500-1900.

                  America after 1776 promptly started building lots of ships… see a trend yet?

                  >You misunderstand the scale of Swedens mass conscription.

                  I don’t. I’m pointing out that the Swedes, along with their fellow Scandinavians, got docile long before the wars in the 1700s. That they are docile because they are the left behind remnants of those who wouldn’t go out and conquer and or trade. They were content with sitting at home.

                  >A nation descended from draft dodgers.

                  Rule breakers who don’t follow orders or authority are not submissive. The are the opposite of docile. Clearly it didn’t have a major effect as the Swedes today are extremely submissive to both GAE and their own communists. That 60% surviving male population of military age must of reproduced well.

                • Aidan says:

                  The Swedes were not very docile in the 30yrs war. And just as you say that adventurous men go out to conquer and trade, they are also highly willing to go along with conscription and fight in wars. Those who evade conscription by hiding in the woods tend to be effeminate and cowardly. I can esoterically condemn mass mobilization as dysgenic while recognizing that I would still go and fight if I was called to.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Depends on the war they would mass mobilize me for personally… if globohomo wanted me to mobilize against Russia id definitely draft dodge.

                • Yul Bornhold says:


                  “Those who evade conscription by hiding in the woods tend to be effeminate and cowardly. I can esoterically condemn mass mobilization as dysgenic while recognizing that I would still go and fight if I was called to.”

                  I will not fight for the rainbow banner.

    • Starman says:

      @Carlylean Restorationist

      Looks like Communist Revolutionary is back, or allowed temporarily.
      Commie Rev is now promoting the clotshots as well as promoting feminism.

      • jim says:

        I am sure he will respond to this criticism by pointing out he was totally opposed to and condemned the clot shot – it was just that his discussion of the clotshot presupposed a shared consensus that we do not have a mysterious huge rise in young healthy people suddenly dropping dead for no apparent reason. Well, no apparent reason when the coroner refuses to notice strange long thin clots in the corpse’s blood.

        Which is similar to his position on every issue. Analogous to our Joo haters whose position on Jews was aptly summarized by Kunning Dreuger.

        They hate blacks because blacks are magical, Jews because Jews are so smart, and women in the male sphere because women are so good at doing men things.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Anyone who doesn’t support feminism in some form is a fool. [*deleted]
        I’m advocating for National Socialism, the understanding that the jewish Question illuminates most subjects, and that once the jewish threat is under control [*deleted*]

        • jim says:

          OK. If we worry about Soros and Zelensky, we are insufficiently worried by the terrible threat posed by men in silly hats.

          If we worry that female emancipation means the higher races cannot reproduce successfully, we are insufficiently worried by the terrible threat posed by men in silly hats.

          If we think this is an epidemic of the mudbloods, that the purebloods catch Covid once and seldom if ever catch it again, while the mudbloods catch it over and over and it lingers, slowly causing cumulative damage to heart, lungs, brain, and blood vessels while they spread it to everyone around them, we are insufficiently worried by the terrible threat posed by men in silly hats.

          If we worry about nuclear war with Russia, we are insufficiently worried by the terrible threat posed by men in silly hats.

          If we think stuff should be made in America by American businessmen, we are insufficiently worried by the terrible threat posed by men in silly hats.

          If we radically disagree with the left on any issue whatsover, if we slip away from the reservation where they keep those terrible neanderthals who are still in 2022 and have not yet caught up with 2023, we are insufficiently worried by the terrible threat posed by men in silly hats.

          The differences between communism and nazism are utterly insignificant, and only someone who is debating whether we should get up with 2023 leftism, or stick with good old fashioned real American 2022 leftism is likely to care about the difference.

  34. Red says:

    I’ve been pointing out for a while that the left has been adopting National Socialist arguments for the extermination of whites and the promotion of POC along with a 3ed way socialist economy as the ideal as demonstrated by the ESG system. I call the left Rainbow Nazis because it pisses them off and it’s basically the system they adopted after 2000. However, they really don’t see the contradiction between last years Communism and today’s Rainbow Nazism. As Jim says, Communists are Nazis and Nazis are Communists.

  35. i says:

    How Transgenderism conquered Red South Dakota:

    • Red says:

      Non-retarded version of that article: The GOP sold out it’s voters and implemented Trannism as per normal for the GOP. Also women politicians always support the state religion which is currently Trannyism.

  36. Your Uncle Bob says:

    A challenge is that globohomo has set up Hitler and the swastika as the ultimate evil, the stand in for Satan in our new civic religion. So when a young man breaks the programming, questions everything he’s been told, and casts about for a countersignal he easily latches on to the greatest boogeyman he’s been given.

    Any ideas on how to counter that? It seems like denigrating nazis is a loser as you move down the educational ladder, but maybe it’s tough but necessary? Is it worth trying to coopt Uncle Adolf as a symbol, or is that doomed to lead people back into the soc part of natsoc?

    And, Jim or anyone else, are there any books on economic failures of third reich Germany, or is it more a matter of reading between the lines? I’m familiar only with our civic religion histories, plus a smattering of counter-culture apologia.

    • Red says:

      TIK on youtube had a bunch of videos breaking down the failures of the National Socialist economy. The best book on the subject if the Vampire Economy, written by a German Communist who kept insisting that National Socialism socialist economy wasn’t real socialism, while he documented exactly how socialist it was.

    • Guy says:

      Adam tooze’s wages of destruction

  37. i says:

    Syrian Government’s Law code on sex offences:

    Dare I say Based. Or not Based at all?

    • notglowing says:

      I notice it does not cover “marital rape”.
      But why do you call this law based?

      • i says:

        Many who cursed Assad were themselves cursed. And those who blessed him are blessed.

        They said Assad must go. But they themselves went. So perhaps God’s favor is on him and his Government.

        There is also a story about Assad receiving fan mail from an admirer. But he threw that email in the trash. Only flirting with lawfully wedded wife.

        Image of the part of the document in question:

        The document is definitely a product of modern morality. Yet not of the GAE because the Syrian Government isn’t GAE.

        • jim says:

          Yes, modern morality, but fifty years behind the times, in that you cannot rape your wife.

          Which is why they made war on Syria. Assad was failing to keep up with the current year.

          Of course, I want to roll things back to 1790-1820 – two centuries behind the current year, not five decades.

          As I have said so many times before, upon receiving a shipload of female criminals, the Australian authorities in the prison colony found themselves in the same position we are going to be in, and their solution to that problem worked great.

          • i says:

            As I have said so many times before, upon receiving a shipload of female criminals, the Australian authorities in the prison colony found themselves in the same position we are going to be in, and their solution to that problem worked great.

            That definitely isn’t universally considered Righteous and Good as of now. But that may change similar to the direction Western culture has been pulling the world right now.

  38. pinochet's ghost says:

    Fascism is a brand of socialism, but “National Socialism” is really a different ideology. The foundation of National Socialism is racial group difference, racial group interest. The foundation of communism is human equality. These are opposing ideas.

    Hitler was an economic leftist, but this was not a necessary feature of the National Socialist system. Economic leftism is a necessary consequence of the belief in human equality.

    Hitler’s socialism was partly political opportunism, partly following the spirit of the age, partly a real ideological belief in redistribution less than total equality, and partly partly an attempt to destroy what you call the FIRE economy because it was, not an economic factor, but a political factor.

    • jim says:

      Socialism is socialism. All socialism is alike. The rhetorical rationales, human equality, racial solidarity, worship of the Awesome and Mighty Covid Demon, worship of the Gaia demon, imminent resource exhaustion, make little difference in practice, they are just the patter of the magician to get you watching the wrong hand, which is why Soros and Zelensky are so comfortable, and Stalin was so comfortable, using the third positionists/Azov brigade.

      • pinochet's ghost says:

        National Socialism explicitly denied the premises of human equality and the desirability of forcing human equality i.e. it was not a holiness spiral towards everyone who owns two cows killing everyone who owns three cows, then everyone who owns one cow killing everyone who owns two cows…

        National Socialism could have become a holiness spiral toward killing every German who does not have an IQ of 140 and an Olympic level aestheticism, a holiness spiral of aristocracy rather than egalitarianism. National Socialism arguably was a holiness spiral toward reducing all other European peoples to level of Herero, including ones favorably inclined to them (Baltics, Ukrainians, many ethnic Russians) and potentially cooptable (French). This is very different than the socialist failure mode.

        • Red says:

          National Socialism explicitly denied the premises of human equality and the desirability of forcing human equality i.e. it was not a holiness spiral towards everyone who owns two cows killing everyone who owns three cows, then everyone who owns one cow killing everyone who owns two cows…

          And yet the Nazies stole when they should have traded and taxed rendering the huge empire they ruled almost useless in terms of actual war production, as is typical for socialism.

          National Socialism was racial socialism, once Germans owned and ran everything then everything would be perfect. Instead foreign factories produced 1/10th the goods they did preconquest, captured people starved as they were not paid for their farm production, etc.

          Communism is Nazism and Nazism is Communism.

          • pinochet's ghost says:

            Every nation in WWII adopted substantially socialist economic policy including the US and UK. That does not make National Socialism foundationally a socialist off-shoot; it was not because it was based in a belief in human inequality.

            • jim says:

              Yes they did. But Hitler’s socialism was not war socialism, but ideological socialism. As a result, the crisis of socialism, running out of other people’s stuff, bit him just when he was launching the attack on Russia, while the crisis of socialism generally bit the other nations around 1949

    • Trump 2024 says:

      Funny document from 1932 in which the nazis whine that Stalin is the real capitalist, boosting themselves to be the real socialists:

      Tune into any episode of Str1ke & Kike, or Teh Dailee Showah, to hear noted Jewish neo-nazi M0ike Enochsen complain about how the modern left/DNC are the real capitalists (“neoliberals”), the real imperialists, the real colonialists (they say this about Israel). Enochsen loves Keynesianism, but hates the American economic system because, 1) it’s not Keynesian enough, 2) he doesn’t control it.

      Enochsen and Ztriker were literal commies 10 years ago.* They swapped out “proletariat” for “Whites,” and “bourgeoisie” for “kikes,” but retained literally everything else about their worldview.

      *M0ike came to neo-nazism from communism by way of libertarianism, then NRx. He did this in his 30s, by the way. What kind of 30-40yo man changes his ideology four times? Talk about consoomer choices!

      • alf says:

        Enochsen and Ztriker were literal commies 10 years ago.* They swapped out “proletariat” for “Whites,” and “bourgeoisie” for “kikes,” but retained literally everything else about their worldview.

        That about sums up today’s nazis.

        • Trump 2024 says:

          Which makes neo-nazism a slave-morality. I think that’s partly why Nietzsche opposed vulgar anti-Semitism.

      • Starman says:

        @Trump 2024

        ”Enochsen and Ztriker were literal commies 10 years ago.* They swapped out “proletariat” for “Whites,” and “bourgeoisie” for “kikes,” but retained literally everything else about their worldview.”

        They also promoted covid lockdowns and the clotshots.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          [*deleted for jab sequelae denial*]

          • jim says:

            There has been a huge rise in young person heart attacks, strokes, and just dropping dead for no apparent reason. These used to be almost unknown, and a very large rise in young person cancers which used to be uncommon. And I am not going to debate the evidence with you because you never debate the evidence, you just say “hail fellow right winger”, and sail right along pushing left wing memes.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              If you’re going to pin your beliefs to data, it’s worth looking at the data, not taking other people’s word for it.
              [*deleted because you do not present any Covid data, and presuppose that what the data shows is radically different from what it in fact shows*]

              • jim says:

                By truthfully telling us the data shows that Covid is not that bad, you imply and presupposed that the data shows the jab is effective.

                What the data shows is that this is an epidemic of the vaccinated. The purebloods catch covid once, recover quickly, very rarely if ever catch it again. The mudbloods catch it over and over again, spread it around to everyone around them, and it lingers, and lingers, causing cumulative damage to heart, lungs, and brain. The claim of the jabbers, truthful enough, was that mudbloods have less serious symptoms, they never claimed that mudbloods were less likely to get the disease, nor that they recovered faster. The mudblood symptoms are less serious because they are failing to mount a vigorous and effective immune response, with the result that the disease hangs around longer, causes more damage to their systems, and they are more likely to infect others.

                When you get sick with the flu, the worst symptoms happen when your immune system has already cleared the virus, and your immune system is now bombing the rubble to make sure that no viruses remain. It is now obvious that this is what the jab “helps” you with.

                The Australian data on vaccination and Covid hospitalization show no purebloods going to hospital with Covid, none. Presumably by now every single pureblood has already been infected by a mudblood, has recovered, and should he show up in hospital for some reason, will not qualify as Covid unless they cook the test.

      • pinochet's ghost says:

        This brochure is excellent.

        The brochure does not defend egalitarianism and communism. It says that communism is a swindle whose real aim is racial decay (true) and that it does not benefit workers (true).

        It says that the Communist Party has been forced to abandon egalitarianism and criticizes them for grounding this decision in pragmatism (“capitalism”) rather than on the National Socialist principle of biological inequality of all human beings.

        “It is significant that Stalin bases this departure from the communist ideal not on the general inequality of human beings, but rather from a purely capitalist perspective.”

        It is not arguing that communism is good and that the Soviet Union is bad because it has abandoned communism. It is arguing that communism is bad and that the Soviet Union is failing, and being forced to adopt capitalism, because communism does not work.

        This excellent brochure does not defend “real communism” against “USSR fake communism”; it defends anti-egalitarianism on grounds that would not only have been illegal in Soviet society, but which are also illegal in GAE society. It says that the shambles of the USSR failing to implement communism is empirical evidence of the truth of anti-egalitarianism.

        • jim says:

          This brochure is stupid, in that its socialism is as foolish and disastrous as the Marxism it condemns.

    • ten says:

      Where in Marx or Lenin do you find human equality? This is shit that nazis as well as commies make up after the fact because it fits current_year.

      Marx in fact talks quite a bit about racial characteristics with a very heavyhanded, non equal evaluation.

      Socialism is socialized, non-oppositional, non-competitive economy.

      Marxism says socialism cannot be realized without the obliteration of the bourgouise class by the hand of the dictatorship of the proletariat, says the international proletariat is the revolutionary subject.

      Leninism says Marxism cannot be realized without the proletariat being forced along the way by a scheming vanguard party.

      Fascism and Nazism and to a significant extent social democracy says marxism failed to deliver on its promises that when the nations collide, the proletariat, the revolutionary subject, will emerge internationally and stop war and create socialism, and thus, there is no great international ally to be found, every nation must by the force of its own socialists enact socialsm.

      Nazism says the jew leninists are ruining socialism, are on the fence about marxism, and says the nation, or maybe the national proletariat, is the revolutionary subject, while making a lot of noise about the greater race.

      If we choose to focus exclusively on the aryan noise and not any of the other stuff, you have a point. I choose not to.

      • Western Taliban says:

        This is some excellent posting, thank you.

        Nazis truly are retarded socialists who claim the jews are ruining socialism, really good way to put it.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          The real ‘red pill’ of the jQ is that jews run capitalism AND communism.

          Once you see that the evil usurer and the evil commissar are brothers who both love Israel, life gets a lot simpler.

          • jim says:

            It is absolutely obvious that the evil usurer hates Israel and seeks to destroy it. Observe Soros.

            The Jews don’t run capitalism. They have grossly disproportionate influence in the quasi state sectors (finance, insurance, and media) but are largely irrelevant to actual production. They don’t run capitalism. They run the government’s meddling in capitalism. Even less did the Jews run communism. Not a Jew in sight in Mao’s China.

            By 1932, the Jews were out of power in communist Russia.

            The communist revolution and 1906 revolution in Russia was run by Jews, probably funded by the money of the Rothschild’s depositors. When the depositors asked to see their money, the Rothschilds were run out of banking and out of power, and, by an interesting coincidence, two years later the Jews were entirely out of power in Russia, which is why I suspect Rothschild money, or rather the missing money of Rothschild depositors, at work in Russia.

          • pinochet's ghost says:

            This guy is giving a dumb pastiche of my position

          • ten says:

            Didn’t this guy use to have smarter scripts? Did he go even more insane during covid? High school nazi awakening. Sad!

            • jim says:

              He has tried a variety of scripts. And you have not seen the worst.

              I keep indulging him because he seems to have more creative freedom than most of the shill material. Less repetitious.

    • Upravda says:

      Human equality is certainly NOT in the foundations of communism.

      Yes, it was adopted afterwards by some communists, under some circumstances, but comrades Marx and Engels were very eager to divide entire nations into “revolutionary” and “counter-revolutionary” buckets.

      Croats especially and South Slavs generally were “counter-revolutionary”. Because they were against Viennese and Hungarian “revolutions”. Germans and Hungarians were “revolutionary”. Regarding Poles and Russians – it depended. Many Poles were Hungarian sympathizers back then so – “revolutionary”, unless Russians also prove themselves as “revolutionaries” and in that case Poles should be “repressed”.

      Scots, Welsh, Irish – all of them were “counter-revolutionary” peoples.

      And proposed solutions for dealing with “counter-revolutionary” peoples was – genocide. Comrade Marx has even explicitly proposed so.

      • Trump 2024 says:

        The communist end state is egalitarian. Leftists of all stripes believe man was created equal, but is temporarily unequal because of environmental factors, such factors they are determined to level.

        The Marxist dialectic affords the Marxist propagandist the rhetorical means to argue whatever policy the party chooses. George Floyd is a saint who only failed at life cos oppressed by whitey. Clarence Thomas is a stupid nigger rapist who became a SC justice due to a vast right-wing conspiracy.

        • Upravda says:

          When saying “state”, there are two meanings in English:
          1. Country. Republic of Ragusa, for example, or Bundesrepublik Deutschland.
          2. Condition(s) of being. For example, “egalitarian”, or “alive”, or “dead”.

          According to fantasies of comrade Marx, end state of communism is “stateless” as in “countryless”. And to achieve that state, as in “condition of being”, one has to cancel kulaks, bourgeoisie, class enemies, etc. A goal that obviously can not be achieved without state power. That is, power of a “proletarian state”. That also implicitly means that NOT all people are equal, because there ARE kulaks, bourgeoisie, etc., so proletarian state must MAKE them equal.

          Murdering the dissenters, if necessary.

          I’m still flabbergasted how propaganda about achieving supposed “equality” was successful in two ways:
          1. By presuming that “equality” is always good! It isn’t, but 98% of people out there thinks it is.
          2. By masquerading the means needed to achieve “equality”, pretending it will happen without killing, and sweeping under the carpet millions of real dead people who stood on the way to equality.

          But, after you accept that “equality” is always good, and that achieving it is the highest and noblest goal in front of mankind, then naturally follows that all means to achieve that are acceptable.

          So, the point of communist end state as “egalitarian” does not, and did not withhold them at all from killing people and regarding current people as unequal. So, most of the time, people are unequal because they are kulaks, bourgeoisie, you name it. Sometimes they are unequal because they are niggers, or white niggers, or Russians, or Poles, or Scots, you name it.

        • Adam says:

          >The communist end state is egalitarian. Leftists of all stripes believe man was created equal,

          They most certainly do not believe that, nor act like they believe that. They say that, as it is the means for doing what they are doing.

          • Red says:

            They most certainly do not believe that, nor act like they believe that. They say that, as it is the means for doing what they are doing.

            It is in fact the entire basis for their there system before they started adopting National POCism in the 2000s. Today they view POCs as the master race and whites the Jews that must be exterminated in order for the master race to flourish.

            • Adam says:

              Not seeing many shitlib whites moving next door to Tyrone. Seeing a great deal of whites cross the road to avoid a group of suspect male blacks.

              Even among the “true believers” you find consistently people looking for status, looking to serve themselves at someone else’s expense. Leftism is a rejection of the burden of performance, and an embrace of selfish desire.

              If I were to say leftists believe what they say, that would validate the incongruity between their words and actions. So I say their beliefs are not what they say. What they say their beliefs are is the rationalization for what they do.

              • Javier says:

                Yes and no. A thriving business for awhile was to take a foreclosed ghetto house from the 2008 crash, fix up the interior really nice, and sell it to unsuspecting suburban whites. They just don’t know any better. Then after their house gets robbed four times in one month, some of them wise up and reconsider their beliefs, but a some do adopt doublethink. They keep espousing their liberal nonsense, but quietly move far away from blacks without acknowledging why.

                I know one guy who was a true believer. He raised his daughter in the ghetto, she was knocked up with a mulatto baby. Black dad vanishes in a flash, dude raises the niglet himself. Granddaughter matures noticeably faster than white girls. I mean she’s in middle school and all the other girls look like kids, and she has big boobs, narrow waist, curvy hips. Easily looks 2-4 years older than she is. I remember seeing this and pointing it out to another acquaintance, like holy shit doesn’t X’s granddaughter look way older than 12? People would pretend like they didn’t hear me. At a young age she gets pregnant with another ghetto trash spawn, black dad vanishes yet again. Guy is going to be a great-granddad in his 50s raising another niglet spawn.

                I remember running into him at a party and he looked like he had been hit by a truck. He did everything “right” and none of it worked out the way he was told. It was clear he was devastated by the total failure of all his beliefs, yet lacked any framework or understanding as to why.

                Jim explained this. The first people cynically use a belief for power, but the later generations take it as a tenet of faith. They fail to get the joke.

        • ten says:

          These are tenets of americanism communism, liberalism, progressivism, not of marxism or its bastards. Americanism has killed its competitors and are trying out their corpses for wear, filling the husks with its own corruption.

          “When we reach la-la-land everyone will be equal” vs “we will have a great leader in la-la-land and it’s just for aryans” isn’t a very useful differentiation between communism and nazism (communists and nazis agree that it is very instrumental though, because they are very concerned with la-la-land.)

      • pinochet's ghost says:

        Foundational absolute human equality is implicit in the Labor Theory of Value (one hour of my time and effort produces exactly the same value as one hour of anyone else’s time and effort). If you remove this theory of value, the entire Marxist intellectual structure collapses.

        The National Socialists wanted to give all Germans “whose life is worthy of life” a decent material living standard, but they never asserted this equality of labor value. They asserted that humans are fundamentally unequal.

        • jim says:

          Yes, and this led to some disasters specific to Marxism, notably Mao’s great leap forward. Supposedly producing steel did not need someone who knew how to make steel, nor any special equipment that only experts could create.

          But on the whole, not much difference. The killing fields of the one were much like the killng fields of the other.

          • pinochet's ghost says:

            The killing fields of the National Socialists were in other peoples’ countries, containing other countries’ subjects.

            The killing fields of the communists were in their own countries, containing their own subjects.

            A concentration camp is of course always a socialist economy in microcosm. Even Victorian England under Manchester Capitalism produced socialist killing fields when it tried to implement concentration camps during the Boer War.

            • jim says:

              The killing fields of the Nazis were the concentration camps, which did not have gas chambers, but nonetheless had the usual death rate of socialism.

              • pinochet's ghost says:

                My implication by comparison to the Boer War camps is that concentration camps routinely produce starvation and disease because they are socialist economies in microcosm. This is generic to all countries because the concentration camp has a socialist economy regardless of the general economic system of the country operating them. They produce acceptable conditions for inmates only with drastically enormous funding by a wealthy society, as we see today with prisoners costing more to house than the median income in developed countries.

                You wrote that “The killing fields of the one were much like the killng fields of the other.” If you were a German, you were much less likely to die in a German concentration camp than a Russian was to die in a Soviet concentration camp. If there had been no war, no reason to suppose any mass deaths due to concentration camp failures in National Socialism.

                • Kunning Druegger says:

                  The need for the concentration camp at all is the issue here, as I see it. Socialist problems suggest socialist solutions which create more socialist problems requiring even more socialist solutions. It is an ouroboros of faggotry. If extermination is required, the cominator solution is needed, and it should be done until it is Done with no excuses, streamlining, cost cutting, or economizing. I know we have joked about camps, but those are jokes, and if ever comes the day where we move from Theory to Practice, I will make it my life’s work to forestall the mistake of Concentration Camps.

                  What is needed is Summer Camp. This is a destination that you go to because mommy and daddy are too busy doing important stuff to deal with your bullshit. Summer Camp is an exciting opportunity filled with adventures and diversions that doesn’t last forever. Their are counselors to monitor activities, teach lessons, and sing songs around bonfires. There’s a camp director that selects the theme of each season and maintains good order. And there are the “kids” that get sent to summer camp by “mommy” (society) and “daddy” (government) because they are too busy doing important things to worry about the “kid’s” bullshit.

                  The “kids” will arrive by bus or plane to a remote, austere, and beautiful location, far removed from normal habitation. The “kids” will be divide into teams based on the selected theme, assigned a cabin and bunkmates, and given a program detailing the schedule of events and Rules of the Road. After a brief Welcoming Ceremony, they will head off and make themselves at home. meals are provided and participation is mandatory. medical care is minimal yet adequate. The games and activities all have point values, and the “kids” must strive to earn points for their teams, which can be gained by Bible memorization, competitive success, valuable contributions to Summer Camp Atmosphere, and works of art. minimum violations of the rules result in demerits, the accrual of which will eventually result in maximum violations, and maximum violations result in the “long hike,” which is when a “kid” sets out on the last great adventure, a scenic walk into the unknown and a new tomorrow, never to return, and they will be immortalized on the Wall of Remembering.

                  Summer Camp is a challenge and an opportunity for the “kids” that get sent there. They will arrive for a specific reason, and most of them will spend the rest of their lives in an eternal summer, learning lessons, playing games, winning points, and eventually taking the long hike. Some may become counselors, and a very few might get called home by “mommy” or “daddy.” What they won’t do is sit around ands starve, or be tortured needlessly, or be deployed as dumb labor for pointless enterprise. Summer Camp is about Learning, Growth, Adventure, and Fun! Most who arrive will not even be able to recall anything before, and those who are opposed to Fun, Adventure, growth, and Learning will spend the rest of their days “hiking.”

                  Concentration camps are pointless, and reactionaries detest pointless things. Summer Camp is not pointless, it’s an adventure! It may even be the greatest adventure, a Final Solution to pointlessness!

              • The Cominator says:

                The nazis peculiar hybrid mythical superrace socialism (not that Northern whites arent potentially the greatest race but one small country of them cant fight the rest of the world) also led for them to end up in a war with the rest of the world.

                I would argue Hitlers holiness spiral manifested primarily in declaring war on the Soviet Union then the US prematurely AND then in the end the “Demolitions on Reich Territory” order in 1945.

  39. Fireball says:

    This really ruffles my feathers. Nazism and communism aren’t the same thing and the same is true for american progressivism. This can been seen in the success that each had.

    Saying that all are socialism and end up in misery is true but isn’t saying much. All three are different reactions to the wealth of the industrial revolution and having merchants and industrialist wealthier and higher status than the intellectuals/priests but at the same time not being able to kill them.

    Not that you are wrong about this age. GAE won so progressives won so there are no longer actual nazis or communists both are just ghosts puppeteer by GAE.

    • jim says:

      > Nazism and communism aren’t the same thing

      Not only do I not care much about the differences, but Stalin, Zelensky, and Soros do not either. Soros and Stalin were fine using the third positionists, and Soros and Zelensky are fine using the Azov brigade. Putin does not know or much care whether he should call the Azov brigade communists or fascists.

      I seem to have a whole lot of company thinking like I do.

      • Fireball says:

        Stalin would use anybody if he was able, zelensky is a puppet, soros is a crossing of a ram and atm and is much like stalin and putin has the problem of pointing to evil and try to make people to understand that indeed is fucking evil.

        And for me a computer is a computer and i dont care about the tiny bits of it as long it does what i want.

    • Trump 2024 says:

      Some people call China “fascist.” I heard Douglas Macgregor say this last week. President Xi, the General Secretary of the Chinese Communist Party, however, identifies as a communist.

      He said, in 2021:

      “We must continue to adapt Marxism to the Chinese context. Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and country are founded; it is the very soul of our Party and the banner under which it strives. The Communist Party of China upholds the basic tenets of Marxism and the principle of seeking truth from facts. Based on China’s realities, we have developed keen insights into the trends of the day, seized the initiative in history, and made painstaking explorations. We have thus been able to keep adapting Marxism to the Chinese context and the needs of our times, and to guide the Chinese people in advancing our great social revolution. At the fundamental level, the capability of our Party and the strengths of socialism with Chinese characteristics are attributable to the fact that Marxism works.”

      In this passage we can see Xi saying in very plain & simple language, repeatedly, that he is a Marxist and a communist. You will deny this, of course. You will respond with, “but China has markets, China has capitalism, China has billionaires.” As Moldbug once quipped, you don’t know anything about communism! The dialectic allows for such hypocrisy.

      “You see, fool, we have to have billionaires! Our billionaires are the contradictions of capitalism working themselves out in history! These are the results of the late stage that we are liberating you from. Our billionaires are actually proletariat! You are too uneducated to understand this, reactionary scum! We are liberating the profits of your slave labor so that our children can buy penthouses in Melbourne!”

      Anyway, who is right? Macgregor that China is fascist, the president of China that China is communist, or Jim that it’s both?

      And which side are American progs on? They loved China when Mao was bathing in rivers in blood, and they continue to rape China for all its worth, whilst signaling that their patience is running out with China because the Chinese revolution has ossified.

      • Fireball says:

        Are you actually talking to me or your imagination?

        • Trump 2024 says:

          You wrote:

          “there are no longer actual…communists”

          I responded by providing evidence that there is an actual communist running China.

          Cue you responding with how the president of China has a false consciousness…

          • Fireball says:

            China isn’t communist. China is China and i am not sure if they even know what they are.

            What they end up being is what they always were, legalists but with some communistic characteristics.

            Yeah some elements of the of the CCP are still kinda communist but some parts of catholic church are still kinda catholic.

            • Trump 2024 says:


              Again, Chairman Xi, 2021:

              “Marxism is the fundamental guiding ideology upon which our Party and country are founded; it is the very soul of our Party and the banner under which it strives.

              The Communist Party of China upholds the basic tenets of Marxism and the principle of seeking truth from facts…

              At the fundamental level, the capability of our Party and the strengths of socialism with Chinese characteristics are attributable to the fact that Marxism works.”

              • Fireball says:

                I understand you come from what it use to be a very high trust society but you really shouldn’t take what people say at face value it is bad for the health.

                • Trump 2024 says:

                  When Xi Jinping says “Marxism works” and is China’s “fundamental guiding ideology,” he is lying?

                  What purpose would such a lie serve? What motivates him to lie in this way? His Chinkiness? The fact that he is a communist (self-defeating argument)? I am quoting his words. The burden of proof as to why his words are bad faith falls upon you.

                  Please explain to us the secret meaning of, Marxism “is the very soul of our Party and the banner under which it strives.”

                  People who say communist countries aren’t communist are usually communists, and are angry that communist countries aren’t sufficiently communist.

                  Talk about false consciousness!

                • Fidelis says:

                  Xi is not lying so much as using words that mean nothing in particular. What is marxism? Whatever Xi wants it to be. It’s synthesizing a verbal flag to rally behind, not a policy to implement.

                • Kunning Drueger says:


                  Maybe so, but do you think the next generation will understand that subtlety, or will they just imagine an unbroken line between Marx, Mao, and the Moment?

                  Our world is plagued by two tendencies: leaving unsaid what goes without saying, and failing to understand why the quiet part is more important than the loud part.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  >When Xi Jinping says “Marxism works” and is China’s “fundamental guiding ideology,” he is lying?

                  Xi Jinping canonized Deng and “socialism with Chinese characteristics.” What Xi is doing is speaking between the lines as per Chinese Confucian traditions.

                  >Maybe so, but do you think the next generation will understand that subtlety

                  5000 years of living with “pointing at a deer and calling it a horse” while maintaining sanity selects for people who not only understand subtlety, but can only communicate via subtlety.

                • jim says:

                  I see the opposite. Chinese cannot hear that which cannot be said, while whites can. Whites are better than anyone at hearing that which cannot be said, Jews come in second, and everyone else trails behind, except high caste dot Indians (distinctly white looking dot Indians) who are pretty good at it.

                  Hearing that which cannot be said is, as Scott Alexander pointed out, hard, and often very smart people are very bad at it. But whites are less bad at it than the rest.

                  I don’t think Chinese are good at subtlety at all. You really have to spell stuff out for them. They are worse at it than the other high Asian races like the Vietnamese and the Koreans. They are inscrutable because alien, not because subtle.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  >I don’t think Chinese are good at subtlety at all.

                  I mean subtle as in indirect, and all East Asians (Chinese, Koreans, Japanese) are really indirect. How are you using the word subtle?

                  The eastern philosophical tradition tolerates contradictions despite recognizing them. That differs from the western tradition of disliking paradoxes where they recognize a contradiction and reject it.

                  The Chinese can hear that which cannot be said; however, they are publicly nonreactive as they opt to go with the flow (Evola is thinking Eastern with ride the tiger mentality). The Whites can also hear that which cannot be said, but are much more apt to openly rage that truth cannot be openly said.

                  >Whites are better than anyone at hearing that which cannot be said

                  You can measure this by looking at White flight from Black crime. The places some Whites are fleeing to are the same as where some East Asians are fleeing to. East Asians have the same flight patterns as the Whites with similar rates of fleeing. Both groups know that “bad neighborhoods” mean niggers. Both groups will profess their anti-racist progressive beliefs while actively avoiding niggers, even the domesticated ones.

                  It’s the Jews that decide to linger around “bad neighborhoods” and get all shocked when they find out how much the Blacks hate them while living in paranoid delusion thinking the Evangelicals are out to genocide them. They are significantly worse than Hispanics in that regard.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  >You really have to spell stuff out for them.
                  >They are inscrutable because alien, not because subtle.

                  You are coming from low context language and culture (American English) trying to communicate with high context language and cultures. That’s extremely challenging going both ways. The subtlety is culture dependent, so you missed it.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  China is a Communist country. This has nothing to do with whether it’s actual economy is communist or not.
                  It is Communist because it is ruled by The Communist Party.

                  It all makes sense once you understand that big-C Communism is all about The Party, and said party has two directives:
                  1) Get into power
                  2) Stay in power FOREVER!

                  Everything else they say or do is just a means towards those ends.

                • FrankNorman says:

                  Jim, regarding the topic of East-Asians not getting the unspoken vs them not hearing our unspoken and we not hearing theirs…

                  What about the Japanese? I’ve been given to understand that they are masters of the polite understatement, of saying indirectly what they will not say directly.

    • ten says:

      Merchants were wealthy for thousands of years before the industrial revolution. Suddenly there was more to go around, meaning greater incentive to come up with smert reasons to grab some of the goodies.

      The core of socialism is that economic activities in opposition, competing with each other, is antisocial, because one’s loss is the other’s gain, and that it would be better if all economic activity would become socialized.

      If i spend my energy sabotaging you because i am mad you are competing with me and eating into my margins, everyone who partakes in the systems we partake in loses. Such things occur occasionally. But i will of course weaken my own position in the process, and i and everyone else willfully engaging in lose-lose dynamics diminish while those who avoid it do not – unless i have backing by power, which is the situation socialism actually ends up in.

      Various strains of socialism vary in how they plan to achieve this but every effort has the same effect of economic strangulation.

    • Wolf says:

      A great way to put it. It’s interesting that the military lost even more status to the merchants but submitted meekly. You get the occasional military junta order but they don’t really know what to do with power and tend to give it up quickly.

  40. BobtheBuilder says:

    Anything specifically wrong with Franco, aside from his failure to secure succession? The guy seems like a good example of 20th century restoration: kept his country out of the war, established a national church, industrialized without negatively impacting fertility, enforced patriarch power, etc. Even outflanked the Falangists by letting them go fight for funny mustache man.

    • jim says:

      Franco initially tried socialism, did not work, backed off, introduced a quite sound economic policy, which however left him without a political ideology. The national church was not such as to make francoism permanent. He did sound things, but they were unprincipled exceptions, and his enemies were well funded by the anglosphere, which was equipped with an ideology that Franco no longer had. Same problem as Lee Kuan Yew. He did sound things ad hoc, but there was no principle, no faith, no vision, behind them.

      • A2 says:

        What the modern and mercantile Lee Kuan Yew might have missed is making his de facto ruling family official. Nearby Thailand has had a reasonably stable royal family of midling power for a long time. Quite possibly he should have added a state religion to that, completing the natural and human-centered Throne and Altar.

        Do stay friends with all the giant revolutionary empires though.

        • Fidelis says:

          He would have had to do such a thing in a very clever way, in a way that is hidden in plain sight to our common enemy. Not sure that was possible. Any living monarchy is an unprincipled exception and any faith outside active demon worship is considered verboten, will get you murdered for successful promotion. At the time, China was actively an enemy to S’pore success, trying to converge them to the specific flavor of communism they had. Russia as USSR I don’t think would be too interested in a trade port in a strait they would find impossible to hold, nor supporting a budding divine monarchy.

          No friends, too many enemies to count, LKY I believe did not have the option to do much more than make his people wealthy.

    • Upravda says:

      My thoughts exactly – why would Franco be considered a socialist?

      I see that Jim responded, but nevertheless I do not think that Franco was ever a socialist, not even close. A rarity in those – and these – times. And yes, he even outflanked fascists among his supporters. In an elegant way, without any blood spilled.

      I mean, when exactly and how did Franco “try socialism”? Also, those sound things that supposedly were “unprincipled exceptions” – what were they, exactly?

      Yes, other things you describe, as ultimately weak “national” church, and enemies well funded by foreign parties are correct, but I wouldn’t consider his politics being without principles, faith, or vision.

      Post-frankist Spain was simply overwhelmed with then (and now!) still mighty progressivism, enemy with too big of a soft power to resist.

      Although, they were still independent enough to reject covid ausweis, IIRC.

      • A2 says:

        Franco didn’t eradicate the leftists, who scurried forth in force after his death. Probably his greatest mistake. Then again, they were presumably supported by the US so how far can you go without triggering a humanitarian intervention?

        The symbol of his defeat might have been in sending the future king to the Kennedy School of Government to be educated. Juan Carlos I came back a fully certified believer in democracy, quickly nullifying what had gone before.

        • Upravda says:

          “Eradicating leftism” is mostly question of defeating mindrot virus. You know, Havel’s greengrocer and all that. I mean, yes, you can cominate/ helicopter leftist/ progressive leaders, leaving greengrocer alone, but it will be in vain if the source of mindrot infection is outside your borders – and you just decided to ally yourself with that source of infection instead of erecting walls.

          And that is precisely what post-francoist Spain did. Probably because Harvard progressives didn’t seem so much of a threat back than compared to Soviet commies.

          Taking them lightly was the biggest mistake of both Franco and Juan Carlos. So it is not even that Franco failed to secure succession. He actually did. However, successor proved himself as not being particularly good ruler.

          • i says:

            Which means that ideological conquest will have to be Global by definition. In order to stamp the mindrot out.

            • Upravda says:

              Not necessarily. A good, sturdy and high wall will do. 🙂

              In the mean time, you have to:
              1. Provide good enough life for your people. Preferably noticeable better than for people from the ideologically opposed side,
              2. Be able to trumpet your good enough life to a wide range of foreign countries. If so, enemies will spend more times trying to be like you, and less trying to scheme against you.

              In short, you have to achieve and display soft power. So that people prefer Reaction over Progressiveness. Both your people, and those in distant lands. For those who do not, erect walls, real or metaphorical.

              Americans have masterfully employed both tactics since the end of WW2 up until early 21st century. And they weren’t the only one in history, far from that, Imperial Rome was similar. And many others.

              Before WW2, in 19th century it was cool and fashionable to have good ole king, and not some republic. So all nations that gained independence up until 1905 became monarchies, from Hellas to Norway. ‘Cause almost all of the other cool countries were also monarchies.

              If Croatia gained independence in 19th century, it would be a kingdom. We gained independence in the American Century so we are republic. For now.

          • The Cominator says:

            The other problem is Franco based his regime off an alliance with the Catholic Church, but the Roman Catholic Church has never been a right wing force (since it ideally holds that the gaypope and his gay priests should have ultimate rule of the earth, with nations only governing some of their own affairs on sufferance) no matter how much online right wing Catholics want it to be and it moved WAY left.

      • Western Taliban says:

        I mean, when exactly and how did Franco “try socialism”? Also, those sound things that supposedly were “unprincipled exceptions” – what were they, exactly?

        First 20 years of his regime, which were the worst the country has seen in centuries. The Plan of Estabilización itself was an unprincipled exception reluctantly accepted by Franco out of necessity at the time, though his eventual endorsement of Carrero Blanco and his subversion of the Falange indicates to me he had learned his lesson, to finally forsake the retarded socialists/fascists and their small brains.

        The only thing Franco seemed to have going for him was the fact that he was a real human being like you and me, a real soldier, and not an evil psychopathic demon worshiper like what we suffer today. It’s actually that easy to rule Europeans who have been culturally civilized by kings for centuries, you just get out of the way and unleash the cops on the anti-social garbage, the nation thrives “on its own”.

        • Upravda says:

          First twenty years? Are you sure?

          I mean, it seems that first and a half decade was hard because of:
          A) civil war devastation
          B) WW2 that erupted afterwards, disrupting world economy and trade
          C) self-imposed autarky
          D) Allies’ refrain from doing business with Spain

          Then, improvement became to be noticeable, not the least because of reasons similar to Chile under Pinochet – the warrior let merchants to be merchants.

          Except maybe reason C, and just maybe, I do not see any socialism in causes A to D of Spain’s economic woes.

          On the other hand, I do know of a Spanish miracle, which started with the Plan of Estabilización you mention. It seems that many Spanish companies leading The Miracle were majority state-owned, and that is socialist-ish, but who cares – if you appoint leaders as king would appoint feudal lords?

          Anyway, I wouldn’t say that Spain was more socialist under Franco than, say, Great Britain during same times.

          • Western Taliban says:

            Yes, twenty years, since the end of the war in 1939 until the Plan de Estabilización. This is somewhat of a formal denomination for this time period for the regime, it’s also the formal “dictadura” compared to the “dictablanda” of the following years and the milagro económico, but it’s true it might be more like 1956 or 1957, in fact food rationing ended in 1952 and prices and trade began to be partially liberalized, it wasn’t completely abrupt.

            I don’t know why would you write B and C points right next to each other, they’re evidently contradictory.

            You probably talk about this self-imposed autarky with mild disregard because you don’t understand what it meant. This autarky was socialism that claimed the country had to produce certain amount of X things regardless of economic efficiency or cost and ruled the entire country by hardcore totalitarianism, with the pretense to have everything regulated and intervened to the minimal detail. In agriculture, the SNT regulated the prices and controlled every aspect of it: production, consumption and trade. They would requisition certain crops at very cheap prices, even below costs, leading to collapse of production and farmers to look for alternative non-intervened crops that people can’t eat anyway, so the country starves. This is socialist produced starvation 101, even the French Revolution was similar to that situation.

            Of course, points A and D are truthful to a degree, but not nearly as influential as you believe. Spain didn’t suffer more than countries like France, actually it suffered far less destruction. The brainlets in the Falange made claims such as “economic freedom led to the conflict of the civil war”, i.e. merchants made the war happen, loot and murder the merchants.

            You said it yourself:

            Then, improvement became to be noticeable, not the least because of reasons similar to Chile under Pinochet – the warrior let merchants to be merchants.

            Warriors trying to dictate the economy to merchants at gunpoint is socialism, letting the merchants be merchants would be capitalism.

            It seems that many Spanish companies leading The Miracle were majority state-owned, and that is socialist-ish, but who cares – if you appoint leaders as king would appoint feudal lords?

            If you “regulate” everything, of course the only thing left remaining is “regulated” stuff. What you are calling miracle is the result of less socialism, plain and simple.

            • Pseudo-Chrysostom says:

              More precisely, socialism is when a sect of fallen priest-likes try to arrange for everyone’s capital to be at their disposal. And often more broadly for every sphere of Life possible to be subject to their micromanagement in general – usually while dissimulating the fact that there is in fact a religious sect that is in fact exercising such power.

              This is sometimes done up with more militarist window dressing, but which is comparatively rare, since the antipriest bears an instinctive fear and hatred of genuine warrior caste men, and compulsively seeks to defang any potential of an organized military force to exercise any kind of power, as commonly seen in soviet, eurocrat, and american unitarian forms of socialism. To the extent that the warrior leaning aesthetics are genuine, it often likewise accords with the extent of the classic Warrior attitude of simply leaving the bother of their tenant’s affairs to themselves, and collecting a tithe of protection money every now and then.

              • jim says:

                Yes, the evil warrior is far less likely to get up his subject’s noses that the evil high priest. If money is coming in, then why fix what is not broken?

              • Western Taliban says:

                Yes I agree, that’s part of the reason why eventually things changed.

                My impression of the whole situation is this:

                Franco was a real soldier, a real warrior, who knew war and liked to fight on the front line atop of his horse with his troops. He had combat scars gotten because he exposed himself just like that, so the morale and loyalty he commanded from his troops was of course very high.

                The initial architects of the uprising were fascists and nazis but he took over with his commanding presence and competence throughout the war. The so called “uprising” was just, he was one of the people who lived through the whole ordeal him being the general who shut down the first attempt at revolutionary socialism in Asturias, so he ultimately decided that indeed the red shitters with their murder of priests and nuns had to go, finally he joined. However, after all was said and done he had a war faction composed of many different types of people, from fascists who talked about social justice to hardcore reactionary Carlists.

                Because he had to get help from Germany and Italy to win, the fascist leftist faction had way too much influence at the beginning, but there was little he could do about it considering the circumstances. To begin with Franco didn’t like to rule civilians, he didn’t like politics, he was kinda riding the tiger and trying to make the best out of it for the sake of his country.

                As the years passed the failures and incompetence of the fascists became more clear and patent and altogether with the progression of WWII, Franco was able to hollow them out and unmake them without triggering a dangerous situation.

                I personally believe he wanted to do it since the very beginning, otherwise he wouldn’t have made Carrero Blanco his right hand man in 1940. The problem is that he just had no overall vision at all, and him and Carrero Blanco made a mistake with Juan Carlos I. They were up against peak American Global Empire so it was very difficult too, but they were at least partially aware of the situation considering Carrero Blanco was pushing to obtain nuclear weapons to safeguard sovereignty. He was most likely murdered by the State Department, it was allegedly ETA, but based on documents from Wikileaks and the coincidental meeting with Kissinger around that time practically on the same street makes one wonder. Well, that’s if ETA wasn’t straight up CIA made, they certainly had no problem doing such things in South America.

                • Upravda says:

                  I tend to agree with your assessment of Franco. Except I’ve always thought that primary force behind the uprising were Carlists and such. And I still don’t see why he would be a socialist. Inhibited by Falange? Probably. Ignorant of economics? Sure thing! But given a chance, he did right things eventually.

                • Western Taliban says:

                  The Carlists had some weight in the north, but ultimately were only a relatively small faction and joined reluctantly after Sotelo got murdered. Mola wanted a Republican Tricolor gay flag and government and he was obsessed with jews, nothing else needs to be said.

                  Whether Franco was a convinced socialist or not at the beginning it doesn’t matter. We’ll never know what he truly was, but the fact that initially he implemented socialism remains true, and the fact that he didn’t apply his policies based on a structured vision is also true.

    • Karl says:

      Woudn’t say that Franco failed to secure succession. It’s more that his successor didn’t secure succession. But then again Admiral-General Luis Carrero Blanco didn’t have much time to do so as he was murdered within a month of Franco’s death.

  41. Nds says:

    I want more pussy. tips?

    • jim says:

      The question implies you are an involuntary celibate who is unfamiliar with game, because you are not using our shibboleths, nor PUA shibboleths.

      This is not a game blog. You will get considerably better information elsewhere. But I have some information that might prove useful.

    • Trump 2024 says:

      Observe Prince Harry, and do the opposite, unless, of course, you’re a SIMP of poor breeding and bad taste, like he.

      • A2 says:

        Harry’s breeding should be immaculate, so perhaps it indicates his mum had an affair with that guardsman after all.

        At this point, one can only have an incredulous, disgusted smile at what he’s doing. But obviously someone likes it quite a bit, given all the media attention and money flowing in.

        • Trump 2024 says:

          Only the most devoted “slay queen!” shitlibs are in support. Others are hate reading/watching. The media is democratic, thus they will naturally support this minstrel show. But I’ve been really encouraged to see the outpouring of scorn for the Sussexes.

          I’ve come to the conclusion that the Windsors allowed all this in order to see Harry self-destruct, thus be rid of him.

          It’s all a punching down. Britain lost their empire to USG 80 years ago, so Harry thinks he is jumping over to the winners’ table, but who, now and in the long run, has kept his dignity, and who’s stock rises every day?

          Going on the tele with a Vanderbilt makes Harry king for a day, but William will be the King of England.

          • Pax Imperialis says:

            It was Harry’s way of spiting the family. He’s always been an embarrassment and he’s been so by consistent deliberate action.

            >Windsors allowed all this in order to see Harry self-destruct, thus be rid of him.

            Not much one can do when dealing with a person willing to cut off their own nose in order to spite their own face. I’m pretty sure Harry would be a lot less self destructive if the media wasn’t breathlessly reporting on his every action.

        • pinochet's ghost says:

          Why is a British guard officer so unintelligent?

          If officers were smarter, we may have fewer problems.

        • Pax Imperialis says:


          A possibility, but also keep in mind that Harry comes from the same family that saw Edward VIII running off with an American women of highly questionable morals. Guy even abdicated the throne to marry her. Looks like Harry is a chip off the old block.

    • A2 says:

      It’s very easy: get married.

    • Upravda says:

      Get married.

      Preferably with woman kind enough and pretty enough to be able to put pink goggles on your eyes as you both get older.

      And don’t let her mould you.

  42. Make Weimar Great Again says:

    The National Socialist German Workers Party were cousins of the CCCP.

    “Fascism should rightly be called corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power.”

    Benito Mussolini

    • Pax Imperialis says:

      >merger of corporate and government power

      Which is a euphemism for nationalization. The extent of which varied based on internal party politics, but had the Strasserites in Germany gotten their way would have involved Soviet style command economy. They didn’t because they were purged.

      I’m not sure if you are disagreeing with what jim said and do not understand what you quoted, or you’re agreeing and are adding supporting evidence.

      What are you even trying to say with the user name? Is it being ironic or are you actually serious. Both the name and comment are sending mixed messages that even I, a DoD fed land brat of confucian doublespeak origins, am have problems extracting the ambiguous meaning from.

      Apologies to KD, Red, PC, jim. this must be how it feel when trying to understand what ever the fuck I wrote.

      • A2 says:

        The FDR era was more like state dominance over business and society. I’d classify the US of today as corporatist. Deep state and big business in a sweet embrace. Blended together but not quite the same.

        • Pax Imperialis says:

          >The FDR era was more like state dominance over business
          Via committees and thus nothing worked well. Not so different from the Soviet industry ruled by committee. It was only with WW2 that committee power was relaxed and the US got out of the Great Depression.

          >Deep state and big business in a sweet embrace. Blended together but not quite the same.
          In effect, nationalization. Corporatism is nationalization. The extent of which varies based on internal party politics.

    • pinochet's ghost says:

      This topic sure has attracted a lot of previously unknown posters who all want you to not look at National Socialism.

      What is valuable in National Socialism is not the uniforms and symbols which are now toxic but the tactical and strategic insight they had enabling them to turn a small regional party in a disarmed, Fabianized country into the state church of a potential world empire.

      • jim says:

        Their tactical and strategic insight resulted in the Nazis losing hard. Learn from the winners, not from the losers, learn from the belief system that gave us science, technology, industrialization, and empire, not the ideology that brought famine, defeat (in that order) and got them demonized forever.

        Nazism was successful in that it sold to the masses, and only in that it sold to the masses: Because people were hungry, socialism (lets take the food of those well fed people) sold. Today, everyone has more than enough to eat, but no one has virgin pussy. Nobody wants the means of production any more. They want the means of reproduction. Socialism does not sell any more.

        What the Taliban was selling, virgin wives, children, and grandchildren, sold. Nobody is buying socialism these days.

        • pinochet's ghost says:

          Wars are not board games with balanced teams so the fact they ultimately lost does not mean their tactics and strategy were bad, or even worse than those who won.

          They did far more (almost everything) with what they had (almost nothing) than Donald J Trump or anybody else since.

          If people are hungry, maybe feeding them is a good idea. Why shouldn’t we feed “our guys,” especially when they work and fight? The [Marxist] Social Democratic government – as the National Socialists pointed out – did not mind much if these people did not eat, because they were in fact not “their guys.” Just as our Progressive empire of human rights today does not mind very much when a productive salaryman is hooked into opioids by a doctor and overdoses a few years later.

          What you are saying – to discern the substance of what worked rather than copying the form – is very smart. The substance of National Socialism is not food redistribution, but the self-interested collective action of a racial group.

          • jim says:

            > Wars are not board games with balanced teams so the fact they ultimately lost does not mean their tactics and strategy were bad, or even worse than those who won.

            That the crisis of socialism hit when Germany launched its invasion of Russia, means their tactics and strategy were bad.

            That Hitler declared war on America means that their tactics and strategy were bad.

            That Hitler, running out of food, confiscated the food of National Socialist Greece, outraging the Greeks, means that their tactics and strategy were bad.

            That internal food production fell rather than rose as Germany found it difficult to import food means that their tactics and strategy were bad.

            That Germans were eating substantially worse well before war started means that their tactics and strategy were bad.

            > If people are hungry, maybe feeding them is a good idea. Why shouldn’t we feed “our guys,” especially when they work and fight?

            Socialism wins votes by promising bread when the voters are hungry. Delivers breadlines. It is a vote winning strategy when people are hungry, not a useful way of addressing hunger. And today people are no longer hungry, but dying of obesity and diabetes. No longer a vote winning strategy.

            > the self-interested collective action of a racial group.

            Hunger, ersatz goods, and war with America was not self interested collective action, but self destructive madness induced by the tendency of leftism to lose contact with reality.

            If Hitler had attacked Russia without the crisis of socialism, and making any concessions necessary to keep America from direct involvement in war with Germany, might well have conquered Russia. If he conquered France and a substantial part of Russia, and gave the Russian and French farmers a fair shake, he would have solved his resource and import crisis, and then settled down for a long war until the anglosphere got tired, he would have had at least a whole lot better chance.

            Instead of destroying Russian and Greek farmers, should have demanded a certain proportion of the food they produced, and let them do what they liked with the rest of it, including selling it for whatever the market would bear.

            • pinochet's ghost says:

              German food policy was bad, and declaring war on the USA was an error, but it’s not like other countries didn’t adopt various bad policies in this war. Germany far outperformed countries that were far more powerful in 1933, including the Soviet Union, but also France, the UK, and Italy, and Japan. The USA outperformed everyone because it started the war with about half of all of the world’s industrial production in an impregnable continental island fortress. Well, nice work if you can get it.

              “Socialism wins votes by promising bread when the voters are hungry. Delivers breadlines. It is a vote winning strategy when people are hungry, not a useful way of addressing hunger. And today people are no longer hungry, but dying of obesity and diabetes. No longer a vote winning strategy.”

              The National Socialists actually put the population back into work and ended hunger in Germany.

              National Socialism did not approach socialism from the perspective that all men are equal and if they aren’t should be forcibly equalized; it approached socialism from the perspective that “we” should do right by “our guys.” This will be the case for any successful movement and you are right that it will not necessarily be about providing them with the same things in the future as it was in the past.

              Notably Putin does not really seem to be doing great by his guys, which is why nobody wants to join the Russian army.

              • jim says:

                > The National Socialists actually put the population back into work and ended hunger in Germany.

                Bullshit. German consumption of meat, milk, butter, cheese, and eggs fell substantially not long after they “ended hunger” at the expense of the farmers.

                Precisely because they put the highest priority on feeding Germans, the disappearance of good food was the first indication of running out of other people’s stuff.

                That is the fundamental problem with socialism: Whatever the state puts the highest priority on doing, it screws it up by disrupting people’s efforts to do it for themselves. Socialists promise bread, deliver breadlines.

                And today, promising bread is no longer a vote winner. We are not short of bread, we are short of virgin wives and short of grandchildren.

                • Pax Imperialis says:

                  Nazi economics:

                  When you have so much spare coal you’re turning it into butter, but such scarcity that you can’t keep the factories operating and Herr Himmler himself is enforcing ever shrinking coal rations even as coal production is increasing.

                • pinochet's ghost says:

                  Are you talking about National Socialist food policy during the war (which was bad, but mostly bad for non-Germans) or National Socialist economic policy before the war (which was very good for the economy, and for the previously unemployed, and presumably good for food production and consumption)?

                  If you are claiming that calorie intake dropped in Germany from 1933 to 1939 I would like to see evidence of that.

                  Promising your men what they need is always a winner, of votes or otherwise (the National Socialists won with both votes and fists). Notably neither Progressivism nor Soviet Communism do/did this, instead trying to destroy the country’s men to the greatest extent they can get away with without destabilizing the government.

                • jim says:

                  Reduced access to meat, milk, cheese, and eggs set before the war.

                  I cannot recall my sources for this fact, and am reduced to quoting Wikipedia:

                  Two nutritional innovations promoted by the Nazis were quark, a milk product formerly used as animal feed, and eintopf, a one-pot casserole of leftovers eaten the first Monday of every month. The nutrition policies resulted in a decline in consumption of 17 percent for meat, 21 percent for milk, and 46 percent for eggs between 1927 and 1937. The dietary austerity encouraged by the Nazis resulted in a “continuous and chronic state of undernourishment” for some Germans, especially the urban poor.

                  Nazi war policies were aimed at getting more soil for German farmers, a stupid policy in the short run, particularly as German fertility had not recovered from women’s lib in the way that US fertility recovered. Should have aimed at getting more farmers

                • pinochet's ghost says:

                  That’s not exactly what I asked. Did they increase calorie availability and self-sufficiency at the expense of taste and variety?

                  It’s true that the German National Socialists had an obsession with 1. controlling all their own farmland 2. working it in a “traditional” way, and that they would have produced more food had they taxed imports but not interfered with the domestic market.

                  On the other hand, every country had food rationing in WWII, including the “capitalist” countries. It was t