Poz, capitalism, and free markets.

Is there a connection between free markets and Poz. Is a sound reactionary polity somewhat socialist?

In the comments some have been making the stupid argument that poz is the result of evil Jewish capitalists pursuing profit, that gay marriage was promoted to sell wedding cakes, which argument scarcely deserves a reply.

But others have been making more sophisticated arguments, which arguments deserve to be promoted into a post.

Obviously sound economic policy is trade with outsiders, which requires the Christian program of peace with outsiders, which is apt to result in the hyper Christian holier than Jesus program of surrender to outsiders.

Obviously the Libertarian Party promotes free markets, and also promotes poz that will at best result in whites being ethnically cleansed out of America, and males being spiritually castrated, and at worst could result in whites being physically genocided and males being physically castrated. This started with the nineteenth century English prime minister Gladstone building a coalition between economists and the hyperpuritan leftist evangelicals, which was swiftly devoured by the left, and ever since then libertarians have been trying to revive that coalition by accepting ever greater levels of ever more suicidal poz and ever more emasculating poz.

So in this sense, obviously there is a connection between sound economic policy and suicidal poz, manifest in the logic of trade, manifest in the holiness spiral of Christianity, manifest in Gladstone and manifest in the Libertarian party.

(But not however manifest in capitalists selling wedding cakes to gays, nor in capitalists selling mortgages to cat-eating illegal immigrants with no income, no job, and no assets. Obviously making marriage gay reduces marriage, does not increase it, obviously gays do not get married except to humiliate Christians and prevent straights from getting and staying married, and obviously selling mortgages to cat-eating unemployed illegal immigrants loses money. Obviously very few non Asian minorities can successfully handle a substantial mortgage, thus attempts to provide a substantial number of non Asian minorities with substantial mortgages inevitably and entirely predictably blew up in the loss of a trillion dollars. Whiteness predicts loan repayment better than credit history, except for the longest and most stringent credit histories. Even Asian nonwhites have substantially higher levels of credit scam for the same level of credit history, and non Asian non whites are all scammers, as near to all of them as makes no difference, just as all female CEOs and board members blow up the company as if it was a marriage to a beta male. If a non Asian nonwhite repaid a mortgage, it is solely because he flipped the house for a profit, and the real estate agent had to take the back payments on the mortgage out of the sale, in order to deliver a clean deed to the buyer. If he had a clean credit history before he took the mortgage, it was faked up. All women are like that, and all non asian minorities are like that.)

Carlylean Restorationist argues

Are you happy with Poz so long as there’s a free market liberated from central planners?

I’m sorry but I’m just not, at all. I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin not because I love five year plans, Soviets deciding what brands of breakfast cereal will be on the shelves (if any) and tanks on every corner.
I’d rather live in 1988 Berlin than 2018 Berlin because 2018 Berlin’s violent, rapey and full of filth, while 1988 Berlin isn’t.
I’d feel safer, more at home, in the 1988 version of Berlin.

(I use Berlin rather than London not because of any preference for it – quite the opposite in fact. The reason is that 1988 Berlin had the worst kind of economic policy imaginable to one of our mindset. The thing is, in spite of that policy – or (red pill) because of it – it doesn’t suffer from what 2018 Berlin suffers from under global relatively free trade.)

Well yes, but the brown face of the Democratic party, like Venezuela, has close to the worst economic policy imaginable, and also at the same time has poz at ethnic cleansing levels, in that the whiteish minority is being driven out of Venezuela Kristallnacht style.

Eighteenth century England had reasonably sound economic policy, and also far less poz than any twentieth or twenty first century society.

So, if we compare 1988 Berlin with 2018 Berlin, or with the suicidal ethnomasochist globohomo policy of the Libertarian party, looks like a strong connection between sound economics, and suicidal poz.

If we compare eighteenth century England, with Gladstone’s England, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, and seriously damaging levels of poz. Gladstone began today’s attack on the family, began the replacement of marriage with child support, and turned the British empire into the anti British empire, foreshadowing today’s anti American “International Community” empire.

If we compare the Libertarian Party with almost anyone, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, suicidal ethnomasochism, and globohomo self castration.

On the other hand, if we compare Trump’s America with Venezuela, or Trump with the brown face of the Democratic Party, or eighteenth century England with almost anywhere, looks like a strong connection between sound economic policy, free markets, and lack of poz. The libertarians attack Trump for insufficient capitalism, and insufficient poz, while the brown Democrats attack him for excessive capitalism, and insufficient poz.

The emancipation of the Russian serfs was simultaneously suicidal poz, and bad economic policy. I read that the “lavish lifestyles” of the nobility were harshly curtailed, and I also read that famine followed so it would seem that the lavish lifestyles of the serfs were also harshly curtailed. Which only makes sense if leftism did exactly what it always does: Knock over the apple cart to grab the apples. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster for almost everyone in agriculture, particularly the serfs. The emancipation of the serfs was a disaster from day one, and steadily got worse and worse all the way to the liquidation of the kulaks, because the emancipation was accompanied by the introduction of collective land ownership. The correct solution was to emancipate serfs without land, converting them into agricultural laborers, tenant farmers, and sharecroppers. But the left was already campaigning vehemently against emancipation, and had it been done that way Alexander would have gone down in Whig history as worse than Vlad the impaler. So in Czarist Russia we see a connection between unsound economic policy, and poz leading to suicidal poz. Bad economic policy, in the form of collective land ownership, led to more poz, which eventually led to a disproportionately Jewish communist party taking charge. (Albeit Stalin continued bad economic policy while massively reducing poz.)

So yes, there is a connection between sound economic policy and ethnomasochistic rule by globohomos, since sound economics favors peace with outsiders, and favoring peace with outsiders is apt to blur into favoring surrender to hostile outsiders.

But Charles the second introduced sound economic policy at the same time as he exiled poz, and burned poz at the stake for heresy.

Tags: ,

393 Responses to “Poz, capitalism, and free markets.”

  1. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    A thoughtful, sensitive exploration of the relationship between consumerism, feminine nature and Poz.


    This seems to me a much more persuasive vision than “the government/HR/Cathedral made them do it”. It’s not *even* ultimately “the Jews made them do it” or “they’re all Jews doing it”. It’s a systems analysis that applies a prioristic rational deductive reasoning to the WHY, given that we all know the what.

    • jim says:

      This over estimates the power of advertising. In the pile of junk in my in tray there are undoubtedly some ads that were stuffed into my mailbox. I will check them right now:

      OK: First ad: Picture of a suspiciously cheap cell phone: The ad says, in full, the price, the discount from their supposedly usual price, and the characteristics of the phone “5 inch display, 1.3Ghz quad core processor …” There is a catch of course, it is locked to particular network, a network that is far from being the cheapest network, but the catch is announced in larger print and in the most brightly colored icon. And it is not that hard to unlock a phone anyway, but they hope that most people will not bother.

      I don’t see any powerful and subtle psychological manipulation there. Checking the rest of the ads, they are all much like the first one. Some of them have a manipulative tag line “Hot offers”, “Find the floor you’ve been searching for”, but the ninety percent of that ad is simply factual information about the floor coverings and where to get them. Most of them do not even have a manipulative tag line. They would rather use the space for straight and surprisingly fair factual information: Price, product, and where to get them.

      The article you cite also attacks “I love Lucy” for depicting an affluent couple with a stay at home housewife and a lovable wise and competent husband, who looked after her, gave her wise guidance which she with great regularity furtively disobeyed, and who would beat her when she was naughty, as she so very regularly was.

      “I Love Lucy” promoted feminism and career girls? I don’t think so.

      • The Cominator says:

        I love Lucy wasn’t feminist at all quite the opposite.

        Its message was even if you are stupid enough to marry a wetback musician women are still better off with a male wetback musician supervising them then being left to their own devices.

        Women were destroyed by a kind of memetic advertising but it was done by the CIA. My father is old enough to remember the 50s he said women were generally pretty happy then BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEIR PLACE.

        Advertising told women “hail fellow housewives, reach for a lucky instead of a sweet.

        The feminist memetic warfare told them “hail fellow housewives, you are not happy with your place and all of you are not happy with your place, and if you are happy with your place there is something wrong with you and you won’t fit into the group anymore… and by the way your husband is evil and you want to be rid of him”.

      • shaman says:

        Jim, you know very well what CR is going to answer:

        “Aha! I knew it! You’re a typical Randian libertarian with a dysfunctional theory-of-mind capability, who projects his own inborn immunity to evil mind control rays unto poor proletarians with average and below average IQs, who simply can’t resist the temptations put forth by advertisers. You’re a selfish egotistic boomer, Jim, and probably Jewish too. If you were as benevolent and altruistic as me, you would be willing to sacrifice your life of comfort and pleasure to shield the proletariat from psychological manipulation. But you don’t care about your own people, either because you just don’t understand how vulnerable they are, or because you possess vestigial libertarian thought-patterns, or — the most dreadful option of all — you’re a big mean asshole. Come the Revolution err Restoration, the Fuhrer will top-down socially engineer the entire society to ensure that the savings ratio of proles will be high enough – by banning both advertising and leisure itself, and by banishing all profit seekers.”

        Instead of engaging this mad concern trolling, I’d delete his every comment with the caption:

        [*deleted for denying Darwinism*]

        He won’t grok it, or is forbidden from grokking it, but the comment section should.

    • John Sullivan says:

      Ok, let’s run with consumerism as a problem. What are you doing to oppose consumerism, do you have a church, a woman, a house, a car, a firearm, will you consume the experience of the conservative lifestyle, will you consume the words of God by which and not by bread alone man can live?

  2. Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • jim says:

      Unresponsive. I have addressed the complicated question of usury several times. Respond to what I have said, rather than what communists imagine Ayn Rand to have said.

      I would love to discuss usury with you, provided that you don’t talk past me to a caricature of Ayn Rand.

      • The Cominator says:

        You should seriously just respond to him with “deleted for being a faggot”.

        • jim says:

          Pretty sure he is paid, therefore inadvertently leaks information about the people paying him. If he would engage in real conversation rather churning through scripts, he would leak a lot more.

          • The Cominator says:

            Then there is old 4Chan standby “thank you for “Correcting The Record” 2 cents have been deposited to your account”.

          • Koanic says:

            Whether he’s getting paid a pittance or not, that can’t be the primary explanation. He’s clearly a true believer and incapable of building his own audience. That explains the majority of his behavior. If his motive were profit he could find something else that paid better. And if their motive was disruption, competent shills are cheap. Competent here being the low bar of “at least gets his comment published”.

            • jim says:

              If he was a true believer, would be willing to argue for what he believes is true. I keep trying to get him to discuss capitalism in King Solomon’s Israel and the Israel of Jesus, but he will not.

              The market in land in King Solomon’s Israel was, at least in theory, restricted to root the Jews, originally nomadic pastoralists, in the land, which had the effect of preventing a small population of landowners and a large population of landless from emerging. They never got the bugs out of that system, but it sort of worked much of the time, without becoming a substantial obstacle to people using the marketplace to apply capital, including land, to its highest and best use.

              You would think he would want to discuss usury, since that is an area where Marxism is not totally contrary to reaction.

              The only “argument” he ever uses is appeal to fake consensus. Supposedly we agree with all the progressive beliefs, but mysteriously fail to draw the progressive conclusions from them. That is a script speaking, not a human. Arguing with him is like talking to a third worlder help line, where the person you are talking to is reading a script in a language that is not his mother’s tongue and which he barely understands, written by a boss in another country. I keep trying to get him to ad-lib, but he never does. I think he is forbidden to ad lib, because if he did, would inadvertently leak more information than he does.

              The guy that wrote that script is unaware that reaction does not accept progressive presupposition – is not aware that hardly anyone outside academia accepts progressive presuppositions. It is a woefully bad argument and does not get better with endless repetition.

              • Koanic says:

                I rarely skim his stuff. But I think most people are indistinguishable from scripts. Especially when they have a busy life and their ideological beliefs receive a fraction of an already mediocre mental capacity. Political alignment has substantial nonrational inputs. Sounds to me like you are complaining that his record skips when you force a buffer overflow. But very few people don’t do this. The accompanying emotional outburst is like the staticky noise when a record skips. These strong emotions cut gouges into the wax that over time accumulate into an insane worldview, like mangled music.

                Smart people often attribute false motives to behavior caused by lower intelligence. It causes much more mental chaos than a linear extrapolation would imply. There may be no emotional motivation or mental space to calmy consider subpoint 2A:37c.

                Influencing is a zero-sum game. The teacups scramble from spigot to spigot, but each is only yea big. Even if you’re pumping fine vintage, you never know what’s slopping out to make room. It is clear from Communist Revolutionary’s circular garrulousness that his cup runneth over.

                • jim says:

                  The difference between a script and a human, is that if you dangle a red flag in front of a human, he will follow it. Carlylean Restorationist will not follow.

                • Koanic says:

                  Even bulls are smart enough to learn not to charge the cape, which is why they must be killed.

                • alf says:

                  What about yetis?

                  I kid I kid.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  [*Deleted, as usual, for telling us what we think.*]

                • jim says:

                  I would love to discuss usury with you, but not if you insist on telling us what we think about usury. Again, try it on the dissenter page for this blog post, where no one can delete your pearls of wisdom.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:


            • jim says:

              If you want your rants to be seen, post them on the dissenter page for this blog post. I am not going to waste my reader’s bandwidth on them. Anyone wants to see what I am sparing them could then check you out with one extra click.

  3. Sam Francis says:

    Sam Francis:

    “Capitalism, an economic system driven only, according to its own theory, by the accumulation of profit, is at least as much the enemy of tradition as the NAACP or communism … The hostility of capitalism toward tradition is clear enough in its reduction of all social issues to economic ones. Moreover, like communism, capitalism is based on an essential egalitarianism that refuses to distinguish between one consumer’s dollar and another. The reductionism and egalitarianism inherent in capitalism explains its destructive impact on social institutions. On the issue of immigration, capitalism is notorious for demanding cheap labor to undercut the cost of native workers.”

    • John Sullivan says:

      This argument is popular enough to be responded to. Consider why the cities don’t have self-driving trains, and why the train crew doesn’t brutally beat people who vomit or urinate on the trains. Consider why policing isn’t either done for free by local men, or outsourced directly by those local men to private contractors. Consider why every schoolboy has to waste time in school instead of being able to get paid to do stuff that unrelated adults tell him to do.

      The only way to end up thinking that student loans and college are capitalism providing prestige goods is to start by ignoring the government.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:


        • jim says:

          The comment that you reply to points out that we are not seeing capitalists do a lot of things that they would wish to do – such as defend their property from subhumans. Telling us that capitalists are not interested in defending their property because they don’t care about the value of their property, because they are “greedy and short sighted” is just too stupid a reply to be allowed, even though it is superficially an attempt to engage the points your interlocutor makes.

          Waste of bandwidth, even though you are responding to your interlocutor’s points for a change. As I said, post it on the dissenter page for this blog post.

          I said I would allow comments that are responsive, and this comment was superficially responsive, but I am not going to allow this all purpose one size fits all explanation for capitalist behavior inconsistent with the Marxist model.

    • John Sullivan says:

      In the end, this argument is an illustration of Jim’s point that the merchant class is constitutionally incapable of collective action.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:


        • jim says:

          Unresponsive. You presuppose your interlocutors argument is self evidently false, rather than explaining what is wrong with your interlocutor’s argument. Argument from fake consensus. You are a lunatic commie, and what is self evident to you needs to be explained because we cannot guess the depths of your evil and madness.

  4. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    [*deleted for all the reasons that most your other comments saying the same thing were deleted*]

    • jim says:

      If you want to reply to any of the numerous previous replies debunking your position by actually engaging your intelocutor’s reply and attempting to rebut it, the comment will be allowed.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:


        [deleted for all the usual reasons]

        • jim says:

          I will allow your comments if you respond to past rebuttals of you saying the same thing.

          If you think I am misrepresenting your comments by calling them repetitious Marxist spam, comment on Dissenter. Then everyone can see it (many of us, perhaps most of us, use Dissenter) and I will reply to you on Dissenter. I will respond (repetitiously) to your repetitious commie spam on Dissenter, though perhaps merely by calling you an entryist commie spammer and linking to ancient substantive replies, rather than making substantive replies.

          But I will not have repetitious commie spam wasting the bandwidth of those that choose to read this blog.

  5. Carlylean Restorationist says:


    • jim says:

      Deleted for presupposing whig history: that we have been moving right and becoming more capitalist.

      Which obviously is unlikely to be taken for granted in these circles.

      If you want to persuade us whig history is true, going to have to argue it, not presuppose it.

      • The Cominator says:

        Peak capitalism in both Europe and the US was Victorian England post corn laws.

        • jim says:

          The price paid for abolishing corn laws was abolishing enforceable apprenticeship and slavery, and abolishing apprenticeship was a huge blow against capitalism.

          So I say peak capitalism was before the abolition of the corn laws.

          The business with the Corn Laws looks like a popular front. You get in bed with the left, and then the left eats you. Yes, the corn laws meant more capitalism, and a more capitalist economy. But the alliance that brought in the corn laws proceeded to introduce no end of anticapitalist laws.

          • The Cominator says:

            We do not agree on slavery, slavery distorts the labor market the way mass immigration does. So in general getting rid of slavery gave more undistorted capitalism not less. After the war the South was devastated but probably far easier for Southern whites to get work and on better terms.

            If we are to have slavery (and I agree some are unemployable otherwise) they should be limited to personal domestic service or hard supervised labor on infrastructure projects (to save free workers tax money) and be sterilized, their masters should not be able to employ them in place of a free worker in most jobs…

            19th century America and England had the greatest economic growth in history (I don’t think the 18th century was even close) because it had general incorporation and a free labor market. I’m with you on enforceable apprenticeship but general incorporation and stock (and other mercantile exchanges) were far more important.

            Enforcable apprenticeship would be more important TODAY bc the education system is so expensive and so useless. The 19th century probably had better alternatives to it so it didn’t seem to cause so much of a disruption to economic growth.

  6. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    No link between capitalism and what’s going on in various news outlets, obviously…..


    ‘Jim”s role in The Cathedral is preventing you from noticing how deep Wall Street bankers and venture capitalists really are in The Cathedral.

    Don’t look there, goyim, The Cathedral is just an informal alliance of academia and the media. Capitalists are unaffected and take no part in it. Nothing that happens ever benefits the rich: the rich are victims!

    • jim says:

      Reflect on the recent Trump tax cuts.

      Under Obama, the Debt to GDP ratio was soaring to levels that would threaten the solvency of the US were it not an empire that can force other nations to swallow our paper at gunpoint. As a result of the Trump tax cuts, the the Debt to GDP ratio and inflation stabilized.

      Therefore, taxes were above the Laffer limit, motivated by sheer destructive hatred, not by the need to acquire revenue.

      Therefore, the rich do not rule. The people who are writing your script, which script I see everywhere all the time, and from which you do not dare deviate, rule.

      No one is writing me a script. Some central authority is writing a script I see everywhere. Obviously that central authority rules, and denies that it rules, and that central authority claims we are ruled by rich white heterosexual patriarchal males.

      If only we were.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        “As a result of the Trump tax cuts, the the Debt to GDP ratio and inflation stabilized.”

        Once again spoken like a true Keynesian.

        The nominal debt is $22 million million.

        Higher GDP is based on, wait for it, MORE DEBT!!!!!!!!!!

        “Therefore, taxes were above the Laffer limit, motivated by sheer destructive hatred, not by the need to acquire revenue.”

        This is so full of question-begging assumptions it’s almost not worthy of a response. In brief,

        1. The Trump tax cuts primarily benefited leftists of one sort or another, be it the (entirely leftist) directors of blue chip companies, hipster medium businesses or activist investors. Many lower middle-class workers were actually worse off (see Peter Schiff’s analysis at the time) and most working-class people (Trump’s base in fly-over country) were unaffected.

        2. Art Laffer was a Chicagoite and the entire mechanism is Friedmanite neo-classicism. This is where you say “and what’s wrong with that, Marxist!”

        “No one is writing me a script. Some central authority is writing a script I see everywhere. Obviously that central authority rules, and denies that it rules, and that central authority claims we are ruled by rich white heterosexual patriarchal males.

        If only we were.”

        Agreed to the last part. This is where you show your true colours. After months of calling me a social democrat and a Marxist, you make your sleight of hand explicit by saying that and expecting it to be perceived in *contrast* to the guy who says the ruler should have outright power over those beneath him. I agree ENTIRELY that we should be ruled by white straight patriarchal males. Those males should get to dictate what’s permitted and what’s not permitted, and if you piss one of them off, you don’t get a fresh regulatory booklet, you get a foreclosure notice, simple as that.

        That’s REAL authority: “fuck you and your private property rights, you know what you did and I’m putting a stop to it”.

        That’s how people get in line and stay in line. “The rule of laws not men” is fake gay Whiggish bullshit. We need the rule of MEN.

        • jim says:

          > Higher GDP is based on, wait for it, MORE DEBT!!!!!!!!!!


          Obama poured on the debt, conspicuously failed to juice the economy, demonstrating the falsity of Keynesianism.

          Trump cut taxes on the rich, the economy recovered, real wages rose in flyover country.

          Obama’s policy was Keynes, failed

          Trump’s policy was Laffer, succeeded.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        ROFLMAO I let it slip under the net. This is how these Jews win: they tell a *blatant* lie and people respond to the lie without checking the truth of it.

        I should have known better but I let it slip under the net.

        I wrote a post claiming Jim’s role was to pretend that:

        “Capitalists are not part of The Cathedral.”

        And he responded to:

        “Capitalists do not RUN The Cathedral.”

        This is how Jews operate, always and everywhere. They turn your correct claim into something ridiculous, argue against it, then leave you to half-heartedly argue FOR the thing you never said in the first place.

        • jim says:

          The role of capitalists in the Cathedral is accurately described in Spandrel’s “BioLeninism” Vox Day’s “Woke Capital”, and Parallax Optics on “Woke Capital”.

          Your version is Marx’s class theory, that capitalists rule, that capitalism is rule by capitalists, and that capitalism is a new system.

          Spandrel’s, Parallax’s, and Vox Day’s version is that capitalists are ruled, that capitalism is an ancient system, and capitalists have always been ruled.

  7. peppermint says:

    If a man clips his nails every two weeks, and reproduces at 25, thats 625 clippings * 20 nails, 12500 sounds like a good lowball for how many people you need to be a nation. Multiply 625 by 25 years per generation and you get the Aryan race as an infant 15,000 years ago, a man capable of reproducing and doing adult work 3000 years ago, and coming into his prime now.

  8. Roberto says:

    >YAY polyamory, Bitcoin and smack, the perfect Randian Utopia…….

    There are two (and only two) real reasons why there’s no utopia anywhere you look:

    1) Bad state religion;
    2) Bad hominids.

    Bad state religion (Progressivism) usually exists in symbiosis with big government, hence white knightism substantially enlarging the state and being substantially funded by the state.

    Bad hominids (the rainbow coalition of shitskins and pathologicals) usually exist in symbiosis with big government, hence the Democratic Party and Spandrell’s bio-leninism theorem.

    You have 2 equations, 1 common denominator:

    Bad state religion : big government.
    Bad hominids : big government

    From which, being a 1913 leftist, being a Carlylean, you conclude that government should be able to shut down Dominos Pizza.

    Bad hominids can largely be dealt with by simply re-introducing natural selection into the scene, the natural selection that follows from allowing or even encouraging everyone to indulge in as much “degeneracy” (here defined as anti-natalist habits) as they want – for example, opening up a huge cocaine factory right in the middle of a ‘hood of gud boyz.

    Bad religion is the harder problem because Anglosphere Leftism, meaning Puritanism and Quakerism, has fully taken over everything and brainwashed everyone, hence condoms and childlessness, hence anti-natalism, hence weakened survival and procreation instincts. To fix the bad state religion, need to replace the current priests with priests aligned with Jimian Dark Enlightenment.

    What is needed is pro-natalism for high quality people and anti-natalism for low quality people, which can be achieved by the re-introduction of natural selection (ancap-style social Darwinism) and by establishing the liberty to explore any number of alternative social structures, such as — for instance — patriarchy with freehold.

    The nanny state you propose is exactly what’s not needed; it obstructs the solution and it is incentivized to promote a bad religion.

    Humans themselves need to be privatized, at least until the new elite, possibly augmented by genetic engineering, and necessarily possessed of a civilization-fostering religion, emerges.

    With no more protection from the nanny state, thots shall be patrolled and those who engage in anti-natalist practices (such as the aforementioned rainbow coalition of shitskins and pathologicals) shall be selected out of the gene pool.

    • The Cominator says:

      “You have 2 equations, 1 common denominator:

      Bad state religion : big government.
      Bad hominids : big government

      From which, being a 1913 leftist, being a Carlylean, you conclude that government should be able to shut down Dominos Pizza.”

      Top kek

  9. The Cominator says:

    “Would you seize Soros’ wealth or not? It’s not particularly complicated.”

    Of course we would but because he is an enemy not because he is rich. And the confiscation of his wealth would be accompanied by his death and that of his heirs as well because they are enemies not because they are wealthy.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      How many times am I going to have to signal that I have zero interest in redistribution from rich to poor?
      You people are as morally fixated as leftists, seriously.

      Fine, so the consensus agreement so far then is that obviously it’s fine to nationalise the universities and media firms as per Moldbug, but it’s also fine to close down casinos etc. for the health of the nation. It’s fine to expropriate and whatever else you said that I don’t advocate obviously (lol) when people are clear enemies of the state, and I assume it’s fine to close the borders.

      All good so far.

      This isn’t looking very libertarian. The point I’m trying to ram home here is that libertarian prejudices need to be completely abandoned. We don’t need property rights or individual liberty. What we need is a society in which our people aren’t hated by their rulers, and in which we’re not led by the market to cuck ourselves into ruin and death.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Once you stop saying “but I’m still a libertarian”, all sorts of options end up on the table.

        Here’s a few of mine but I don’t care whether you share them or not because none of us will be the God-Emperor:

        1. Outright ban on private swimming pools
        2. Heavy tax on air travel
        3. Major levy on commuting to work: hire local
        4. Nationalisation of the arts
        5. Outright pornography ban

        There’s just a few that spring to mind. I don’t care whether you agree with them or not because they’re luxury items.

        So long as the drugs are crushed, the gambling stops and the degeneracy’s ended, it’s all good.

        • Yara says:

          >I want to ban private swimming pools


        • jim says:

          I like pizza. I find it hard to control my pizza consumption. The problem however is not capitalism, but lust, gluttony, and wrath. When I don’t eat pizza, should be my decision for if it is the decision of the central planning commission I will be powerless and afraid. Much better to have a wrath problem than a fear problem.

          I was in Cuba. At the time they had adequate rations of bread and flour, and plenty of sugar, but were suffering from widespread nutritional deficiencies resulting in an epidemic of blindness. Typical socialist food distribution. Under socialism people at best queue for bread without butter, which was what was happening in Cuba. At worst, starve.

          • Michael Rothblatt says:

            He advocates a Progressive policy on foodstufs, not reactionary policy on foodstufs. He aldready admitted admiration for the Jacobin-Emperor, Buonaparte and Kim Jong-Un… all of them leftists.

      • The Cominator says:

        “but it’s also fine to close down casinos etc. for the health of the nation”

        No that does not follow. I personally believe in red light districts.

        “1. Outright ban on private swimming pools”

        Fuck you! I’m about to become fairly well off (99%) and my indoor pool/theater combo is my dream.

        “2. Heavy tax on air travel”


        “3. Major levy on commuting to work: hire local”

        Seems like you are trying to plan the economy too much. Just ALMOST ban immigration.

        “4. Nationalisation of the arts”

        Nationalize some of it. Devil is in the details. Modern art sucks though.

        “5. Outright pornography ban”

        Good luck enforcing that.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:


          I was very clear that those were my own personal luxury items, and that it would be the ruler, not I, who got to choose.

          “I personally believe in red light districts.”

          The argument that porn’s far worse than prostitution has merit. The trouble with prostitution is people who haven’t had any contact with it tend to romanticise it.
          In the current year in the UK (which is the only point of reference I have at a sufficient level of direct experience to talk about it sensibly) there are several problems with prostitution.
          Firstly, there’s a huge link to trafficking, and it’s extremely disturbing: the women being imported on a lie and then placed into lifetime servitude as whores are from overwhelmingly counter-globohomo countries: Hungary, Czechia, Poland, Ukraine, Rumania, Albania, Slovakia.
          This is a deliberate form of psychological warfare directed at the enemies of Zog.

          Secondly, I worked briefly in the service sector as an act of solidarity. Much of it was not misplaced: these were heroic people, at least at the top.
          We had prostitutes (or at least suspected probable prostitutes) stay in the hotel from time to time. They did not look happy. Customers were coming and going all night long, often with complications in the form of drugs or behavioural problems. I can’t make a moral or ethical argument against what I saw but I can report with total frankness that it felt VERY wrong.
          I had a totally open mind at that time, but the visceral response was not at all ambiguous. I don’t recommend you replicate my experiment.

          “I’m about to become fairly well off (99%) and my indoor pool/theater combo is my dream.”

          Good for you. If we care about the long-term health of the planet, you cannot be allowed to do that. Sorry n’guy.

          “2. Heavy tax on air travel – Why?”

          Again, a personal luxury item. Same reason as the swimming pools: we need to preserve the fossil fuels and the state of the environment for the very long term: tens of thousands of years’ forward planning.
          You simply cannot be allowed to burn kerosine for ten hours to go eat ice cream in some foreign cookie cutter city. It’s disloyal, it’s degenerate and it’s damaging to the environment. (Go on, call me a leftist! I want punitive taxes in the name of green issues!)

          “Seems like you are trying to plan the economy too much [with incentivising local hires]. Just ALMOST ban immigration.”

          There’s no reason for anyone to immigrate. In fact there’s no reason for most visitors to come either. In fact there’s no reason for most of the imports. Juche, anyone? OK. Juche minus international sanctions minus envy-driven redistribution? Yummy.

          “Nationalize some of [the arts]. Devil is in the details. Modern art sucks though.”

          Jeffrey Tucker called for a return to plainsong in 2012. By 2016 he was waxing lyrical about orchestral concerts of Japanese video game music and Justin Bieber. Capitalism is mass production for the benefit of the masses: meeting the most urgent of the as yet unmet needs of the mass of the people. This is completely antithetical to aesthetic greatness.
          Modern Art is a mixed bag but imagine for a second all the ‘art by grant application alone’ works taken out of the mix. No more social justice post-modern gobbledigook.

          ““5. Outright pornography ban” – Good luck enforcing that.”

          Not difficult. Start small: no more blowjobs on TV or in the cinema.
          Work up gradually: standards of dress in public places such as beaches etc.
          Go after the hard targets when things have moved to the right somewhat. China manages to keep much of the western garbage off their internet. There’s no reason why we can’t do the same. The arguments for a wild west internet are incredibly outdated and are basically the same arguments used for ‘net neutrality’. In the real world, most people use five or six web hubs (social media, a few blog providers, a couple of aggregators). To regulate these would be very easy. Under globohomo, regulation is a nightmare scenario, but under a neo-Metternichian régime, regulation would just mean “no nudity, no smut, no indecency, no subversion”.
          EZPZ. Harsh penalties. The EU manages to fine American banks.

          • The Cominator says:

            The idea that water is a scarce resource here (other then some areas of the Western US) is another left wing scam, but this one also promoted by some crony capitalists like the head of Nestle who want to charge everyone exorbitant prices for water when there is no real shortage. Leftism (of the non pure non marxist variety) and rent seeking go hand and hand.

            As for the actual water shortages in the Western US… California isn’t competently run enough to desal but it should desal.

            Muh degeneracy isn’t a big motivator for me. Restoration England was considered pretty degenerate by some unhappy Puritans and even some foreign writers. The problem is single insane women incel men and public homosexuals, not that people act badly. People will always act somewhat badly.

            The important thing is forcing women into marriages when they are young and giving their husbands marriage 1.0 rights over them. But unlike Jim once this happens I don’t particulary care whether they widely engage in extracircular activities the problem is still mostly solved.

            As for internet control I don’t think China does it with the idea they can really control their internet. I think their annoying (from the perspective of locals) internet controls are with the idea of producing a huge pool of trained hackers.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Well those are your personal preferences.

              The kosher sandwich is more insidious than most on the ostensible Right realise.
              You’ve been sold a bill of goods: do you take package A (redistribution, social justice, open borders, environmental legislation (most ineffective rent-seeking), a bit of war and personal freedom) or package B (less redistribution, last year’s social justice, open borders, dismissal of the environment to make it easier for oil pipelines, a lot of war and personal freedom)……..

              As a libertarian you notice that neither package has genuinely and fully free markets, while both have a disturbing amount of social justice and redistribution.

              As a post-libertarian NRx you notice that neither package is going to bring order to the marital bed and neither package is going to end the wars.

              But the environment slipped under your radar because it wasn’t your number one priority so you still think like a Republican. The Left claims to love the environment while they have their jet plane meetings and thousand page documents and create fake jobs for their friends while claiming more power over private industry, *therefore* concerns about the environment are all bs.

              Nope. Fossil fuels are finite. They’re not running out any time soon but we want humanity to last another few thousand, not hundred, years, and we want those thousands of years to have some fuel to play with. Sure technology might help things along: it has up until now, say the anti-Malthusians, and they’re right.
              But THOUSANDS of years? We need to start saying to people “no, you’re not going to just jet out to Australia or China because you happen to fancy it”.

              Not only are those people traitors taking resources out of the nation to give to foreigners; not only are those people traitors who conceive of foreign lands as a luxury and hence their own land as something to tolerate and endure; but those people are also using resources God gave to all of us for these stupid selfish reasons that won’t benefit our great-great-great-grandchildren at all.

              Since we don’t believe in the NAP, there’s nothing stopping us from saying “yeah you’re not doing that any more”.

              The same’s true of water. Sure, there’s a lot of it. Sure, we can process and clean it. Sure, all of that.

              Nevertheless why SHOULD the nation-state go to all that trouble just so someone can be anti-social?

              No, the time’s come to say to these people “yeah you’re not doing that any more”.

              Consumerism is poz. If you want to equate capitalism and consumerism (and that’s not the most unreasonable thing to do) then capitalism equals poz.

              Capitalism equals poz.

              • Roberto says:

                Legalization of heroin will lead to mass self-culling of populations on the dysgenic side of the curve.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                  “Legalization of heroin will lead to mass self-culling of populations on the dysgenic side of the curve.”

                  You’d think.

                  Consider the development of the welfare state. The bougies pulled off a beautiful coup: they got out of the responsibility for paying people for their downtime – just hire and fire as the business need demands. What could be more rational? Any peasant who refuses to adapt and be flexible can starve.

                  OK……. except nobody was up for it in practice.

                  Junkies are the same. There’ll always be someone feeding them, housing them, counselling them and letting them off the hook.

                  I’m not a bleeding heart. I know junkies and I know they SHOULD die, but society isn’t comprised solely of people like us. They won’t be cut loose to sink or swim: they’ll be cajoled and cocooned.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Maybe not. Laudnum (a weaker form of modern heroin) addiction was VERY widespread in the late 19th century (and most addicts were women) far more widespread then it was today but there was little death rate from it.

                  I think most heroin deaths are probably due to hot shots and bad stuff they cut it with.

                  Legal heroin probably wouldn’t cause nearly so many deaths but it would be a problem otherwise (birth defects laziness lethargy and such, crime not so much as it would be cheap if legal).

                • peppermint says:

                  Legalize heroin for people who are self-sufficient or on Christmas. As for the consequent privatized heroin-slaves, well, they’re better as slaves than the junkies as they are now.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  What Peppermint said, but also technical criminalisation has its uses.
                  At the moment cannabis possession is sometimes the only thing the police can get known criminals on, so they do. It’s a cynical move but it works. The people agitating for legalisation are basically pro-criminal and see criminals as victims of structural oppression of various kinds.

                  The focus in a healthy society should of course be on what libertarians would call ‘actual crimes’ (fraud, mugging, shoplifting, etc.) but there’s no harm in keeping drug possession offences on the books just in case.

                  As for rich, stable people who don’t steal or cause a scene, sure leave them to it. How will the police ever detect them? There’s no sense in going door to door when there are junkies out robbing in the street.

                  If at some future time there AREN’T junkies robbing in the street, maybe we can relax a bit, but that’s not the world we live in.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Nope. Fossil fuels are finite. They’re not running out any time soon but we want humanity to last another few thousand, not hundred, years, and we want those thousands of years to have some fuel to play with. Sure technology might help things along: it has up until now, say the anti-Malthusians, and they’re right.”

                If you want a regime that can effectively enforce enviromental austerity you should join our globalist enemies. However you should know their scheme is stupid and unworkable. With multiple countries some or most will not adhere to your green austerity. If you are NRx you should understand the prisoner’s dilemma.

                You seem have a secular puritanism of a different type then the Marxist derived leftists. You are not a Marxist entryist per se but you are a leftist and your mind is not clear.

                We need to get off this planet to survive long term and that means rapid economic and technological growth. We need both capitalism and monarchy (with Royal Society science not peer review “science”) for that.

                Capitalism is not poz, Japan is much more capitalist then Western Europe (Trump’s policies could be summed up with the phrase Make America like Japan) but less poz’d. The reason they don’t have kids is the population density thing its not because their society respects women too much (from everything I’ve heard about Japan they don’t). Most people don’t want kids living in a cramped NYC style apartment.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                  “If you want a regime that can effectively enforce enviromental austerity you should join our globalist enemies. However you should know their scheme is stupid and unworkable.”

                  Make your mind up: which is it? Are the globalists right about the environment, in which case we should shamelessly steal their platform?
                  Or are their ‘solutions’ just self-serving cant and horse manure?

                  I say the latter. The environment isn’t being saved. What’s being saved is the feelz of liberal progressives who talk a good talk, then jet off to New Zealand on one holiday and Iceland for another.

                  The real solution to the environment isn’t a bit of tentative tweaking with the tax code combined with thousand page red tape papers for business. The real solution’s bans and heavy taxes.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Japan’s pozzed. It’s ethnically fairly secure at the moment because the (((globalists))) don’t fear hikikomori, but it’s hard to argue that the Japs’ psychological state’s in a good way.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Even if they are right about the enviroment its a prisoner’s dilemma without a one world government and a one world government is unworkable.

                  SJWism was probably if anything an attempt to create a secular religion that would make the stupid one world government idea work but neither the religion nor the government can work. Human nature can only be pushed so far and God hates Babel.

                  Japan’s lesser poz (suicides, lack of interest in the opposite sex) is due to their density being such that they nearly all live in megacities not because they have any belief in stupid leftist ideas or female equality. Spandrell has also documented that they have the same problem with out and out commies in their education system that we do. Luckily they don’t seem to take them as seriously and don’t have them in their press.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There’s no question as to whether fossil fuels are finite or not and there’s no question as to whether building houses on green belt land is a terrible idea long term.

                  Just because the left has terrible solutions and terrible motivations doesn’t mean the right has to abandon the planet and turn it into one big burnt out shopping mall.

              • Roberto says:

                You don’t want niggers (or, for that matter, other undesirables) to mug you for crack, which is as good a reason as any to make it legal and cheap. Imagine it, CR. Imagine piles rising up to the skies of dead-from-OD shitskins. Imagine a world in which all the trailer park dwellers are well-off, because the rest of ’em overdosed on legal and cheap opioids and/or legal and cheap meth. I want dozens of millions of people to die, CR. Legalization of all drugs will even lead to a homo-caust. You need not throw them off roofs – just let them get addicted to the “bad stuff.”

                Just let them die, man.

                • peppermint says:

                  The only reason getting mugged, or having your bike stolen, or having your bank card used fraudulently if you lose it, or getting accosted at random, is even a thing, is that communists protect criminals.

                  Then the communists say crime doesn’t pay and someone shpuld give the criminals opportunities to make good, after the communists have used the criminals to drive decent people out of areas with their crime.

                  Without communists, nigger catcallers and bike thieves would get their asses kicked, as they do in Russia, and the police would take them away for more serious crimes. Then decent people would have middle class housing in the cities.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “You don’t want niggers (or, for that matter, other undesirables) to mug you for crack, which is as good a reason as any to make it legal and cheap.”

                  What happened to you, seriously?
                  Do niggers have no volition? Mugging someone in the street should be completely unthinkable.

                  Try that shit in Saudi Arabia or North Korea and see where it gets you.

                  “Just let them die, man.”

                  We all love to shit-post but few of us will actually step over dead bodies in the street for long before caving to a more compromised solution.

                  If you and I were to sing songs around the bonfire of the undesirables, there’s be ten next to us calling us monsters. We need to make law and order the order of the day: if someone commits a mugging, show the video on prime time TV. Demonise that offender, then kill them.
                  The prospect of committing a crime needs to be so horrifying that nobody ever considers it again.

                • Roberto says:

                  Mugging should be illegal, but the problem with the bourgeois morality espoused by you and by peppermint is that it’s antithetical to actual social Darwinism.

                  For instance, you shudder to think about stepping over dead bodies, so you call it a LARP, but why not consider the scenario in which eventually (within about 5 generations) all the IQ<110 segments of society self-cull, and do so over in their own ghettos, and you'll be left a with healthy civilization?

                  If I say, "The legalization of outright BABY-RAPE will force the modern henpecked soydaddy to become as stridently patriarchal as the Hebrews and the Taliban, which will be good for civilization and bad for softies," you will not only call me bad names but feel it as an affront against your deeply-ingrained sense of normiism.

                  Your opposition to genuine social Darwinism boils down to "it's just not normie-compatible, bro." (And for the record, no, baby-rape shouldn't be legal, but if the choice is between legalized baby-rape and tons of metaphorical estrogen in the metaphorical water supply, the choice should be obvious)

                  Damn right social Darwinism isn't normie-compatible; normie-morality aka bourgeois-morality aka "mean things are bad" morality is precisely why things keep getting worse all the time. Fuck that. Civilizational restoration demands even the legalization of uxoricide and filicide (not to mention bastardicide), and if you can't stomach that, you aren't willing to do the heavy moral lifting.

                  "But Roberto, wow, this is so mean." Not, it is not mean. Historical precedents abound everywhere you look. Your patriarchy simply isn't worth its salt if you can't commit uxoricide and filicide at least under some circumstances. "But muh normie-morality" is not a refutation of that statement. You need to do some heavy moral lifting in the morality gym; no gains without pains.

                  But you just love modernity, hence condoms and childlessness. You're poz incarnate.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Pragmatics isn’t equal to optics.

                  I don’t care what’s normie-compatible. I very much doubt shutting down Domino’s Pizza will be particularly normie-compatible either.

                  What I’m saying to you is that Social Darwinism is not practical in the real world. As soon as people start having to step over half-dead people in the street, ‘solutions’ will be found, whether imposed through the political institutions (whatever these may be) or completely privately.

                  We have to live in the real world. If the government says no more pizza shops then people will grumble. They may band together and cook pizzas at home or form pizza clubs. That’s fine, it’s a whole lot better than what we see right now. At the moment the pizza shops (the corporate ones, not the invader ones: they’d be gone for other reasons) are making a lot of money by selling poison to retards, then taking that money and using it for evil.
                  Shutting them down is a social good, irrespective of the amount of grumbling that follows.

                  People starving in the street is a very different matter. That doesn’t lead to grumbling: it leads to charity and advocacy for change.

      • jim says:

        And yet you have been telling us Marxist class war theory – that capitalists took over from aristocrats – which implies that proles should take over from capitalists.

        Irrespective of the truth or falsity of what you are saying about capitalists, it is a story that is always told in bad faith, with the intent of manipulating group identity to the disadvantage of those to whom the story is told.

        Marxists have not believed class war theory since 1900. It is lie intended to deceive and manipulate. The marxist wants me to ingroup with him, while he secretly outgroups me. Same trick as “Hail fellow white male heterosexual”. Irrespective of the truth about capitalists and capitalism, what the Marxist is saying about group identity is the lie.

        Leftism wants to build a big enough coalition to knock over the applecart, while actually forming an inner ingroup and outgrouping the supposed coalition, and building a secret inner innner group within the inner ingroup, and outgrouping the inner ingroup, as the inner ingroup outgroups the supposed coalition.

        Class war theory is what Marxists tell people that they intend to murder, in order that their intended victims will ingroup with the Marxist, regardless of the truth or falsity of the story. They call proles “rednecks” and peasants “kulaks” when they talk to each other in private at the same time as they are saying “evil capitalist” to the proles and “evil landlord” to the peasants. And Trots pull the same trick on Jews as proletarians – saying “Hail fellow Jews, we are suckering these dumb goy proletarians and we are going to murder them, join us and we will rule together”, but in fact Trots hate Jews even more than they hate proletarians, even though nearly all Trots are Jews. They promise the prole proletarian rule at the same time as they plot with Jews to enslave and murder the proles, and they plot with each other to murder the Jews at the same time as they plot with Jews to murder the proles. They cash in on their supposed Jewish identity in the same way and at the same time as they cash in on their supposed class identity.

        In private, leftists always outgroup the same people that they publicly ingroup. Leftists cultivate every group identity, often mutually contradictory group identities, such as proletarian and Jew, at the same time as they plot to destroy that group, outgrouping the same people that they ingroup.

        Class war theory is a lie, just has “Hail fellow white male heterosexual” is a lie. The lie is not “capitalists did such and such”. The lie is “Hail fellow ingroup member”.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Marxian war theory is a theory of history, and even Hoppe agrees it has merit. He just believes, with Hazlitt, that the classes are divided by net tax contribution, which is a bit batty. It’s of the same basic species, and smells the same, as Marxian thymology.

          “[you’re claiming] Capitalists took over from aristocrats – which implies that proles should take over from capitalists.”

          It’s not so much an ‘ought’ as an ‘is’. Carlyle correctly identified the link between calls for an expanded democratic franchise and the life effects of laissez-faire applied to labour. Take away the job for life and tell people, Norman Tebbit style, to get on their bike, and they’ll want a seat at the table that hands out grants and favours.
          Trades Unions were one manifestation of this but the Universal Franchise was the most damaging of all.

          Where the socialist Left gets it all wrong is in believing that solidarity happens across&between nations within social classes, but never between social classes. World War One proved that this was false, which was part of the reason more sophisticated, affluent Marxists began to distance themselves from the interests of the proletariat, ending with Bill Clinton era Democrats basically being for global free trade with redistribution attached.

          A healthy nation doesn’t want solidarity between nations – friendship maybe, trade maybe sometimes, but never solidarity. The people we have genuine solidarity with are members of our nation, and we do not live in One World – WWI proved the falsehood of that.
          A healthy nation seeks solidarity between classes – no tension between the business owner and his Lord; no tension between the business owner and his staff; no tension between the peasant and his Lord.

          That can’t happen under social democratic economic redistribution and it can’t happen, crucially, when workers are treated as commodities. It’s Carlyle’s horses from “Chartism” and “Latter Day Pamphlets (1)”.

          Now sure Carlyle favoured slavery as an alternative to the guilds, but it wasn’t slavery in any form moderns would recognise as such…. but recognise it they do: as their own lives. The only trouble is, the modern gig economy worker has all the responsibilities of the slave worker under Carlyle’s forced labour economy but none of the advantages!

          • jim says:

            “The capitalists” are no more capable of ruling than “the proletariat”, and if we look at what actually happened, for example with Lord Cardigan, it is glaringly obvious it was not capitalists versus Lord Cardigan, but priests versus Lord Cardigan, priests versus warriors.

            But even if Marx’s Class War Theory was true, in practice it is used for a lie. The person preaching class war theory is trying to get me and my ingroup to ingroup him and his ingroup, while he secretly outgroups me and my ingroup.

            The big lie is “I am with you”, said the communists to the peasants.

            Reactionary theory is that holier-than-God priests are the problem, that social justice warriors are a result of open entry into the official state religion. You are trying to defend your priestly class (it is obvious you are from academia) by telling us our common enemy is the capitalist overlords.

            You want us to ingroup the priestly class, academia, while academia continues to outgroup us as nazis that need punching.

            Class War Theory is not the big lie – it is merely wrong. The big lie is that we should ingroup with academics who intend to murder us against capitalists who intend to sell us pizza.

            • The Cominator says:

              There have been a few societies directly ruled by capitalists/merchants and they tend to do well for a short time (the Dutch Republic, England under William III George I and George IV… the Venetian Republic was probably the best example of a society they kept control of). The problem is they tend to not keep at it and tend to cede power to priests and priests don’t generally rule competently.

              • The Cominator says:

                “No government banned Alex Jones from social media.”

                The people who run the news media which by and large losses money and youtube which definitely losses money are not capitalists. They are members of the permanent government and they glow in the dark.

                To the extent they weren’t compromised by communist and progressive ideology before John Brennan they are totally compromised now.

                Alex Jone’s ban is just the opening shot in bringing Operation Mockingbird to the internet.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              You’re still straw manning. It’s very annoying.

              Nobody said the Capitalist class took the job of ruling the government over from the Aristocracy.

              Laissez-faire is the rule of the market, which in practice means the rule of the capitalist: not over the government but over the nation!

              No government banned Alex Jones from social media. No government instituted Gay Pride Parades and no government forced Santander to advertise Pride Month on its ATMs.
              No government decided that zero-hours contracts and the gig economy was the step forward, any more than any government decided that trans fat was a wholesome foodstuff. (Sure governments are not innocent parties: the prevalence of for example high fructose corn syrup is very much a consequence of government getting in bed with big agriculture.)

              The PRINCIPLE of laissez-faire is the PRINCIPLE that governments should not rule. Carlyle called ‘democracy plus laissez faire’ “anarchy” and he was right: taken to its logical conclusion, the laissez-faire revolution becomes the Ron Paul revolution becomes Bob Murphy Walter Block anarcho-capitalism.

              Nobody’s saying that the world is beset with Class War. Anybody visiting this blog believes (must believe) in Cathedral Theory or some variant thereof.

              All I’m saying is it’s time to drop our residual libertarian prejudices. If we want a strong ruler to replace the Cathedral, that ruler had better blooming-well NOT subscribe to “the government should not rule”.

              • pdimov says:

                >No government instituted Gay Pride Parades

                At least in my country, the American embassy organizes the gay pride parades, quite officially, with the ambassador proudly present.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  We’re basically allies so I’m not going to make that distinction into a big deal. If you want to carry on thinking “business good government bad” while the media’s spewing “government good business bad” then that’s not something I’m going to argue with you about.

                  Nevertheless, my point stands: if we ever get our guy into the White House, he needs to be able to rule. He does NOT need to be a Ron Paulian who’ll say “nothing I can do about that, let the market sort it out”.

                • pdimov says:

                  No disagreement here. I’ve said in the past that the American right, due to its ideological insistence of not using government power, is handicapping itself, as the left experiences no such qualms.

                • jim says:

                  They are not giving us freedom of speech, and indeed they never have, just it becomes more obvious as they tighten up.

                  When we get the upper hand, we should not give them freedom of speech.

                • Yara says:

                  First they came for Andrew Anglin, and I did not speak out—
                  Because I was not a MaleSupremacist.

                  Then they came for Alex Jones, and I did not speak out—
                  Because I was not a WaterFilterSalesman.

                  Then they (almost) came for Stefan Molyneux, and I did not speak out—
                  Because I was not a NonAggressionPrinciple utopianist.

                  Pretty soon they’ll come for the rest of us, and rivers of blood will flow.

              • Michael Rothblatt says:

                Pride parades are government funded throughout the most of the world (even in countries where they are banned by the local government they are funded by the US government) so I don’t know what are you on about. It’s government schools that indoctrinate globohomo into youth in sexed classes. It’s government legislation that closes down bussinesses that refuse to comply…
                As for bussinesses that do comply, well one would very much want for bussinesses to support and buttress the official state religion. So that bit is actually a good thing. That our official religion is crap is a different matter altogether.
                Carlyle sucks ass.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  What does the government do to Santander to force it to place Pride ads in its ATMs?
                  Why were all the Christmas ads in the UK centred around mixed race couples black man white woman?

                  The bottom line? Government edicts?

                  No, the answer, which should be obvious to anyone reading this blog, is the state religion of the Cathedral.

                  The universities train the teachers and journalists; the teachers train the children and the journalists give them refreshers throughout life; the children become workers, employers, investors and businessmen (and politicians); the politicians reflect the beliefs of the population with a small time-lag and fund the universities (and increasingly journalists and businesses) – and round and round it goes.

                  Nobody’s in charge, everyone has to show to everyone else that they’re fully on board with the beliefs that tell right from wrong (this year you have to say homosexuality’s brave and heterosexuality’s ‘vanilla’; next year who knows) – and round and round it goes.

                  Regulator-regulators keeping the external and internal quality assurance auditors happy, and auditor-auditors keeping the external and internal appeals process administrators calm; appeals-process-investigators keeping democratic-accountability-czars busy, and checks and balances keeping the whole thing legitimate…. with the help of the experts, the commentators, the advertisers and the public-private partnership organisations and advocates……

                  A strong leader would transcend all of this, so long as he was allowed to do his job. That job would NOT involve too much soul-searching as to whether such&such a corrective boot on the throat of some filthy (((entrepreneur))) violated some mad Lockean abstract principle.

                • jim says:

                  > What does the government do to Santander to force it to place Pride ads in its ATMs?

                  Threaten them with hostile environment lawsuits.

                  Management lives in terror of HR, and HR are political appointees. So it is not so much the government as such threatening hostile environment lawsuits, it is HR.

                  Example: Google fired Damore because management were told in no uncertain terms by HR that if they did not fire him, would be sued for hostile environment, which is code for HR would make sure the lawsuit happened, and make sure Google lost.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >What does the government do to Santander to force it to place Pride ads in its ATMs?

                  Santander is a bank operating in a world with maturity transformation and a fiat currency – meaning that inevitably they will be unable to meet their short term obligations when their long term assets drop in value because they’re holding the same long term assets as all other banks.

                  When that time comes they either get propped up by the entity that can create new assets by fiat or they go bankrupt.

                  That’s what USG does to force Santandar to put Pride ads on their ATMs.

      • Michael Rothblatt says:

        >We don’t need property rights or individual liberty.

        Yeah, let’s turn entire country into a gulag. Holodomor FTW!!!

        Read your Jean Bodin. You can’t even get your Absolutism straight. Not even Bodin thought that we should end private property.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          Who said anything about ending private property?
          I said we don’t need property rights or individual liberty.

          Property rights is Adam Kokesh punching the air and yelling “taxation is theft”.

          As Moldbug correctly stated, property held by individuals in society is a SECONDARY property right. The primary property rights belong monopolistically to whoever has power over the society.
          You own your home because the USG won’t allow MS13 to invade and throw you out. (Yet.)

          • Every right, every law is a tool in the hand of the sovereign, as Filmer has put it, it is like the carpenter’s measuring tape. The sovereign is “allowed” to override any law or right, in this sense property is not different from e.g. life. However, is generally not wise for the sovereign to do so, because civilization requires low time preference which requires as predictable, stable society. The sovereign is “allowed” to be arbitrary and “random”, but is not an good idea for him to be so except in really exceptional circumstances. “Rule of law” means the sovereign deciding according to the law in the overwhelming majority of the cases. “Property rights” means the sovereign guarantees private property in the overwhelming majority of the cases.

            This is actually basic common sense, this is how parenting works. I should to be predictable as a father, just like a king should be predictable, and that “should” is what “rule of law” and “property rights” means. Because if I am not predictable with approval and disapproval, reward and punishment, the child will have no idea of the consequeces of her behavior and will just do whatever she feels like doing. On the other hand, the rules I make are my tools, I am allowed to declare exceptions.

            Long story short, occasional violations of property rights are fine, but when it happens all the time you have a stupid king.

            • I have to add something. Joel Spolsky is a fucking prog, but as a programmer-philosopher he is excellent, and his concept of “leaky abstractions” is easily one of the top 20 most important ideas I have learned. The reason a sovereign is allowed to override rules in exceptional cases is twofolds. One is the obvious, if anyone can stop the sovereign doing what he wants, he is not the real sovereign.

              The second is that laws and rights and similar tools (specifications, contracts, design principles, software interfaces…) are “leaky abstractions”. People figure out ways to “game” them. You can never make a law whose intent cannot be violated while the letter is not violated. The reason behind it is that intent is not something that lives in words. So it is precisely in those cases should the sovereign say “Nice try, really, but you knew I won’t let you get away with it, right?” And in practically no other cases.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Thank you that sounds interesting, will look into it.
                It’s an area that deserves a lot more attention.

                The flipside of ‘leaky abstractions’ is ‘broad abstractions’: the sovereign will say “nice try”, yes indeedy, but the sovereign will also not be bound by principle in particular cases. Everyone knows that Wonga and fixed odds betting terminals are poisonous. Social democratic leaders are weak, so they darecen’t just crush them out of existence, but there’s no reason why any sovereign, good or bad, would be so timid.

                Someone needs to sweep the garbage off of our streets, and some of that garbage – actually disturbingly much of it – is ‘free consenting exchange of goods and services’.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                > The reason behind it is that intent is not something that lives in words. So it is precisely in those cases should the sovereign say “Nice try, really, but you knew I won’t let you get away with it, right?”

                I find it amusing that religious Jews are dedicated to the idea that they can do this with God.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Not just the kikes.

                  That right there is THE argument for arbitrary rule by power, as opposed to some guiding philosophy or other, be it the Lord, private property, some Bill Of Rights, or whatever….. liars gonna lie so just make it basically “do what I say, period”.

      • peppermint says:

        > How many times am I going to have to signal that I have zero interest in redistribution from rich to poor?

        Then quit advocating for redistribution and random controls on elite behavior. The only control needed on elite behavior is making sure they don’t father children with their mistresses. Other forms of control humilitate them and serve no purpose.

        • Yara says:

          >The only control needed on elite behavior is making sure they don’t father children with their mistresses. Other forms of control humilitate them and serve no purpose.

          That sounds pretty humiliating to me. What holy cause are you going to push next, institutional indentured servitude for all African gastarbeiter? Woman suffrage? Teetotalitarism? Hey, I know! Let’s obliterate the epicenter of American automaking and make manwomen and womanmen.

          • peppermint says:

            The alternative is endless competition to take each others’ wives, and the women who should be the wives of the proles, and mistresses.

            • Yara says:

              She can be a mistress or a wife, but one precludes the other. Which precludes which? Let the elders [masc.] decide.

              If we have a female lifetime fertility rate of 4 and the average age of childbearing is 22, there will be two 22y/o women per 44y/o man. We can have a long tail of monogamy from 50th percentile and down and triogamy from 51st percentile and up, or monogamy from 80th percentile and down and hexagamy from 81st percentile and up, or monogamy from 90th percentile and down and hendecagamy from 91st percentile and up. If we enforce a 2:1 sex ratio and pure sexual socialism, we can have four 22y/o women per 44y/o man, three 22y/o women per 33y/o man, or two 22y/o women per 22y/o man.

              If we want to go all Brave New World on the future, we can have an unlimited supply of state-issued IVF-born freemartins, though maybe it’s possible to go too far.

              • peppermint says:

                No. If more than one is allowed, I will cuck you. I am a much more credible scumbag than you are.

                The 23-27 year old men need wives. They should marry the 19-23 year olf women. If you think you’re going to get an extra wife, rest assured, you’re going to be left with your dick in your hands while I fuck all the women.

                No one wants freemartins you retarded 14 year old boy.

                You can have as many egg donors, surrogate mothers and artificial wombs, whores and mistresses as you can pay for. If you’re allowed to fuck and reproduce with more than one woman, you’re not going to be able to do that, because I’m going to corner the market and make you my court eunuch. Faggot.

                • Yara says:

                  Do you believe in witchcraft & wizardry? Why is having one womban magical but to have two assures cuckoldry?

                  Let’s say prime-time marriage age is late twenties. Well and good. Still, why not double the sex ratio? Serial monogamy is totally cool but duogamy is somehow a problem for you? Let me guess: it’s because women are totally cool with serial monogamy but duogamy they hate hate hate… Cognicuck, uncuck thyself.

                  Everything is better when there are more bioavailable women than men willing to have them. Everything. It’s like a growing economy: in a positive-sum world, the only question is who gets to divvy up the new 3% of gross domestic spoils. Compare to a contracting economy: zero-sum struggle veering into outright civil conflict.

                  Everyone wants freemartins. Everyone, everywhere, at all times. Today, we call them “girlfriends”.

                  So tell us why, knowing all you know, saying all you say, do you have a birth-controlled girl-friend and not a prepped, active, and online womban? I smell a hypocritical faggot emitting hypocritical faggotry.

            • Roberto says:

              >The alternative is endless competition to take each others’ wives

              Liar. With a 1:5 male-female ratio, and the liberty to slaughter adulterers, men will seek to acquire young virgins from their fathers. Cuckoldry will be virtually non-existent.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          “quit advocating for redistribution and random controls on elite behavior.”

          There’s been no advocacy for redistribution but plenty of disavowals of it. Ask yourself why you persist in attacking such a blatantly false target.

          For the millionth time, there shall be no redistribution whatsoever.

          Most of the controls over food, drugs, gambling and public behaviour are aimed squarely at the proles, not the élite. The élite will however be subject to the same levies and tariffs on air travel and so on. This is emphatically not a redistributive measure: it’s a security one.

          At the present time, capital is flowing out of our nations like crazy. Every time a white European has enough money, they take it overseas and spend it!

          This has to stop.

          The food and drug stuff is to stem the tide of death, and has nothing at all to do with virtue-policing. Neither does it have anything to do with redistribution.

          • Michael Rothblatt says:

            Jim is right, it is about the distribution, just not distribution of money. You want to distribute status from those that rightfully gained it to those that rightfully lost it. Like those that want to prevent women from doing stupid shit by punishing men, you want to prevent proles from consuming stupid shit by punishing those those that create. The real reactionary solution to the prole question is simple: if you like them so much buy as much of them as you can and be their nanny. To punish optimates for the faults of proles is like controlling men for female misbehavior. It is a recipe for creation of dysgenic prole utopia. The greatest problem with Nationalists is that they abolished serfdom on the Continent and then the proles started breeding like rabbits (earlier they could not marry without permission of their lord, which made their breeding eugenic) which is what led to those horror stories about Industrial Revolution. You want to do something even worse, you want to create the prole equivalent of “mouse paradise” a sandbox for proles to spread until they devour everyone else.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              “You want to distribute status from those that rightfully gained it to those that rightfully lost it.”

              I’ve been extremely specific and explicit, and been straw manned every step of the way. I’m not going to stand for it.

              For the umpteenth time, banning Domino’s Pizza is not a matter of power redistribution to raise up the downtrodden; nor it is a matter of virtue and purity.
              Banning Domino’s Pizza is an attempt to put a stop to a harmful phenomenon in society. The job of any ruler (King, CEO or whatever) is to protect the nation from cancerous influences.

              Right now, in the current year, peasants are paying high prices for poisonous food – not just at Domino’s Pizza but they’re a wonderful exemplar. Peasants would be better off going back to cooking at home, living longer and saving for the future.
              AnCaps would invoke monetary incentives: get rid of free healthcare and social security and monetary incentives will exert Adam Smith’s handiwork.
              This is bunk. People are behaving contrary to the incentive of getting coronary heart disease and ending up first in a wheelchair then a coffin by their mid 50s at the latest, so why on Earth would the prospect of a large bill thirty years down the line that may or may not happen frighten them any more than that!

              People in this community will resist the abolition of Domino’s Pizza because deep down you’re all libertarians and you don’t think it IS the King’s place to govern. You think that’s a job for the market.

              I’m here to make you question that, and to remind you that it was laissez-faire that led to the universal franchise and the welfare state in the first place.

              • jim says:

                > For the umpteenth time, banning Domino’s Pizza is not a matter of power redistribution to raise up the downtrodden; nor it is a matter of virtue and purity.

                Yes it is. You are blaming Domino’s Pizza for gluttony.

                You are marketing yesterday’s leftism, because today’s leftism is not going to appeal to straight white males.

                I like pizza. I managed to control my weight anyway. If other people cannot, that is their fault.

                You, promising to take status away from evil capitalists and give it to gluttons, which is supposed to appeal to me because I have a big problem with gluttony, lust, and wrath. But what will actually do is take status away from me and give it to academics.

                Banning pizza and beer is holier than Jesus, which is classic leftism. Prohibition was leftism. You are marketing to us all the old left wing causes, and calling them reactionary causes. All of these causes are pretended to raise the status of reactionaries as academics imagine them to be – fat despicable hateful white male losers – but will instead raise the status of the priestly class, who get to allot bread rations in to the bread lines.

                This is the standard priestly gimmick: “Ingroup with us”. You are offering rightists as you imagine them to be an inducement to ingroup with people who outgroup us.

                Nah, ingrouping with priests has been really bad for straight white males.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “You are blaming Domino’s Pizza for gluttony.”

                  Negative. I’m identifying them as a necessary and sufficient cause for the manifestation of gluttony among people incapable of rising above temptation.
                  Notice I’m humouring your sin-based account, because there’s no evidence you’re ever going to stop straw-manning me on this.

                  You can call me a proddy dissenter now, because I’m going to immanentize the eschaton lol the sin of gluttony, for these people, leads to judgement in THIS world, in the form of heart disease, ‘mobility problems’, diabetes and depression, among others. As a free bonus side effect, the capital wasted on needlessly expensive junk food also destroys the wealth of future generations.

                  It is these symptoms the King has an interest in solving, and the solution’s very easy: close the pizza houses.
                  If you want to spin a crusade against premature death and misallocation of capital as Puritannical, so be it. I’m done caring.

                  “I like pizza. I managed to control my weight anyway. If other people cannot, that is their fault.”

                  Libertarian! That’s all I’m claiming – that many in the Reactosphere are still being shaped by their old libertarian beliefs. Rugged individualism pulling yourself up by your bootstraps and the Devil take the hindmost.
                  What a glorious and civilised future – the American colonial expansion writ large!

                  “Banning pizza and beer is holier than Jesus, which is classic leftism. Prohibition was leftism.”

                  Sure, so was laissez-faire. /effects whining left-coast liberal affectation: “Bastiat sat on the left”

                  What’s reactionary is the idea that the society itself has a responsibility to look after the stupidest and least able.
                  It’s so reactionary it even triggers the libertarians.
                  You think some SJW from Columbia is going to get on board with the pizza ban? Get out of here!

                  “[the pizza ban will] raise the status of the priestly class, who get to allot bread rations in to the bread lines.”

                  Not if the ‘priestly class’ is the military. What was the effect of rationing in Britain in the 20th century?
                  What about the effect of a vibrant market in cheap, readily available food since the 1970s?

                  If Reaction is by necessity the embrace of post-76 obesocracy then I suppose I’m a liberal commie after all. Give me my Grandmother’s days eating dripping sandwiches and re-using bath-water. Hard times make strong men.

                • >What’s reactionary is the idea that the society itself has a responsibility to look after the stupidest and least able.

                  Yes – but not by these methods. Target them directly, instead of the temptation. If they rely on public support, feed them healthy food in public cafeterias or something. Send them boxes of vegetables. If they are able to work a job and earn their pay, they sort of earned their right to die of diabetes if that is what they want. Or throw out a sin tax and thus price pizza out of their reach. Or make them literally second class citizens, legal minors who have a guardian appointed. But nationalizing things like food just because some people are gluttonous is a stupid overkill.

                  Look. A house left unlocked is a temptation for potential thieves. But I think a good reactionary community is where you can leave houses left unlocked. Removing temptations is just not the way to go, the way to go is controlling the temptable.

                  The essence of government is governing people, not running things. Government is the thing that tells people you may do this or that, not the thing that is supposed to run half the economy.

                  And – I am not sure the poor and the stupid we always have to have with us. How about a nice basic income in return for sterilization? We really don’t need the stupidest and the least able to reproduce.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >What’s reactionary is the idea that the society itself has a responsibility to look after the stupidest and least able.

                  By enslaving them. Not by punishing the smart and the able, which is just far-leftism.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                  Yes indeed a healthy society is one where your door can be left open, and indeed you can open a pizza shop without destroying the civilisation. You could, in principle, have 24/7 casinos and heroin sold at Walmart _in a healthy society_

                  Last time I looked, that’s not the society in which any of us find ourselves. Where WE actually live, people are behaving destructively.

                  Now I understand entirely why the libertarians among us are inclined to say “who cares: let the plebs starve”. I agree, in principle, but history shows us it won’t pan out that way.

                  In a healthy society, you wouldn’t need to prohibit people selling their 3-year-old daughter as a prostitute in BDSM movies.

                  In a healthy society, nobody would need to house their bank cards in a protective metal wallet to stop electronic account breaches.

                  In a healthy society, nobody would dream of selling counterfeit medication to the terminally ill.

                  We don’t live in that society. Things are so bad for people at the sharp end of all this, we actually DO need a curfew and strict regulation of alcohol and junk food.

                  What you have to ask yourself is why you’re resisting it. What I’m telling you is it’s your residual commitment to John Locke’s natural rights. You nod your heads to Hans Hoppe claiming we own our bodies and we argue because we intend to deal peacefully with our neighbour, and if only the state stepped away, people would make rational decisions and the market would shape the world into something better than what we currently see under mass prog-government intervention.

                  Is he right? Sure, if your point of comparison is globohomo then absolutely, Hoppe’s covenant communities are a huge step up. So’s Ron Paul’s constitutional Republic.
                  So’s a Stuart Restoration.

                  But why not forget all about natural rights and just let the King do what needs to be done?

                  Pizza is an excellent example because it’s superficially so harmless, but go among the peasants and you’ll see ostensibly poor people paying $70 for take-away pizza and then lamenting the fact they’re gaining weight and can’t afford to keep the heating turned on.

                  The libertarian says “let them starve”, but the society will never do that…. and so we get what we have today: massively intrusive regulation PLUS ‘live and let live’ laissez-faire consumerism.

                  It’s not stable.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >residual commitment to John Locke’s natural rights

                  It hasn’t got anything to do with Locke, and everything to do with common sense. Why don’t you, for example, propose making everyone who is on welfare, or who is unemployable on the market into a serf? No instead, you propose communism. We are not libertarians, but you sure are a filthy communist!

                • pdimov says:

                  >Pizza is an excellent example

                  It is, but not in the way you think.

                  Government banning the harmful things is a nice idea in theory but it presupposes that the government knows, or is capable of correctly determining, which things are harmful.

                  And by using burgers and pizza as examples of harmful things, you’ve brilliantly refuted your own assumption.

                  What will happen when you ban pizza and nothing improves? You’ll conclude, of course, that you either didn’t ban enough, or that people are somehow evading the ban, and then you’ll double down.

                  Now you will (again) misinterpret this as a general argument, that you are incapable of knowing things, because Hayek. But it isn’t. It’s a specific argument – you want to ban pizza, specifically, and banning pizza will not help. Ergo, you’re unfit to implement your own idea of ruling benevolently. It’s not that you are incapable of knowing things because fatal conceit, you just refuse to entertain the possibility of being wrong, and consequently your government has no plan B, as it’s always right.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “What will happen when you ban pizza and nothing improves? You’ll conclude, of course, that you either didn’t ban enough, or that people are somehow evading the ban, and then you’ll double down.”

                  Who said anything about banning pizza? It’s impossible.
                  I said shut Domino’s (and similar) down, do not allow them to trade, do not allow them to own property, do not allow them to advertise, etc. etc. etc.

                  It’s amazing to me how resistant this community is, and my assumption, which may be incorrect, is that it’s residual libertarianism: you can’t do that, it violates their rights!

                  You may not personally believe me but I’m telling you the truth, and I don’t CARE if everyone here (myself, you, Jim, everyone) is perfectly able to avoid the harm.

                  The truth is this: there are large numbers of people who, for whatever reason (low IQ, bad habits, addictive ingredients, advertising saturation, whatever) spend very large amounts of money buying pizza from these blatantly predatory companies. Not only is a great deal of capital being misallocated to large INTERNATIONAL anti-white companies that do us no good, but in addition to this people are getting super-duper-sick from it.

                  Pizza is by no means the only example but it’s a good one because it’s ‘just a type of food’. Sure, a home made pizza can be a nice little meal for someone. That’s great. But that’s not what Domino’s Pizza IS.

                  I’ve personally seen someone order £40 ($50) of take-away pizza totally at least 3000 calories, eat it, then beat themselves up that they’re gaining weight. Eventually there’s a very real chance this will end up having taken years off their life, even IF the ingredients are the ones you’d expect in a normal pizza, which is by no means obvious at all.

                  Domino’s Pizza then took that money, and all the other millions funnelled into their coffers by similar people, and ran social justice campaigns etc. with it – not to mention homogenising culture all over the world, making it much harder to argue in favour of inter-national diversity and identity.

                  They’re the bad guys, but here I see non-naive reactionaries defending them and attacking me by calling me a progressive entryist!!!!!!!!!!

                • Roberto says:

                  I don’t think you’re a deliberate entryist, but when you say:

                  >Eventually there’s a very real chance this will end up having taken years off their life

                  like it’s a bad thing, rather than social Darwinism in action, it shows that you, CR, possess residual leftism, i.e. you empathize with those who don’t deserve empathy, like all progs basically.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  >”I don’t think you’re a deliberate entryist”

                  I don’t think Carlylean is a deliberate entryist either, but is it even necessary for an entryist to be deliberately deceptive and self-aware to do his job? Leftism, like all religious phenomena, thrives on sincerity. Just as progs really do believe that Islam, rightly understood, is progressivism, and SJWs really do believe that Star Wars with soyboys, alpha females and sexual deviants for protagonists is better than evil old toxic-masculinity Star Wars, no doubt CR genuinely believes that “reactionary” socialism and sumptuary laws are reactionary, indeed more purely reactionary than the Jimist position, which he no doubt genuinely believes is tainted by latent libertarian tendencies.

                  Leftism is a strategy for subverting hierarchies through their moral and ideological bindings, gaining free power and status for holiness. But it is a strategy in the sense that shit testing is a strategy for smoking out alphas, not in the sense that scorched earth is a strategy for war: it is not self aware; a leftist’s intentions are always pure. When communists ingroup with proles, they are being perfectly sincere, and when they later start purging kulaks, wreckers and reactionary elements, they are again being perfectly sincere — they are merely nobly and selflessly protecting the “real” proles, who are who they “really” ingrouped with in the first place. It’s an interesting question whether leftism becomes self-aware, at least partially, at its highest levels, such as Lenin, Trotsky and Alinsky. I think at those levels, the capacity for doublethink is so highly developed that the Lenin figure is both a sincere, pure-intentioned saint and a ruthless, scheming deceiver in the same brain, even in the same thought.

                • pdimov says:

                  >I said shut Domino’s (and similar) down, do not allow them to trade, do not allow them to own property, do not allow them to advertise, etc. etc. etc.

                  OK, but you’re ignoring my argument. Why do you want to shut Domino’s down? Because, in your opinion, things will improve with Domino’s not existing. Correct?

                  So what do you do when you shut them down and things don’t improve?

              • Roberto says:

                The real Red Pill is that “social ills” that disproportionately weed out those with low intelligence, weak impulse control, and weak survival/procreation instincts, are not really “social ills.”

              • Roberto says:

                In his “The dire problem and the virtual option,” Moldbug suggested locking millions of unsavory types inside virtual reality pods. A cool idea in theory, but absolute rubbish in practice. My proposition — legalizing “everything” (not actually everything, but you get the point) — is more doable in the here-and-now, and much less creepy.

                That “degeneracy” is often eugenic, indeed extremely eugenic, is a pill that many people ostensibly on the Right are unwilling to swallow, but that just makes them cucks.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  It’s Lew Rockwellian libertarianism.

                  The degenerates have their village over there, the pre-V2ers have their Benedict Option over here and never the twain shall meet except to trade. Service provider corporations will never try to homogenise them together because business good government bad.

                  Porcfest anyone? Students for Liberty anyone?

                  YAY polyamory, Bitcoin and smack, the perfect Randian Utopia…….

                • …and that is the opposite kind of extreme, I have to disagree with this as well. The problem with that is that is that people who can suddenly do a lot of various kinds of self-harm will also be more dangerous to others.

                  Back when I was libertarian I saw a dangerous tendency in libertarianism which I called the stopping on a dime fallacy. Basically, why have speed limits, just punish people who cause accidents and people will learn to drive safely. The truth is, many are too stupid for that and organic order will grow only after all the stupids caused an accident and are safely locked in prison. By that logic don’t even wait for it, just lock them up pre-emptively.

                  So the stopping on the dime fallacy is that self-harm or stupid behavior can be safely separated from behavior harming others. It is not so, pretty often self-harm and stupidty running wild is just a chaotic situation where there is easily a big negative fallout for others.

                  McFatty with the beetus isn’t dangerous for me. He won’t try to mug me for his daily dose of sugar. But hard drugs are banned for precisely this reason. We must be careful to allow only the kind of self-harm that doesn’t much increase the chance of harming others.

                • Roberto says:

                  Junkies harm other people either because the kind of person who becomes a junkie is antisocial, or because they need money for the stuff. Legalization of all hard drugs will make them much cheaper, and the ensuing mass self-culling will kill two birds with one stone.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Dividualist : “when I was a libertarian”

                  You still are. You’re making Rothbard’s argument for legalising drink driving.
                  The standard mainstream libertarian attitude is exemplified by Tom Woods: “oh come on Murray you can’t say things like that lolololol” – no fundamental disagreement in principle.

                  In the real world, we all know that drunk drivers will take innocent lives, and so we violate the rights of the merely inebriated safe driver for the greater good. That’s how it should be. That’s how it HAS to be.

                  Libertarianism isn’t ‘almost right’, it’s totally wrong. It’s predicated not just on Locke’s natural rights but on Rousseau’s inherent goodness of Man. In a state of nature (ie. absent the government) Man interacts with Man in ways that tend towards increasing the net prosperity and health of society.

                  No. Hobbes was right and Rousseau was wrong, or to put it in a modern context, Napoleon Chagnon was right and Margaret Mead was wrong.

                  We here at this blog should have no truck at all with libertarianism. It’s dyed-in-the-wool Whiggery and Universalist to the bone.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >Libertarianism isn’t ‘almost right’, it’s totally wrong.

                  Yes they are totally wrong. They believe they can get the world rid of communism by talking. As you have demonstrated the only thing commies like yourself would understand is being sent to gulag to get a taste of your own medicine.

                • peppermint says:

                  Jim: the goverment has more power than anyone pays attention to, and uses that power for evil, because of past attempts at using its power to compel good behavior and at the same time pretending to use its power to limit its power

                  CR: if the government is powerful and we can control it, we can make it use its power to compel everyone to their best behavior

                  CR, you are a child and see the government as your father and mother. When you become a man you will understand that the government is neither your father nor your mother, but you are a fingernail of the nation, the nation being all of your fathers and mothers. No one can compel you to perform your duties to your nation, family and race, the best we can do is compel speech that signals such a commitment.

                  Libertarians are right that a government that doesn’t have clear laws the laws it has will be used to favor people it favors and disfavor people it disfavors, a government that is too controlling invites as much contempt as a govenment that is too lax, and that unclear laws and ridiculous displays of power are often used to cover for policies that the people who should be in charge wouldn’t want.

                  Elites must be kept to one wife for their own cohesion.

                  Banning prostitution and mistresses over the table while weakening marriage by allowing bastards and single moms to be part of polite society created the parade of girlfriends and booty call lists.

                  Banning alcohol and gambling created the illegal networks that were used to smuggle hard drugs and immigrants in.

                  The law against saying nigger or bitch or faggot in polite company made it so anyone to the right of CNN can get fired if they get found out.

                  Banning swimming pools is pants on fire retarded. More interesting is the claims about architecture: once, men wrote their names on buildings and built majestic and beautiful buildings. Now any building without a corporate logo is ugly as sin – why? Because the person in charge of the project, if he can’t put his name on it, can at least vandalize the public space with an oppressive eyesore.

                  Your solution is to train a neural network to examine architectural drawings and require a beauty score for a permit. My solution is to put the builder’s name on it and have everyone mock builders of and workers in ugly buildings.

                  Government has a lot of power, including direct power, but we are individuals, the fingernails of the nation, and we respond to incentives.

                  Perhaps communists must be brutally beaten by the criminals they patronize in order for them to know who the right ingroup is.

                • Yara says:

                  >Perhaps communists must be brutally beaten by the criminals they patronize in order for them to know who the right ingroup is.

                  Fat chance.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  We’re getting at the heart of the matter now.

                  Peppermint said:

                  “CR, you are a child and see the government as your father and mother.”

                  CORRECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I’m with Richard Spencer: rights come from government! Moldbug agrees. When he wants to, Jim agrees too.

                  Let that sink in, Peppermint and all you other recent converts from libertarianism: the government IS YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER!

                  Right now your father and mother are sick progressive lunatics who love other people’s children more than their own because they want to signal how altruistic they are. “Save four random children in a fire or your own? Hell no, I’d save ONE random child before four of my own!!!”

                  “Now any building without a corporate logo is ugly as sin – why? Because the person in charge of the project, if he can’t put his name on it, can at least vandalize the public space with an oppressive eyesore.”

                  I’m not going to demand examples, so long as you don’t either. Let’s just assume we’re both speaking in good faith.
                  This is the libertarian, Randian prejudice, but history isn’t in agreement with you.

                  We moderns see Gaudi as the ultimate individualist designer, but that’s not how he saw himself. He was the CEO of a guild of builders and artists. He was the master of masters and got the final say, just as the commissar at the head of a committee does, but he had a lot of masters under him and they had experts, journeymen and apprentices doing the heavy lifting.
                  It was neither conceived or perceived as a solo effort of an individual genius, so when we moderns look at the Sagrada Familia and say “wow what a genius”, we’re completely missing the point.

                  Am I arguing for socialism? Yes! Mediaeval and Renaissance socialism!
                  The only socialism you guys are able to perceive is the Marxian kind, but Marx was just a reaction (yes a reaction and a Reaction!!!!) to the symptoms, the effects, of laissez-faire.
                  Roll back not just Marxian ‘solutions’ (evil and disgusting as they are) but the problem itself!

                • jim says:

                  The socialism you envisage is centralized.

                  To the extent that the economy was socialist before 1660, it was decentralized.

                  And the capitalism instituted in the restoration worked a whole lot better than medieval socialism, just as medieval socialism worked a whole lot better than modern socialism.

                  Secondly, there is the Scrooge McDuck/Ayn Rand defense of capitalism: “It’s my money, I earned every penny” To which Moldbug would reply “And who is defending the system of property rights under which you earned it?”

                  But if the Sovereign routinely fails to uphold that system of property rights, he is defecting on his taxpayers, which is morally bad, and results in a shortage of taxpayers. The ruler gets to decide the exception, but if there are too many exceptions, things fall apart.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >Am I arguing for socialism? Yes! Mediaeval and Renaissance socialism!

                  First learn some history. Then we can talk. You will find out that the earlier times were unbelievably degenerate by your standards. You will also find out that it’s ridiculous to think of guild system as socialism. It is simply cartelized capitalism. And no, guilds were not founded out of any social concerns or some other bunkum like that. Guilds were founded to increase the power of bourgeoisie in the cities at the expense of nobility. And the more powerfull the guilds became the less power the noblity had over the cities. Pretty soon, thanks to the guilds, cities became independend from much of aristocratic or eclessiastic power. But socialism it certainly was not. Medieval cities had the most extreme respect for private property. Confiscation of property was explicitly forbidden, no matter the crime. Law-enforcement wasn’t allowed to enter people’s homes, and nobody was to be arrested except on aldreman orders. See, you would have actually hated it there…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Mike mate, every time you straw man me you make my argument for me.
                  I haven’t once mentioned ‘social concerns’. I’m talking about people bankrupting themselves and suffering early deaths. You don’t have to be a ‘bleeding heart fascist’ to say “hey, we’ve got a King now: how about we don’t let that carry on in the name of muh NAP”.

                  It’s not the most unreasonable thing in the world.

                  I just scrolled to find the comment of yours I’m responding to, and saw one I missed (sorry, got a life).

                  “Why don’t you, for example, propose making everyone who is on welfare, or who is unemployable on the market into a serf?”

                  Finally we agree on something! People with profound disabilities are the business of family and community. People too antisocial or stupid to hold down a job should be told precisely what to do, and then made to do it.

                  I just kind of assumed everyone here would be anti-welfare. This said, a social security safety net for genuinely unfortunate souls losing their jobs isn’t the most unreasonable thing in the world, and it’s not the most unreasonable thing in the world for it to be nationalised and mandatory, so if you want to see that as flip-flopping, yeah it sort of is to be honest. Remember not to compare ideas in the abstract to what you see under globohomo, because whatever they do and however they do it, that stuff’s getting ended.

                  Ah, found it!

                  “earlier times were unbelievably degenerate by your standards”

                  I flatly deny this. But wait: if you’re talking about moral conduct then sure, fine, but I’m not, and have never been, talking about moral conduct. I’m talking very specifically about private entities misbehaving in ways that are harmful to the physical lives of millions and the wealth of nations, and the argument we have here is that I say the King (or whatever) has every right to tell those companies to leave, whereas you lot are finding endless excuses as to why that’s not going to be possible, desirable and helpful.
                  I’m yet to hear anything that isn’t 1. a straw man argument (you’re trying to police morality, etc.) and/or 2. muh natural rights.

                  Sorry, I have heard one thing – from you I think – that isn’t either of those, and it’s “let them starve”, which isn’t going to happen in the real world as the 19th century proved over and over again. If only! But it won’t happen, be it eugenic or not.

                  “[The guild system]is simply cartelized capitalism”

                  Yes. Capitalism that says “this is what’s allowed to compete and this is what can GTFO”. That’s why antique chairs are better than Ikea. Better? Surely Ikea’s better value. In the long run? Probably not. But who’s to say the masses are to be deferred to in their judgement that crappy furniture plus holidays is better than permanent heirloom furniture minus holidays? I say the King knows better than them what will turn the Kingdom into something their descendants can be proud of. Right now we have people living for the moment because YOLO, then asking “what’s it all for?” when they’re at the end of the road. Sad.

                  “the more powerfull the guilds became the less power the noblity had over the cities”

                  This is arguably true. The future cannot simply be an imitation of the past, and our future cartels need to be run by, and for, the aristocracy. ‘The Royal Charter’ needs to be something more than just a label.

                  “Law-enforcement wasn’t allowed to enter people’s homes, and nobody was to be arrested except on aldreman orders. See, you would have actually hated it there…”

                  Yes, that natural rights stuff dating right back to the Magna Carta is ultimately a dangerous farce. It’s farcical until it becomes too real-seeming, then it’s dangerous.

                  There’s a bottom line here: when a corporation’s killing people with their consent, the King CAN shut it down, but all the little NRxers are out there protesting along with globohomo: give me convenience or give me death!

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >But who’s to say the masses are to be deferred to

                  What you say is nonsensical. It’s not the case of either everyone has Louis XIV furniture or everyone has Ikea. Rather the case of king has Louis XIV furniture because he can afford to pay the cartel prices, whereas everyone else has no furniture at all. Instead, let the masses have Ikea and Trump can have Louis XIV furniture.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  >Right now we have people living for the moment because YOLO, then asking “what’s it all for?” when they’re at the end of the road.

                  And having massively inflationary fiat money has got nothing to do with that? No effect at all on time preference and behaviors?

                • Roberto says:

                  >I’m talking about people bankrupting themselves and suffering early deaths.

                  This is your leftism right here: the inability or unwillingness to see those people for the inborn losers they are and realize that society is objectively better off without them.

                  Gluttonous paupers who spend all their money on Domino’s Pizza *deserve* suffering and early death. Nigger junkie faggots who take hundreds of poz-loads up the butt in-between crack binges *deserve* suffering and early death. Serial gamblers who leech off the charity of family & friends *deserve* suffering and early death.

                  Legalization of “everything,” followed by the rapid disappearance of various malcontents, is not a negative thing – it is a positive thing.

                  What will happen if they put the cocaine back into the Coca-Cola, CR? I’ll tell you what: sensible people with at least a modicum of self-control will start regulating their cola intake. Meanwhile, dipshits will start getting addicted to it en masse, which may or may not lead to “suffering,” which may or may not eventually culminate in “early death.”

                  AND THAT IS HOW EUGENICS WORK!

                  The desire to replace natural selection with statist social engineering is a hallmark of leftism. And it’s always done in a demotist fashion, i.e. “for the benefit of the people.” Evidently, you want to ban Domino’s Pizza “for the benefit of the people.” But Moldbug had it exactly right:

                  “The capitalist restaurant is operated for the benefit of its owners. The Communist restaurant is operated for the benefit of its customers. But which has better food?”

                  If the King decides that Domino’s Pizza is bad for *his* interests, he’ll ban it outright. But he won’t do it because a bunch of lardass gluttons grumble about being exploited by evil capitalists. He may as well tell *them* (the gluttons) to “STFU or GTFO.” And I can definitely envision the King building a crack factory inside the black ghetto in order to eliminate its inhabitants, should he conclude that the non-violent, NAP-compatible elimination of hoodrats is good for *his* interests.

                  Heroin-in-Walmart is GNON asserting Himself in the world. It is God coming down to Earth, thunderously telling its denizens the same old line from Romans 6:23, “The wages of sin – is death.”

                  Being a leftist, you believe that you can do selection better than nature. Hence, you want the government to kill those who possess marijuana, lynch those who leisurely drink alcohol, and castrate men who fuck prostitutes. Why do you want to castrate prostitute fuckers? Because you are a top-down social engineer of the demotist variety:

                  “I will order my legions to slaughter all the alcohol drinkers and prostitute fuckers – for the benefit of the people!”

                  Fascism is leftism on steroids. Hitler, for instance, if he had lasted several years longer, would probably have banned meat consumption in his Reich, forcing the Aryan race into vegetarianism. Of course, “For the benefit of the people.”

                  Everything about your weltanschauung stinks of cowardice. You can’t stand the thought of people pigging out on Domino’s Pizza – so you want to ban it. In the same way, you can’t stand the thought of bringing a child into this imperfect and dangerous world – so you banned your own progeny. Cartoonish! You just want deus ex machina to solve all the problems because you’re afraid of struggle.

                  You *think* that by calling for socialism, you signal “noblesse oblige.” “Look how high status I am, and at the same time how benevolent I am, that I want to ban Domino’s Pizza to help the miserable poor people.” What you actually signal is anti-meritocracy. You don’t want to allow the weak to fail, because you are a weak man who is deeply afraid of the prospect of failure, hence your decision to self-sterilize. Say it ain’t so.

                • eternal anglo says:

                  “And I can definitely envision the King building a crack factory inside the black ghetto in order to eliminate its inhabitants…”

                  Holy shit. I wish I’d thought of that. There’s another one to add to Moldbug’s collection of Dire Problem solutions.

              • Yara says:

                >People in this community will resist the abolition of slavery because deep down you hate Africans and you don’t think it IS Uncle Sam’s place to enforce freedom and equality. You think ruling is for the best.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m with Greg Johnson. Let the Africans be Africans. Sure, it’ll look really bad to us, and some of us will be tempted to go and try to help, but there needs to be an understanding that this is condescending and patriarchal and should be condemned. (A job for the state media perhaps.)

    • jim says:

      Generally it is better to destroy the wealth of enemies rather than confiscate it. Confiscation is apt to backfire. Hence the Old Testament rule of slaughtering the cattle and burning the crops and homes.

      • The Cominator says:

        Isn’t the problem with confiscation that it generally destroys wealth since it tends to give it to people not competent to manage it or just ends up paying for the nice houses and mistresses of politicians?

        • jim says:

          Yes, socially disruptive. Also distracts the team that is supposed to be crushing enemies. And you just don’t get much wealth out of it.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Absolutely right. Confiscation is a declaration of intent to negotiate. The old left knew this would work with the victims of the plan as John C Calhoun correctly detected it.

        Intervention for corrective redistribution in the interests of fairness and justice is cancer.
        Intervention to stop people doing antisocial things that are harming the long-term health of society is cancer treatment.

        • Roberto says:

          >Intervention to stop people doing antisocial things that are harming the long-term health of society is cancer treatment.

          How is it harmful for the long-term health of society if cocaine is legalized and a crack factory is built right in the middle of a nigger ghetto?

          Do you think that people of good breeding will be walking around town snorting coke or injecting themselves with heroin? Have you ever felt a temptation to snort coke or stick a needle into your arm?

          You are a pathological altruist. You are trying to help out people who won’t help themselves, by calling upon the nanny state to eliminate “sources of sin,” rather than allowing the forces of natural selection to weed out the undesirable elements.

          Romans 6:23 says, “The wages of sin is death,” and that’s exactly how the government should view social ills that mysteriously end up harming mostly those who are dumb, impulsive, or otherwise inferior.

          “The wages of sin is death!” says the Grim Reaper to the dying AIDS-pozzed faggot who invited 1,000s of strange men to jizz inside his anus unprotected.

          “The wages of sin is death!” says the Grim Reaper to the junkie prostitute with the track marked arm as she finally overdoses on the unhygienic heroin needle.

          “The wages of sin is death!” says the Grim Reaper to the junkfood-addicted morbid piggie as his cardiovascular system goes straight into sudden cardiac death.

          Let them die, CR. Let their bloodlines perish. Let them be out-bred by superior specimens. Let them earn the wages of their own sins, in accordance with Natural Law. Didn’t Moldbug say something to the effect of “all countries have a death penalty for those who jump in front of a fast moving car,” or something?

          It’s similar to the issue of abortion, but even less ambiguous than abortion. The fetuses who end up aborted are usually not the best fetuses that have been incepted. Quite the opposite. And in the case of junkies (and junkfoodies), it’s actually as clear as day — it’s just glaringly obvious — that they are totally fucked up people whose existence is a burden on society and not much else.

          Infinite access to poison won’t affect those with enough self control to say, “Nope, not touching that shit.” It will remove those with little to no self control. It will remove shitskins, faggots, and other dysfunctionals. It will hardly affect whites of good breeding, whites with low time preference and IQs above 110 or so. So why oppose that?

          • Yara says:

            Oh, please. Literally all we need to do is a bit of police Reconstruction. Then we can sic the thotpolice on the pussyrioters and lean back and laugh heartily.

  10. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    The red pills keep on coming.

    In a high trust, healthy society (such as one hopefully swiftly established by the Jimian Reaction given half a chance), the libertarian argument against redistribution of wealth in the interests of fighting ‘inequality’ goes like this, and is 100% correct:

    Give a millionaire capitalist (or any proven capitalist) a million dollars and he’ll spend some, or even much of it but at least some of it, and even most of it, he’ll find clever uses for so as to get more wealth in the future. Adam Smith’s invisible hand will bring him to do things that are good for society and everyone in it, even though his motivation is personal gain.
    Give a pauper (or any proven consumer) a million dollars and he’ll spend every last dime and oftentimes be back where he started (or sometimes worse) within a few years.

    100% in a healthy society.

    In _our_ sick society? Not so much. The second part’s still true of course but the first part’s getting ropier by the year. So what’s the better alternative to the libertarian answer? To cave and redistribute so that everyone gets a slice of the proverbial pie?
    Not a bit of it: the second part’s true so everyone who receives in the grand lottery of redistribution is more likely than the current owner of the capital to just consume it, perhaps to the very short-term benefit of society (though Mises et al correctly make us sceptical even of that) but ultimately to its detriment.

    So what then?

    Simple: in unhealthy times, we need a healthy ruler ruling over a healthy government. Throne, Altar and Freehold, for sure – or Patchwork, or any similar scheme – even (in the short run) Dr Paul’s Constitutional Republic or the Jacobite simple restoration. Any of these would work at the very least in the immediate run.

    So what’s the difference, in detail, between the libertarian solution and the ‘healthy ruler’ solution? Wouldn’t a healthy ruler (like Moldbug’s SovCorp CEO) be basically the libertarian solution?

    No. We don’t need sick crony degenerates to invest 2% of the available capital and consume the rest. Better then 100% consumption by the plebs, for sure, but not good enough: not even close.

    The healthy ruler and the healthy government he rules (for it will be a he) needs to take control directly and invest 100% of the capital, or near as dammit. (Maybe a few power-works: a cathedral here, a 60 foot statue there.)
    Invest in what? It’s a healthy ruler, not the USG, so it’s not going to be counsellors in primary schools for kids suffering from gender dysphoria; it’s not going to be pozzed Olympics and it’s not going to be endless failed projects like the F35 or whatever it is.
    No, it’ll be whatever a wise capitalist would invest in. Maybe the wisest capitalists will be on the payroll.

    But this is not, and cannot and must not be, a matter of “the market decides”.

    The market right now is a poisoned well. It’s giving us peer-to-peer loans for wedding parties so that people trying to start a secure future can go into debt in order to consume in the present. That needs to stop.
    It’s giving us out-sourcing of every industry, precious ‘IT’ included.
    It’s giving us very strong liberals in positions of extreme power.
    It’s giving us rule under a rainbow flag.

    The market need not lead to Poz, but in the presence of Poz the market acquiesces without the slightest hesitation: if that’s what the masses are asking for, it’s our job to give it to them hard, lubed and sugar-coated.

    The market, freed from rule by the wise, is nothing more than a rudderless ship. It can no more survive the vicissitudes of the open sea by the vote of an electorate than it can by the vote of a marketful of dollars.

    We need to restore health, not freedom for its own sake. We already have that and it’s not working. It’s killing us, and when it doesn’t kill us it turns us gay. Us, not the frogs, Alex.

    • jim says:

      The good ruler cannot directly control any substantial party of the capital, or indeed anything. A business that has its fingers in too many pies is overwhelmed by detail and complexity, and suffers from the well known problem of lack of core competency, leading to well known Dilbert Pointy Haired Boss Big Corporation problem, and the well known Soviet Schlerosis problem, and the less well known problem of central paralysis that contributed to the American Revolution and caused the overthrow and murder of the Romanovs. (The latter being less well known because Whig history lies about it.)

      This problem is explained from the objectivist point of view by Ayn Rand, and same problem from the reactionary point of view explained in Throne, Altar, and Freehold

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        This is simply not true. When you’re imagining very large organisations you’re imagining extant corporations, and they bloat not because it’s an innate tendency beyond a certain size, but because of their nature. Remember to be that large today requires a certain proximity/affinity to government, and government today means USG/Clownword.inc

        Talk to the most austere Austrian you know (not a Randian romantic) and they’ll tell you there’s nothing at all wrong with monopolies (‘natural’ or otherwise) so long as they don’t violate the NAP (and you don’t care about the NAP any more than I do).

        Capitalists today are as infantilised as consumers are, and both require guidance. The core insight of NRx is that guidance is not cancer, that ‘freedom’ is not a right but a luxury.

        Sure, when we have the high trust society of the 1870s once more, businesses can be left alone to innovate and develop technological forward leaps, but we do not live in the 1870s; we live in globohomo gayplex clownworld, where the richest .01% are primarily *consumers* and where the priorities of the richest and largest corporations are *social* rather than economic.

        I don’t like that reality any more than you do, but if you don’t want this ship to be wrecked, it needs a rudder, not a Parliament of Dollars.

        • The Cominator says:

          The core insight of NRx is that modern social democracy is a well disguised theocracy.

        • jim says:

          The problems with attempting to supervise and control too much are obvious. The person in charge is overwhelmed by detail. I have personally experienced them and dealt with them, and seen others experiencing them and attempting to deal with them, usually unsuccessfully.

          This is explained in “I pencil”, and “The Fountainhead”, and is also standard lore and art in the higher levels of software engineering and in corporate governance.

          In software engineering dealing with the problems of excessive span of control is known as “factoring”, and in corporate governance as “core competence”.

          Complexity is apt to spawn complexity, and metastasize out of control. This has been the standard critique of socialism and the central problem of corporate governance for centuries, and has recently become the central problem of software engineering.

          It is nothing to do with moral character. The problem is that the overlord’s mind inherently has finite bandwidth. The overlord cannot really control all that and if he attempts to do so, finds, like the Romanovs, that he has empowered dangerously powerful bureaucrats dangerously close to the throne. The King cannot rule the Kingdom unless the peasant can rule his hovel.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        All I really hear is excuses as to why the King may not (by Lockean natural law) interfere with the sovereign rights of the bourgeoisie, even (or perhaps especially) when the bougies are literally selling booze&gambling in one ad, and STD treatments in the next.

        • jim says:

          Not what I said, not what any reactionary is saying, the opposite of what I said in “Throne, Altar, and Freehold”

          “rights of the bourgeoisie” is also classic academic Marxism, part of the Academic Marxist argument that the proletariat do not really enjoy natural rights, so will be better off with the (((Vanguard of Proletariat))) exercising total and absolute power over the actual proletariat.

          Your wording, “rights of the bourgeoisie”, is yet another example of you speaking in your native shibboleths, and failing to use our shibboleths correctly, revealing yourself as yet another entryist from Academia.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            No you’re wrong. It’s me accepting where Marx is right.

            Marx is wrong about the labour theory of value and he’s wrong (along with your beloved Locke) about the universal equality of Man.
            Marx wants to take capital away from the bourgeoisie because he’d rather place it in the hands of the ‘everyman’ so that the masses can make better use of it. Sadly they just spend it, and if they try to deploy it, they fail because they have no idea what to do with it, because men were not in fact created equal at all: not even close; in fact disturbingly EXTREMELY unequal.

            But Marx absolutely was right that the bourgeoisie was seizing power from the aristocracy as a class. They wanted a seat at the table of power because they had money based on their natural ability. They, naturally enough, wanted to be considered on a par with hereditary nobodies who had no clue about anything in comparison.
            (They were not reactionaries so had no idea of the innate value of hierarchy for its own sake.)

            The bourgeoisie claimed a seat at the table in the 18th century and this led inexorably to two things:

            1. Those immediately beneath them – the urban skilled proletariat (not to be confused with the aimless Lumpenproletariat) – wanted the same: logically and inevitably

            2. Those left starving and homeless by the loss of habitat brought about by ‘laissez-faire’ applied to labour inevitably began calling for real relief: at first this was universal, with no strings attached, then it developed into the ‘poor laws’ and the Workhouse. In the 20th century, we all know where it led. All of this was the inevitable consequence of the bourgeois power grab.

            Marx was right about economic classes, even though he was utterly wrong about literally everything else.

            • jim says:

              > No you’re wrong. It’s me accepting where Marx is right.

              Irrespective of whether Marx was right or not, that you use this relatively obscure Marxist language indicates that you are an academic Marxist, therefore an entryist. You keep using our shibboleths incorrectly, while you keep correctly using the shibboleths of a hostile tribe, which tribe hates us and intends to kill every non Jewish white male in the USA.

              And if you imagine Marx was correct on his theory of rights, you are not a reactionary, but a radical leftist from Academia, from an academic faction that is almost entirely Jewish, probably entirely Jewish.

              Marx’s theory of rights is not reactionary, but ultra leftist. It is also a transliteration of Messianic Judaism, Immanentizing the Eschaton with the proletarian revolution in place of the Messiah. Hence your proposal to abolish beer and pizza, which is just old left holier-than-jesus prohibitionism.

              Abolishing beer and pizza is anti American, and your thumbnail summary of Marx’s class struggle theory is, like the original, too stupid, ignorant, and absurd to merit a response.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                You can make it as much of an ad hominem matter as you want.
                You’ve not read any Marxist literature?

                Marx surely ranks as one of the most debunked and misguided thinkers of all time, up there with the likes of Freud, Carson and Mead! Aren’t you a little bit tempted? There’s some exquisite juice in “Silent Spring”. Heck I got a kick out of “Walden II” for that matter!

                No, Marx was wrong about pretty much everything, but it’s pretty hard to be wrong about the economic classes of the 19th century. It’s blatantly obvious that there exists such a thing as the bourgeoisie: the class of merchants and investors who see themselves as the ascendant inheritors of dethroned power.

                If you meet some bougie in a bar, you know they’re a bougie. You might call them a SWPL, a hipster, a trendy, but you know what it is you’re referring to: people connected to power because of their credentials and ideals; people with lots of money and lots of ways of consuming it; people who do not align with the blue-collar worker and in fact regard him as a brute in need of their guidance; people who are also not aligned with the ‘Optimates’: they see WASP élites as stuffy and out-moded and try their best to undermine every aspect of whatever was the establishment a decade ago.

                This shouldn’t need spelling out: when someone says “the bourgeoisie”, people understand exactly what they mean.

                Now is the modern bourgeoisie identical to that of Marx’s Europe? Of course not: instead of industrialists opening mills, these are the People Who Know Best, doing outreach work with junkies for Zog or teaching spastics to write their name before they hit 30.

                It’s the same thing though and there’s nothing wrong with using the term ‘bourgeois’. Think Jeffrey Tucker basically.

                It’s not necessary to permanently abolish beer and pizza, but right now in the current year, there’s a big problem with the food supply and with people sheepishly consuming it.

                A capitalist libertarian will just shrug and say “that’s how it is”. Fine, that IS how it is, so what are we going to do about it? Let it alone and watch the market keep on improving our human stock?!

                There’s nothing at all wrong with shutting the doors on the 24-hour casinos once and for all; deplatforming the camgirl procurers; putting a stop to CNN; banning the mass marketing of degenerate pop music.

                It won’t be pain-free but it’ll be well worth it.

                If a few millionaires get butt-hurt about it, that’s a price easily worth paying. After all, they don’t have to live amidst the filth. They just wag their finger at those who do.

                It’s all well and good for Murray Rothbard to say the war on drugs is “insane” but I’m guessing his next door neighbours don’t come in at 4am screaming and fighting and leaving needles outside in the yard.

                Is it impossible to eradicate crack cocaine from the West? Probably, but it’s impossible to eradicate murder too: shall we legalise murder like Rabbi Rothbard wants to legalise drunk driving?

                To hell with all that. We’ve had enough of it.

                The time’s come to clean the filth from the streets.

                • Yara says:

                  Wonderful words, truly. And I’m tempted to believe them, but I just can’t help that temptation being overlaid with a faint ghostly impression of the stark horror I experienced when you endorsed sovietsky social housing as beautiful and pleasant and as a reasonable solution to the preponderance of junk food proposed state monopolization of the whole entire food supply.


                • The Cominator says:

                  “If you meet some bougie in a bar, you know they’re a bougie. You might call them a SWPL, a hipster, a trendy, but you know what it is you’re referring to: people connected to power because of their credentials and ideals; people with lots of money and lots of ways of consuming it; people who do not align with the blue-collar worker and in fact regard him as a brute in need of their guidance; people who are also not aligned with the ‘Optimates’: they see WASP élites as stuffy and out-moded and try their best to undermine every aspect of whatever was the establishment a decade ago.”

                  Moldbug wrote about American classes.

                  The Optimates are not generally the problem (SOME are like Soros and Tom Steyer), the Brahmins are generally the problem.

                  “the class of merchants and investors who see themselves as the ascendant inheritors of dethroned power.”

                  Here you are describing what Moldbug calls Optimates.
                  By describing the class problem as an optimate problem you aren’t helping your case when Jim describes you as an entryist.

                • jim says:

                  He is explaining Marxist theory to us as if we had never heard it, and never heard it debunked, in ways that reveal his unfamiliarity with reactionary theory and reactionary shibboleths

                • peppermint says:

                  When I was a child I was impressed with the citations in Marxist newspapers and thougt they were better than normal journalism.

                  Now when I see a Marxist citation I ignore it as intentionally misleading.

                  I don’t care to read your whaargarbl about class rights and how classes interact as classes. Individuals and families, the fingernails and fingers of the nation, interact, and do so over decades, not just in the Eternal Now.

                  You say we should ban pizza and beer and whoring and drugs and gambling because in the Eternal Now it seems like a good idea.

                  A decade ago you would have called for banning beef and cannabis and tobacco. Maybe you still want tobacco banned. I hate the stuff and it’s obviously bad for people.

                  Individuals must maximize their success by themselves. The case can be made that heroin subverts individual choice too much to be allowed. The next thing that subverts individual choice the most isn’t tobacco or whores, however, it’s free sex from sad young women who I fuck and leave, and commie propaganda that justifies me doing so.

                  If I ban one thing in addition to heroin, then, it will be commie propaganda, at least as applied to sexual relations, at least from family men who women look up to and young men thus look up to.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Wait Yara, you think Justin Trudeau wants to tell poor people they can’t dine out twice a week at Franky&Benny’s anymore? lolol

                  I stand by what I said about social housing: for the most part what causes the horror and even the ugliness is the PEOPLE. It’s not lifts per se that are repugnant, it’s lifts you know have been filled with the full range of bodily fluids for decades.
                  The green spaces that are almost always part of the high rise tower block are a very good design feature, and as for the high rises themselves, they address a problem of capitalism: city life. Do we need to do away with that and shepherd everyone back into the countryside? Not necessarily, although more potatoes and fewer PR consultancies isn’t the worst idea ever.

                  “The Optimates are not generally the problem (SOME are like Soros and Tom Steyer), the Brahmins are generally the problem.”

                  Brahmins are bougies. If you’d rather say Brahmins, that’s fine. My only reservation with Brahmins is that not every member of that class is actually an information-giver/guarder so not every one of them is actually priestly and the non-priestly ones (comic book publishers, professional photographers, music composers, etc.) still have enough in common to hang together as a class. But fine, Brahmins is fine.

                  My quote:

                  “the class of merchants and investors who see themselves as the ascendant inheritors of dethroned power.”

                  Brahmins, not Optimates. Optimates are not ascendant in any way whatsoever. Optimates today are basically the old guard in business. They’re increasingly sidelined. The businessmen with power today aren’t the genuinely productive class, they’re the politically active class.

                  Even someone like Elon Musk is really more of a Brahmin than an Optimate. Sure there are probably productive builders/makers out there but increasingly they’re either subordinate to some political Brahmin or else are one themselves to some degree, even if it’s just an obsession with private charity.

                  Bill Gates would be a good example of this latter type. His private charity has done more harm than any cocaine addiction.


                  “I don’t care to read your whaargarbl about class rights and how classes interact as classes.”

                  Who said anything about class rights? This isn’t about taking resources away from productive people and handing them to proles to go spend.
                  This is about taking resources away from unproductive consumers and using them directly to invest in future production, combined with taking AWAY the consumption habits of the proles.

                  “Maybe you still want tobacco banned.”

                  I wouldn’t fight it if God-Emperor Trump banned tobacco, but there’s a world of difference between tobacco and heroin. The problem with heroin is, for the millionth time, nothing to do with virtue or purity. The problem with heroin is the car break-ins, the burglaries, the credit card fraud, the pimping&prostitution, the shoplifting, the discarded needles, the noise&chaos and the aesthetics of the whole sorry affair.

                  If tobacco smokers routinely stole to fund their habit and kept people awake into the early hours of the morning obtaining their product, it’d be well worth banning.

                  This is nothing to do with class rights, redistribution, virtue-legislating or anything else associated with the J-left.

                  This is simple fascism: take control of what needs to be controlled, rather than postulating insane ‘natural rights’ that force you to cuck on your people’s interests.

                  Rousseau was wrong and Locke was wrong.

                  In case it needs to be said again, Marx was also wrong: we don’t need to control the bourgeoisie, sorry the Brahmins, because it’s *not fair that that guy has a yacht*: we need to control the Brahmins because they’re misbehaving, just as we need ‘sexual socialism’ when it comes to women.

                • peppermint says:

                  Elevators are great.

                  Large buildings are great.

                  From which you erroneously conclude that it’s the people that suck and your New Soviet Man will be great.

                  This is because you’re just too superficial to discuss things with, it’s like talking to a child.

                  Some large buildings are intentionally ugly. Don’t start building a neural network classifier of pictures until you start to appreciate just what exactly looking nice means and why.

                  I can tell you, but you’ll just add it to your classifier and continue to think the same things: a person needs food water shelter and soda is bad so let’s remove it from 7-11 and 7-11 is expensive so let’s remove it so people can buy things at the grocery store or save money.

                  Now, it’s true that some buildings are spherically ugly and some are only ugly in context. And yet spherically ugly buildings have been built over recent decades by people who intent to hold corner offices in them. Is that interesting to you? Or are you going to accept it, like a child, as a flat statement of truth, and continue to model capitalists as fundamentally greedy and in charge thus anything that happens as caused in some sense by greed?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint: “Elevators are great.

                  Large buildings are great.

                  From which you erroneously conclude that it’s the people that suck and your New Soviet Man will be great.”

                  No, I conclude from faeces left in the elevator that the people who live there need guidance. They don’t need to be told that they’re rational actors and that if only they can ascertain the most urgent of the as yet unmet needs of the masses, they can become capitalists in good standing.
                  They have no desire to be capitalists in good standing. What they desire is to be given stuff: not water to a dying man or clothing to a naked peasant, but a side order of onion rings, the latest version of FIFA virtual soccer, a high that’s even better than ketamine, an orgasm more powerful than the male g-spot.
                  They want it bigger and better, more novel and more individually tailored; they want more and higher quality and they want it faster and easier than before.

                  If that means shrugging at the neighbours taking a crap in the elevator, well live and let live: at least they didn’t violate my private property rights by breaking into my house and using my toilet.

                  “Some large buildings are intentionally ugly. Don’t start building a neural network classifier of pictures until you start to appreciate just what exactly looking nice means and why.”

                  This canard only works after a few decades of misuse. A brand new social housing project doesn’t scream “intentionally ugly” to anyone but a libertarian, and that’s because of personal bias not some Kantian quality of the architecture.
                  Would you mind explaining to me why exactly it’s so important that mass housing for people clustered together in order to have access to the features of a large city should be designed to be beautiful?
                  I understand why a rural residence may benefit from beauty, but if your priority is to be near a good night-club and a diverse range of restaurants, what’s wrong with keeping things simple?

                  The problem is the people, and what’s been done to them. These are not competent entrepreneurs: they’re children in adult bodies, distracted and ensnared by every crass gimmick from the Rolling Stones to chorizo pork.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppermint touching on the misunderstanding:

                  “capitalists as fundamentally greedy and in charge thus anything that happens as caused in some sense by greed?”

                  It’s nothing to do with greed or any other variety of sin. I don’t honestly know how many times this can be stated and still be ignored.
                  It’s about securing the existence of our people, nothing to do with immanentizing the eschaton.

                  The problem with the capitalists we have today is that they’re *not* greedy. The idea that the majority of Fortune 100 people in America are Ayn Randian engineer-CEOs is absurd.

                  Take Bill Gates: give him a million dollars and he won’t spend all of it, but here’s the thing: he won’t invest it either. He has enough businesses and isn’t really focused on that now (hasn’t been for some time).
                  He’d give it to charity. More specifically he’d give it to African charities to promote the survival of African children, who would then go on to invade Europe!

                  Or what about Mark Zuckerberg? He’s well on the way to taking a similar path, but let’s say for the sake of argument that he’d invest the million dollars. What would he use it for? Good or evil?
                  He’d doubtless add funky new data-gathering features (or censorship algorithms) to Facebook, or some similar project.

                  What about if you gave a million dollars to the Koch brothers? It’d probably end up in the hands of Students For Liberty or the Centre For a Stateless Society.
                  YAY right, libertarians?

                  No, the problem with capitalists is not that they’re greedy, it’s that they’re profoundly antisocial.
                  They tend to see workers as interchangeable units and hence favour open borders in the name of efficiency.
                  They tend to see the poor in a sentimental light and hence favour funding schemes of redistribution and ‘support services’.

                  The problem with capitalists is that, going all the way back to Carnegie and Rothschild, they’re sentimental progressives who want to shift the world to the Left in the name of Cthulhu.

                • jim says:

                  You don’t care about our people, for you do care when a disproportionately Jewish priesthood, within which Jews are massively over-represented, and our people from flyover country massively under represented, is disrespected.

                  You blame things on greed (war on meat and animal fat) that are the result of a holiness spiral within our ruling priestly elite.

                  You are unfamiliar with reactionary thought, for you think that the capitalist class rules, or used to rule. The proposition that we are ruled by a holier-than-God priestly elite is unfamiliar to you.

                • jim says:

                  I have read a great deal of Marx.

                  The doctrine of class war and class rule is and was obviously stupid and even back in the seventies, Marxists only pretended to take it seriously, and these days they don’t even pretend any more.

                  If you actually were a reactionary, you would know that it is always priests versus warriors. “The capitalist class” is not the sort of thing that is capable of ruling.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:


                  The capitalist class is not something capable of ruling!!!!!!!

                  Precisely! Hence laissez-faire is a recipe for unrule!

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “He is explaining Marxist theory to us as if we had never heard it”

                  Straw manning again. I don’t care about Marx, but I’m going to use the term “bourgeoisie” (or if people prefer, Brahmins, so long as it’s understood that not all ‘Brahmins’ are engaged in pedagogy or philosophy) because it accurately describes a socio-economic class with socio-economic interests, in the context of libertarian laissez-faire theory, which is socio-economic in nature.

                  It’s very simple: the property-owning upper middle class in America is routinely misbehaving and it’s having serious antisocial effects.
                  Not only are they exploiting the fact that the lower classes need (and lack) guidance but they themselves also need (and lack) guidance. The results are in and they’re not positive.

                  Widespread use of Domino’s Pizza cannot be written off as a governmental distortion on the economy. A genuine ruler is under no obligation to tolerate it.

                • Yara says:

                  The nicest areas are the ones where the formal owner of a piece of human space is permitted, even obligated, to provide for its basic security.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  It seems like a to me that you are an atheist with a self-control issues (fast food, Netflix, cam whores). And because of lack of willpower can not resist degeneracy yourself and so want a Puritan theocracy to save you from yourself. We Christians keep our fasts and therefore do not need communism just to resist pizza. Nor will a slice here and there harm us when out of fasts. Tame shall inherit the Earth…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “The nicest areas are the ones where the formal owner of a piece of human space is permitted, even obligated, to provide for its basic security.”

                  Indeed. What Yara said.

                  That beats natural rights and the assumption of universal competence any day.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Michael I honestly don’t doubt for a second that your impulse-control and sense of personal propriety is wholesome and secure.

                  Quite honestly I would hazard a guess that the vast majority here are people who can be trusted to make sound investments, avoid the traps of virtue-signalling and maintain body and mind throughout life.

                  At risk of sounding like a dalek, this has nothing – I repeat NOTHING – to do with virtue, and I have no comment to give regarding my own house. I’m sure it could be in better order but for the time being I’m satisfied enough…. but all of this is completely beside the point.

                  You surely(DING!) must concede that there exist some people in society who aren’t as stable, sensible or capable as either of us.
                  You must concede that some people get themselves into perilous amounts of debt; some people have problematic relationships with sobriety that impact other people and society; some people’s health is being adversely affected by their free choices on the market; and so on.

                  Once you concede that, your options are clear: either the ruler of your purported healthy society extends some guidance to these people before their foul gluttony kills them, or else they defer to the natural rights of the individual.

                  If you’ve rejected the Enlightenment, why MUST you be obliged to be bound by natural human rights?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  No Jim, you’re trying to avoid having to rethink your own libertarianism.

                  I’m not saying we’re being ruled by capitalists. I’m saying there are things people like us should want the ruler to do which violate libertarianism, and it’s libertarianism (not us) that places capitalism in the driving seat.

                  I’m suggesting we, as a society, via our strong leader, in our future NRx society, do something about some of the dangerously harmful things that are allowed to go on under globohomo.

                  Your libertarian prejudices lead you to say “no, let them alone: the market will decide”.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  You are aware that totalitarian care about foodstuffs (all with secret police for cakes) was an Enlightenment measure undertaken by Joseph II of Austria AKA the Jacobin-Emperor?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I quite like Josef II, and Napoleon for that matter.
                  And Kim Jong-Un.

                  It always boils down to morality vs safety. Fine, if you guys want to insist that not letting people sell products they know will lead others to kill themselves is a matter of morality rather than safety, fine let’s call it morality.

                  In my view it isn’t: I don’t care if people tell pointless lies or masturbate obsessively over their brother’s wife (or for that matter their brother!), immoral as these things are.
                  I do care when companies have as their business model selling toxic substances to people who are incapable of surviving exposure.

                  But fine, let’s call it the moral police.

                  Why CAN’T we have the moral police in our future postulated reactionary imperium?

                  I was led to believe that many people here supported the idea of fathers and husbands having outright dominion over the women in their life. I support that too.

                  Why does it suddenly become haram once market goods are involved?

                  All I want is for the ruler of the nation to have the ability to say to the 24-hour casinos “goodbye and good riddance”.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  You are moving the goalposts. Very few people here would oppose the ban on porn, or casinos. But that is different beast from nationalization of agriculture.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Let’s not make perfect the enemy of the good.

                  If you’re on board with banning degeneracy but want to cling to the belief that all men were created equally able to choose food that won’t kill them, I for one am totally fine with that.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Can I tempt you with banning Bill Gates from giving millions of dollars made in the USA to Africa to fuel the European influx?

                  I know I’m reaching……….

                • peppermint says:

                  When porn wasn’t a thing, random boobies showed up in movies and the whores who put them there were glamorous.

                  Do you want to impose no nudity on movies too, and make the kid who draws a boobie dangerous to the social order instead of just a perv?

                  It’s good that porn is a thing, over there on the porn sites.

                  Same thing for prostitution. Ban it and all the whores need to attach themselves to rich men as housekeepers and then Arnold Schwarzenegger has a baby with a hideous goblin from Central America. Legalize it, over there where people only see it if they’re looking for it, and it’ll happen quietly. Same with gambling: either it happens online or in a bar or a casino, over the table, or you need to police every cash transaction anyone makes to ensure it isn’t gambling. Same with drugs: keep it in the bars and have the cops take people to the drunk tank for public drunkenness.

              • Michael Rothblatt says:

                Jim, I don’t think that he’s a commie, not exactly*. It’s just that reading Carlyle has turned his brain into a mush. I get what he’s trying to say, it’s just that he’s muddleheaded and confused. Here’s what much more clearheaded thinker** than Carlyle, and an actual economist though on the topic:

                “In his historical writings and in contrast to French liberals of a more “British” persuasion (in Hayek’s terminology), like Constant, Guizot, and Toqueville, Molinari came to see no redeeming features in the Revolution of 1789. Traditionally, French liberals had credited the Revolution with certain reforms (especially in its earlier, pre-Jacobin phase, ”1789” rather than “1793”), such as abolishing internal tariffs and establishing religious freedom. But, Molinari maintains, “if the Revolution had not broken out, the reforms attributed to it would have been pursued peacefully for their useful qualities, and these reforms would then have been definitive.” This is a view of the Old Regime and the Revolution that in important respects differs little from the one later presented by the historian Pierre Gaxotte, an intellectual luminary of the royalist and far-right group, Action Française. The Revolution put an abrupt end to this organic evolution and initiated a massive shift of power to the state. “Military serfdom”—involuntary military service, roundly condemned by Turgot, Condorcet, and nearly all the other pre-revolutionary economists—had nearly disappeared in France. The Revolution universalized conscription: “This retrogression in the regime of [military] serfdom would suffice of itself to outweigh all the progressive reforms, real or imagined, that are customarily set to the credit of the revolution.” This “blood tax” was retained by the Restoration, since the upper and middle classes could easily purchase exemption through paying for replacements. Here was another example of class-legislation, as was the livret, or book listing previous employments, now mandatory on laborers, and the prohibition of workers’ organizations. The end result of the Revolution has been “to diminish the sum of liberties enjoyed by the French and at least to double the weight of the government of France.” This most “extreme” of French or even of all European liberals displayed a warm sympathy for tradition and “organic” culture, going so far as to criticize the Napoleonic Code for consolidating the “reforms” of the Revolution by replacing the variegated customs of the provinces with a uniform legislation: “In many respects the ancient customs, adapted over centuries to the populations they ruled and successively perfected by way of experiment, left a much greater area to individual liberty and established the responsibility attaching to liberty with more equity.” Molinari even assailed “the system of weights and measures, invented by professors of mathematics, in contempt of the experience and needs of those engaging in exchange,” and imposed by the Revolution.
                In the long run, Molinari maintained, the most destructive result of the Revolution was to remove any curb to “the appetite for exploitation” of the bourgeoisie. This is what the famous achievement of “equality before the law” in large part amounted to. “The Revolution left the field clear to the middle class, and the latter did not neglect to turn the situation to its profit, by replacing the privileges suited to the interests of the nobility and clergy by other privileges suited to their own.” A new class was put “in possession of the apparatus for concocting laws and regulations.” The hereditary monarch had at least to some extent a personal interest in preserving the state from ruin and in promoting its prosperity. Molinari applies the class conflict theory which by his time had become a cornerstone of French liberal ideas, but, unlike earlier thinkers, he does not exempt the regimes that passed for liberal in French politics. The “liberal” July Monarchy was the the creature of the bourgeoisie, which aimed “from now on to fix the exploitation of the state firmly in their own hands.” The liberal party “was the expression of those in the governing class that had issued from the revolution.” The middle classes profited from tariffs, government contracts, state subsidies for railroads and other industries, state-sponsored banking, and the jobs available in the ever-expanding state bureaucracy itself. Soon, a radical movement emerged, as “the swelling profits of an exploitation spreading every day and branching out more and more excited the envy of the classes excluded from the feast.” The final term is arrived at with universal manhood suffrage, where the whole population must be bought off. Molinari’s relentlessly scathing and cynical analysis of representative government and advancing democracy suggests that his anarcho-capitalism was a product not only of economic and natural rights theory, but also of his interpretation of history.
                In this last work, Molinari continues to voice “conservative” and even “reactionary” views out of keeping with the customary profile of the nineteenth century laissez-faire liberal. Seeing rather further than many other French liberals, Molinari was no supporter of the Northern side in the American Civil War; here, too, he perceived class interest at work. The war “ruined the conquered provinces,” but permitted the industrialists of the North to impose the protectionist policy that led ultimately “to the regime of trusts and produced the billionaires.” It is noteworthy that while Molinari was an “absolutist” when it came to the natural right to liberty in the abstract, it appears that historical circumstances could temper his position, as in the question of the emancipation of the slaves in the United States: “In truth, it was in masking their own practical and egoistic interests in domination and protectionism under the cover of humanitarian sentiments that the politicians of the Northern states emancipated the Negroes while ruining their proprietors. They won the admiration of naïve abolitionists throughout the world by bestowing on the freed slaves their total freedom overnight, with the responsibility and demands that the latter were incapable of meeting, and even adding the improbable bonus of political rights.”

                So in his own, muddleheaded and confused way, he’s right. Remember that talk that only priests ought to read Bible. Well, I suggest that reading of Carlyle ought to be restricted solely to mentally stable people.

                * – Remember that half the Marx is just uncredited Carlyle quoting.

                ** – Gustave de Molinari that was one of the thinkers to (in)famously use “stationary bandit theory” in defense of nobility:

                “Having become proprietors of the greatest part of the capital which the conquered nations had accumulated upon the land, these barbarians were henceforth interested in defending it against the hordes which came after them. It was thus that the old enemies of civilization became its defenders, and that the wealth accumulated by antiquity, in passing from the weak hands of its old owners to those of the conquerors of the north, more numerous, more courageous and stronger, was preserved from total annihilation. The destructive wave of invasion stopped before this new rampart, raised up in the place of the dismantled rampart of Roman domination. The Huns. for example, who had come from the depths of Tartary to share the spoils of the old world, were destroyed or repulsed by the coalition of the Goths and Franks, established in Italy and in Gaul; and later the Saracens, no less redoubtable than the Huns, met the same fate. If the Goths and the Franks had not appropriated to themselves the fixed capital of the nations they had subjugated, would they have risked their lives and their booty to repulse the savage soldiers of Attila? And what would have remained of the old civilization, if this barbarian chief of a nomad race had continued to overrun and ravage Europe? Would not Greece, Italy, Gaul and Spain, despoiled of their personal wealth, and deprived of the greatest part of their population, have ended by presenting the same spectacle of desolation and ruin as the empire of the Assyrians and the kingdom of Palmyra? When, therefore, we take into account the circumstances which accompanied the establishment of the barbarians in the bosom of European civilization, we perceive that this violent substitution of a new race of proprietors for the old race presents rather the characteristics of the exercise of the right of eminent domain than those of spoliation properly so called. Hence, this extremely important consequence, that the property of the nobility which had its origin in conquest does not deserve the anathema which certain socialists have launched against it; for the original titles of the nobility to their estates was founded on general utility, that is to say, upon justice.”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  As Mises would say of Milton Friedman, Molinari was just another liberal.
                  Why exactly would ending tariffs be of benefit to the ancien régime? Why are tariffs useless to begin with?

                  Tariffs are a built-in bias that makes rewarding the labour of foreigners less preferred than rewarding the labour of strangers from one’s own society. The prosocial nature of tariffs is obvious to anyone whose goal is to maximise the wealth and wellbeing of not the world or ‘the market’ but in fact the nation.

                  “the original titles of the nobility to their estates was founded on general utility, that is to say, upon justice.”

                  That may be true but it’s beside the point. Even if it were profoundly UNJUST to improve the long-term health of the nation (for example by arresting someone for performing songs by John Lennon); even if it were profoundly DISUTILITARIAN to improve the long-term health of the nation (for example by preventing the extension of credit to aspirational workers), what matters is that someone with the foresight to judge what will be best for the nation is endowed with the power to do so.

                  Let us pray that the good is in fact served, but even if it is in some or even the majority of cases NOT served, this state of affairs is forever preferable to an assumption of the equality of Man, because that way lies Domino’s Pizza, The Spice Girls, Gender Studies, the New York Times and a widespread sincere love of weed.

                • jim says:

                  > Molinari was just another liberal

                  The classic liberals aligned with the free-the-slaves emancipate-women ban-demon-rum war-on-christmas war-on-marriage left.

                  And were, predictably, devoured.

                  Molinari saw the threat, when the rest went smoothly down the digestive tract with barely a whimper.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Even the very worst tyrant would never inflict Netflix sex scenes on his worst enemy.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  I will be gentle, since you do not appear to be able to read, or are able to read but are not able to comprehend. He was speaking about the internal tariffs that existed inside the France which made no sense in a unitary state that absolute monarchy purports to be.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Why not?

                  Would internal protectionism for the rust belt be such a bad idea?
                  Why shouldn’t King Trump influence the location of future factories?
                  Why should this automatically be a matter for the states?

                  Most people here, myself included, moved fairly recently from libertarianism. The 10th Amendment is one of the faulty premises we need to rid ourselves of once and for all.

                  Yes Garibaldi was bad news, but was Tito really worse than what we see now for the southern Slavs?

                • jim says:

                  Protection for the rust belt requires rust belt rulers with their roots and powerbase in the rust belt, rather than Washington, requires leadership who suffer long term loss of resources and power when the rust belt declines.

                  Hence, freehold.

                  If monarchy was actually unitary, no such leadership, hence no such protection.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  Why do you watch that crap? The lady doth protest too much…

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Some of the writing’s good. “Altered Carbon” and “Star Trek Discovery” are genuinely good semi-trash TV.
                  Unfortunately one of the things you have to accept is a heck of a lot of Poz. Ayn Rand’s engineer-CEOs seem to like it for some unknown reason.

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  Because that makes country as a whole weaker and is thus not geopolitically sound. Tito (may he burn in hell) was atrocious and us Slavs will never forgive the perfidous Anglo for the Great Betrayal.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “[Internal tariffs to direct location preferences for new developments] makes country as a whole weaker and is thus not geopolitically sound”

                  This applies equally to the world. You’ll be telling the tale of my trade deficit with the grocery store next, Bob Murphy.
                  You should let illegals come in from Mexico because the economy of the USA would be greatly harmed by the loss of all the cheap housekeepers. Money’s fungible so every dollar spent on expensive housekeepers is money not available to support genuinely productive enterprises….. right?

                  Away with it, housekeepers and GDP both. It’s better societally if the rust belt doesn’t fill with heroin addicts. If that’s not good for GDP then all the worse for GDP. If we’re no longer putting money first and foremost then let’s just stop doing GDP in the first place.

                  Can you as an Austrian really lament the end of logical positivist macro-economics?

                • Michael Rothblatt says:

                  Alien immigrants destroy far more capital both social and material than they create. The only immigrants that make sense to be allowed into a country are high value immigrants like Euler when he was received in Russia.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You understand, Michael, that my tone was sarcastic there. I wasn’t myself advocating for illegal immigration. I was repeating what I imagine to be the Peter Schiff take.

                  There can be no immigration, at all. In the computer age, there’s no reason to even visit foreign places.

                • jim says:

                  Thing is, I know this stuff, and you know this stuff.

                  But Carlylean Restorationist does not know this stuff. He uses the shibboleths of our punch-a-nazi put-white-privilege-to-death enemies, while misusing and mangling our shibboleths.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The big beautiful straw man just got ten feet higher.

                  To quote Greg Johnson, “there’ll be no Left in the ethno-state”

                • Samuel Skinner says:

                  “To quote Greg Johnson, “there’ll be no Left in the ethno-state””

                  China. Japan. Korea. Vietnam. Plenty of leftism in East Asia and also plenty of ethno-states.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  I’m sorry Burrhus junior but I disagree.
                  There are no open borders counter-patriarchal gender-fluid Antifa praxis societies within the Asian ethnostates.

                  Let’s put it another way: in OUR ethno-state with a strong ruler (monarchical, limited-republican or neo-cameral) there would be no such thing as the Left.

                  People here are perfectly comfortable nationalising the media and academia in order to ensure that outcome.

                  The time has come to be intensely relaxed about nationalising a whole lot more than that…. or at the very least micro-managing the nature of the goods and services that come to market.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  “Protection for the rust belt requires rust belt rulers with their roots and powerbase in the rust belt, rather than Washington, requires leadership who suffer long term loss of resources and power when the rust belt declines.”


                  Because human behaviour’s guided by the profit motive? No, Adam Smith’s a moron.

              • Michael Rothblatt says:



              • Michael Rothblatt says:

                I thought that he is to be hanged dawned and quartered together with Soros and their property confiscated to pay for tanks in Harvard yard…

                • Michael Rothblatt says:


                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The straw man still grows……….

                  I’m poking you in the libertarian rib: how comfortable are you for members of your society who are rewarded beyond measure to send those resources abroad in order to do things that will destabilise key allies and bolster key enemies?

                  I expect a libertarian would say “they’re not violating the King’s property rights so he has no right at all to intervene”.

                  What do reactionaries say?

                  I’m not joking. I live in Britain and thanks to the Schengen Zone, we have people working up and down the country who are loyal to their poorer native homelands. These people send money back home every month when we pay them.

                  Bob Murphy would say the richer Rumania gets, the more British exports its citizens will be able to buy, so I should remain silent.

                • jim says:

                  > I’m poking you in the libertarian rib: how comfortable are you for members of your society who are rewarded beyond measure to send those resources abroad in order to do things that will destabilise key allies and bolster key enemies

                  For your poke to actually hit the libertarian rib those you are poking have to be familiar with, and take for granted as true, the latest and most fashionable cultural Marxist account of current and recent events, and be unfamiliar with the reactionary account of recent events.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  See the thing is, in your satire, there’s a grain of truth that you’re trying to wave away.

                  What good, actually, for America, is Soros’ fortune?
                  Or Charlie Koch?

                  Is it beneficial for US stocks to be propped up right now, or 10y treasuries? Is the continuation of those bubbles worth the fact that Soros and Koch are funding anti-white, pro-globohomo organisations that are engaged in destabilising foreign countries in ways that harm the United States?

                  Why can’t Trump just freeze their assets? Even if every dollar remained inert, it beats Pussy Riot.

                • jim says:

                  That you are unaware of the stories behind Soros and Koch is another tell that you are an entryist.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  The straw man is immortal.

                  Would you seize Soros’ wealth or not? It’s not particularly complicated.

                  If your instinct is to say “no it would be wrong”, then you still have libertarian worms in your brain.

                  I’d ban private charity outright. It’s DONE.
                  I briefly joined the service sector to ‘join the fight’ as I thought, and I saw a collection box for cancer nurses.
                  One of the things they were advertising as their key priorities was “fighting inequality”. That organisation needs to be outlawed.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  So Bill Gates didn’t divert large parts of his unprecedented wealth to saving African children, and George Soros didn’t directly fund Pussy Riot et al?

                  What kind of mad revisionism is this?

                • jim says:

                  No Bill Gates did not divert any part of his wealth to saving African children. He diverted a large pat of his wealth to buying holiness, with complete and total indifference to the harm he was doing to African children, and George Soros did not fund Pussy Riot, rather the State Department funded Pussy Riot through George Soros, with George Soros embezzling a large part of that funding.

                  George Soros is playing an old and traditional Jewish role, not a traditional capitalist role. The native ruling elite wants to do bad things, so they hire some Jews to do the dirty work. If the shit should hit the fan, the native subjects knock over a Jewish pawnshop and Jewish vodka distillery, like the bull attacking the matador’s cape, and the ruling elite and their Jewish employees laugh at the mob like the matador laughing at the bull. They don’t hire Bill Gates to do their dirty work, since the wrath of the mob might then hit too close to home.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Ah but of course, they only did those things because the Prog state religion forced them……. whereas the 40-stone pleb still ordering pizza is a free agent.

  11. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Signing out……. will keep on reading but no more commenting as of right now.

    For the record, it should be perfectly obvious to absolutely anyone that no society with clear, powerful *and responsible* leadership would EVER tolerate 49% APR loans to sub-prime borrowers, pizzas containing 2000 calories each that don’t fill you up, 24 hour gambling with alcohol on site, or a housing market in which the vast majority of people can’t even rent, let alone buy.
    Neither would it tolerate warehouses full of cubicles with girls selling sight of their bodies to mass audiences for tips.

    None of this is remotely defensible, and while government intervention *by prog democrats* is certainly part of the problem, all of the above would be perfectly possible in a 100% laissez-faire society, be it ancap, covenant community or sovcorp.

    • jim says:

      > or a housing market in which the vast majority of people can’t even rent, let alone buy.

      This argument presupposes that socialists can wave a magic wand and create abundance. The housing market is failing because people are passing laws to make housing expensive in order to keep out members of groups likely to physically attack them. If we used other methods to maintain order, could repeal those anti housing laws, whereupon cheap housing would available, and you would be complaining about it the way you complain about availability of cheap pizza.

      Selling pizza does not make people fat. Buying pizza makes you fat.

      Carlyle rightly criticizes the free market in labor as harsh on those who lack the necessary skills and competence to navigate it. But he is not endorsing commies. He is endorsing slaveowners.

  12. Keep in mind that markets are merely devices to enable the division of labor / specialization: it is the later that leads to high productivity and thus prosperity.

    I don’t have a general solution except that this is the framework to think in. If you consider putting import tariffs on steel, likely it will cost more. If this is purely driven by higher living standards and wages in your country than the one you used to import steel from, that is likely an acceptable price to pay. But it could also come from reduced division of labor leading to reduced efficiency. Investigate the foreign firms. What is their size. How specialized the average worker is. How deeply did they manage to split up the production process to mind-numbingly simple mechanical tasks, which are good candidates for automation even if they did not automate it because their labor is cheap. Can your domestic firms, or customer-vendor supply chains approach the same size and thus the same level of division of labor?

  13. TBeholder says:

    How it was in Generation “P”? «On an absolutely free market, by definition, should be present services of limiting absolute freedom»

    > Libertarian Party […] also promotes poz […] So in this sense, obviously there is a connection between sound economic policy and suicidal poz,
    It’s my impression that “Libertarian Party” in USA (and to large degree the informal movement — which is why “libertarian” Left and “libertarian” Right taking half of that “political map”) de facto is not a party of libertarians, but mostly soft cover for anyone from the mainstream cliques who wants to flank another team more than promote their own. They even can’t stop themselves from reflexively virtue-signaling, let alone propagating telltale memes.
    If so, “Libertarian Party does this and does that” is just a conflation of random moves, many of which are unrelated to anything considered “libertarian”.

    >The emancipation of the Russian serfs was simultaneously suicidal poz, and bad economic policy.
    It was to take power from aristocracy. Which was mostly pozzed and wagging tails before foreigners, and half of the rest were the same sort of clowns, but virtue-signaling in the opposite way.
    Hence “Will of the People” and other blathering progressives suddenly popped up, united only in hating Alexander II: landowners and their lackeys who lost their place and were incapable of jumping on the opportunities he opened for anyone interested and not pants-on-the-head retarded.

  14. newlyreacted says:

    Jim, what church denomination would you suggest for raising a family in, if any? My wife and I are trying for children, and I could use all the help instilling socially conservative values in them I can get.

    At heart, I’m something of a Jungian pagan, so I don’t have any personal hangups about the theology of it, only the cultural morals.

    I’ve been considering southern Baptist since it seems the last to start accepting faggots and trannies, but I know historically it represents a lot that’s wrong with Protestantism. I’ve also considered finding one of the stubborn old guard catholic churches that goes by the original mass, but I feel I’d be out of place as I have an anglo and scots-irish heritage.

    Thanks for any advice.

    • Koanic says:

      Just attend a service and use the sniff test. But frankly no church is better than a church of the Goddess, and they are almost all churches of the Goddess.

      Pastor Steven L. Anderson has a church that worships God. Sermons on YouTube. Calibrate your testosterone expectations accordingly.

  15. Koanic says:

    Some ways free markets invite pozz:
    1. Prosperity corrupts
    2. Prosperity attracts economic migrants or purchases slaves
    3. Prosperity encourages other acceptance, inviting immivasion
    4. Freedom plus prosperity causes geographic mobility, atomizing individuals, increasing corruption and reducing barriers to immivasion.
    5. Usury and free land markets imbalance the ancestral human tribal mechanism for maintaining social and genetic fitness.

    The Bible limits free markets. Free markets are one mechanism for achieving thermodynamic efficiency and spiritual harmony with Jehovah. Not always the optimal solution for every domain. Other mechanisms include religion and our evolved socio-biological behaviors.

    • peppermint says:

      (1) is a euphemism for leftism
      (2) is a euphemism for the behavior of leftists. Who likes fellafel? No one, but lefties love signaling, then blaming no one in particular for minority-owned businesses.
      (3) for leftist behavior
      (4) for ethnic cleansing. No one loves the open road enough to want a 2 hour commute each way to afford private school so the kid won’t get “bullied” – not bullied but simply abused – by “underprivileged” muds. Bullying is when White leaders make White nerds behave instead of acting like gaywads no one wants to be around. The suppression of bullying leads to Vox Day’s Gamma type.
      (5) is a euphemism for the government stealing land and then selling it.

      I’ll take you more seriously when you stop pretending the last 50 years in America is an example of free markets.

      • Koanic says:

        I’m not pretending that. 5 is not a euphemism for anything. You should ask questions instead of assuming you know what I mean, because you clearly don’t.

        • peppermint says:


          • Koanic says:

            Since you have doubled down like a gamma idiot, I will demonstrate that 5 is not a euphemism.

            Under capitalist land laws, real estate tends to be concentrated into the hands of people and institutions specialized at managing real estate, because that is economically efficient. However, human beings are fundamentally territorial tribal animals. Capitalist land ownership atomizes humans, destroying their tribal cohesion. It ruins the ancestral gene flow between tribes by blending everyone together. It ruins inter-tribal competition. It ruins the psychological bond between man and his patrimony. It ruins many, many things, which is why the Bible binds land patrilineally.

            There does not need to be any government purchasing or confiscation of land for these maluses to accrue and destroy a country.

            Flippancy is effeminate.

            • peppermint says:

              Right, that’s the leftist line since the beginning, Fapitalism, not state policy, drives consolidation of the means of (re)production.

              Farmers in America had coops, workers in America had unions, until Fapitalism came along and stole everything out of evil self-destructive corporate greed.

              Why is corporate greed self-destructive? Because it’s just pure evil. And being Christian, we can call things evil and then we don’t have to think about them any further.

              Why is it Fapitalist land ownership? Because it’s just the way things naturally are under Fapitalism, the only alternative to which is collective ownership, under which I can post on this blog all day and leave the actual work to my coworkers, and blame the harvest fairy / Holy Spirit if the crops aren’t what they would be if I was engaged.

              Yes, Fapitalism is a problem. Small-c capitalism, not so much.

              • Koanic says:

                You are still being a flippant gamma, unable to admit your ignorance, leaping to assume.

                The Bible permits what would be considered today ultra-extreme capitalism, with a few restrictions. One cannot charge usury to one’s countrymen. One cannot abuse and exploit one’s countrymen as chattel. One cannot make a whore out of a woman. And one cannot permanently alienate one’s countryman from his landed patrimony, unless it is in a city.

                > Because it’s just the way things naturally are under Fapitalism, the only alternative to which is collective ownership,

                Collective land ownership is illegal in the Bible.

                America is not the measure of all things, your historical myopia notwithstanding.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      Sorry Lockeans, but Koanic is correct.

      In a world absent state-generated inflation, nobody would lament the loss of interest earned on savings accounts.
      Interest would be strictly a matter for loans, which would be viewed as gambling of a particularly dangerous kind. There is a case to be made for the total outlawing of all debt with the possible exception of government debt.

      Growth would certainly be slower based around a ‘direct investment, all the money up front’ model but it’d be a whole lot healthier in the long run.

      Usury in the narrower sense – that of payday loans, credit cards and so on – is extremely hard to defend unless you’re a libertarian bound by a fetish with ‘principles’: “I may disapprove of 16%APR loans to peasants but I do not have the right to violate the person and property of another through initiatory violence because we all homesteaded our bodies and blah blah blah blah BANG!”

      • peppermint says:

        You think peasants are making bank on savings accounts?

        The whole point of mutual funds and retirement accounts is to hopefully keep up with inflation.

        Which money is then stolen not directly by the government but by Fapitalism, which mysteriously discovers investment opportunities in minority mortgages and Green Power.

      • Koanic says:

        > In a world absent state-generated inflation, nobody would lament the loss of interest earned on savings accounts.

        I appreciate the support. To clarify my position, the Bible does not forbid interest rates on savings accounts, or bank loans. It forbids charging your brother usury. Corporations can charge each other and strangers interest, and can pay interest to citizens.

        Morever, it is clear from the context that the laws against usury are primarily aimed at protecting the poor. Rich guys doing business with each other is something that would probably fly under the radar.

        Corporations have achieved undue dominance due to the weakness of the aristocracy and theocracy. The aristocracy is supposed to extend to the individual freeholder, and the theocracy is supposed to be a hereditary priesthood cum judiciary supplemented by the less-hereditary prophets, who practice poverty and renunciation, and are divinely appointed, called, and fed.

        Corporations’ corrupting influence can be mitigated by a good king like David, Solomon or Trump. Or by a landed aristocratic anarcho-theocracy, in which personal violence penetrates the corporate legal fiction.

        • Koanic says:


          Or by a landed aristocratic anarchy, in which personal violence penetrates the corporate legal fiction. Or by a theocracy, in which the preachers whip up a well-armed mob to negotiate with the impious oppressors of the poor.

  16. viking says:

    “In the comments some have been making the stupid argument that poz is the result of evil Jewish capitalists pursuing profit, that gay marriage was promoted to sell wedding cakes, which argument scarcely deserves a reply.” – maybe you should head over to the antiversity the jew ron unz built and read his take on the JQ you Moldberg alcolytes can cuck all you want but this guys a jew with a 250 IQ and hes calls Macdonald and raises him several orders of magnitude. There simply is no other issue that comes close to the main cause of what ails us. for instance jews are both capitalist and communist yet work together for jews because they have no hangups about communism being altruism or capitalism being a freedom proposition to jews both are simply weapons jews use to pwn white nations.the cuck/nrx enlightenment values that you would rather every last one of us die and our nation perish than betray make the jews work easier he laughs at your principles he recognizes only winning whats good for the jews.

    • glosoli says:


      This is the ‘safe-to-view’ version of this (((guy’s))) evil plan:

      ‘He favored social democracy as an improvement on “the feudal aristocracy of the sword” but his ambition was to create a conservative society that superseded democracy with “the social aristocracy of the spirit.”[16] European freemason lodges supported his movement, including the lodge Humanitas.’

      ‘According to his autobiography, at the beginning of 1924 his friend Baron Louis de Rothschild introduced him to Max Warburg who offered to finance his movement for the next 3 years by giving him 60,000 gold marks. Warburg remained sincerely interested in the movement for the remainder of his life and served as an intermediate for Coudenhove-Kalergi with influential Americans such as banker Paul Warburg and financier Bernard Baruch. In April 1924, Coudenhove-Kalergi founded the journal Paneuropa (1924–1938) of which he was editor and principal author. The next year he started publishing his main work, the Kampf um Paneuropa (The fight for Paneuropa, 1925–1928, three volumes). In 1926, the first Congress of the Pan-European Union was held in Vienna and the 2,000 delegates elected Coudenhove-Kalergi as president of the Central Council, a position he held until his death in 1972.

      His original vision was for a world divided into only five states: a United States of Europe that would link continental countries with French and Italian possessions in Africa; a Pan-American Union encompassing North and South Americas; the British Commonwealth circling the globe; the USSR spanning Eurasia; and a Pan-Asian Union whereby Japan and China would control most of the Pacific. To him, the only hope for a Europe devastated by war was to federate along lines that the Hungarian-born Romanian Aurel Popovici and others had proposed for the dissolved multinational Empire of Austria-Hungary. According to Coudenhove-Kalergi, Pan-Europe would encompass and extend a more flexible and more competitive Austria-Hungary, with English serving as the world language, spoken by everyone in addition to their native tongue. He believed that individualism and socialism would learn to cooperate instead of compete, and urged that capitalism and communism cross-fertilise each other just as the Protestant Reformation had spurred the Catholic Church to regenerate itself.[19]’

      n his book Praktischer Idealismus (Practical Idealism), written in 1925, he describes the future of Jews in Europe and of european racial composition with the following words:[45]

      The man of the future will be of mixed race. Today’s races and classes will gradually disappear owing to the vanishing of space, time, and prejudice. The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals. […]

      Instead of destroying European Jewry, Europe, against its own will, refined and educated this people into a future leader-nation through this artificial selection process. No wonder that this people, that escaped Ghetto-Prison, developed into a spiritual nobility of Europe. Therefore a gracious Providence provided Europe with a new race of nobility by the Grace of Spirit. This happened at the moment when Europe’s feudal aristocracy became dilapidated, and thanks to Jewish emancipation.’

      His plan seems to be going along nicely doesn’t. Gee, why would all those evil bankers support this, and indeed become the drivers of it? Surely not make more profits? No, that’s a stupid idea.

      • Yara says:

        Silly goy. The condition of contemporary Paris is not exactly as foreseen by a certain Austrian nearly 100 years ago, and UN-affiliated economic concerns definitely have nothing to do with it. Also, our true ruling elite is notoriously shortsighted, thinking only in century-long increments, viz. “complete Brazilianization scheduled for 2050, with new flexibility extending to 2100”. Finally, Jordan “Beta Orbiter Maximus” Peterson likewise has no affiliation with such global interests which do not exist, the CIA did not overthrow the democratically elected Iranian government, ISIS was not founded by Hillary Clinton, there were no dancing Israelis, Obama never cosplayed as Baphomet, and Larry Silverstein did not give the order to demolish Building 7.

  17. Dan Kurt says:

    Would someone define what POZ means. I thought it signified someone has HIV.

    Dan Kurt

    • glosoli says:

      Good question.

      The disease is far worse than HIV though. It’s literally always fatal.

      To be ‘pozzed’ means that you think you can do better than Jehovah’s design, rules and commands, that you can tweak the rules, do things just a bit differently, tolerate just a bit of evil, worship just a small graven image, commit just a little bit of theft (especially if it’s part of a business deal), lend to pagans for evil purposes.

      99.999999% of guys at this blog are pozzed.

      • eternal anglo says:

        Liar. Pig-headed christcuckery is one thing, intentionally spreading misinformation is another. You know very well that is not what poz means.

        To be pozzed is to be a cuck, to love outsiders more than your tribe, to be tolerant of every kind of sexual depravity, to worship women and white-knight for them. The word refers not only to the policies and consequences of leftism, but its spirit. It is leftism as it infects the soul. Stalin, a stone-cold, vicious Machiavellian, was a leftist, but not pozzed. Scott Alexander is pozzed.

        • glosoli says:

          You’re pozzed.

          And I’m an eternal Celt, fuck you Anglos.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            Fuck us? We beat you to that, and your women welcomed us with open arms (and legs). We rule through right of conquest. Know your place.

            • glosoli says:

              You don’t even rule your own homes, cucks.

              My place is last, here on earth, I love it too.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Glossy would you nationalise steel in Britain? You’ve been to Corby I assume.

                • glosoli says:

                  I don’t want England to survive as a nation. I want Dumnonia back. So steel issues are not something I really care to consider.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  There’s a fine line between edgy and tw@t

                • glosoli says:

                  I happen to believe England will not survive, serve it right, and I plan accordingly.

                  We’ll see who’s the tw&t in due course won’t we.

            • eternal gypsy says:

              >We rule through right of conquest

              “[M]y paternal line is English with a recent infusion of Swede, while my maternal line is Scottish and Irish with some sort of French admixture somewhere.”

              Who’s “we,” exactly?

          • StoneMan says:

            A Celtic Puritan, eh? What if Puritanism is proto-poz?

            • glosoli says:

              I’m a theonomist, not a Puritan. No holier than the Bible, but no less, that’s the way to run your nation.

              • StoneMan says:

                >I’m not a Puritan, I just think that society should be ruled by the Bible and that there shouldn’t be an established hierarchical structure whose specific purpose is to determine orthodox interpretation and control holiness spirals.


                • glosoli says:

                  Catholic cuck much?

                • StoneMan says:

                  Man, it really is a buzzkill when people nip holiness spirals in the bud by calling them what they are and pointing out that you aren’t actually any holier than any other layman, isn’t it? A real bummer. Makes me so disappointed I could insult people on the internet.

                • glosoli says:

                  I don’t know what you think you’re trying to achieve with your comments, but rest assured I’ve endured worse from minty, so crack on if it feels like fun to you, I view people like you two as the village idiots anyway, literally ridiculous.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  >I view people like you two as the village idiots anyway, literally ridiculous.

                  Oh, the village idiot views other people as the village idiot.

                  Go back to the “cheetahs are really half dog and there’s a papist conspiracy to hide it” forums – they suit you better.

            • The Cominator says:

              “A Celtic Puritan”

              Ever heard of the Covenanters. They were the Christian world’s closest equivalent to the Wahabbis.

              Glos sounds like a Covenanter.

              • StoneMan says:

                If it doesn’t have an established hierarchy it’s vulnerable to fracturing and holiness-spiraling, neither of those things are desirable. The distinction doesn’t seem particularly meaningful to me.

                • The Cominator says:

                  The Covenanters had more of a hierarchy then Cromwell’s favored “independent” church structure which generally were not supposed to have much of a hierarchy at all.

                  The problem was the Presbyterian hierarchy was based on the “most holy” and the Covenanters were a lot more fanatical about Old Testament law then English Puritans generally were.

                  The Presbyterians were more favorable to a monarchy then the Indeps were, but they wanted the king to be a kind of holy symbol and puppet.

                  I think Glos is very close to being a Covenanter…

                • glosoli says:

                  I’m going to read about them.
                  Of course I think we should follow our side of the deal with our God, much of the Bible is various covenants being made, we just mostly forget what ours are.

        • StoneMan says:

          Unmerited pejoratives aside, your description of poz is spot on.

      • The Cominator says:

        “To be ‘pozzed’ means that you think you can do better than Jehovah’s design, rules and commands”

        That does not mean pozzed. If ancient Israel couldn’t live under “The Law” (and the Old Testament actually makes it quite clear they actually couldn’t) then we have no chance in hell of doing it.

        • glosoli says:

          There will always be the temptation of pozz, slithering on the ground, tempting you with its gold pieces. Even Cromwell took a few pieces I believe. The Glorious Revolution, heh, what an apt name for letting them in.

          ‘Further financial support (for the Revolution/invasion) was obtained from the most disparate sources: the Jewish banker Francisco Lopes Suasso lent two million guilders;[37] when asked what security he desired, Suasso answered: “If you are victorious, you will surely repay me; if not, the loss is mine”.’

          Do we resist as a nation, or do we just give in?

          It’s the $150 trillion dollar question, think carefully before you answer.

          I bet you’d all choose a life of convenience and material shit, the rights to freedom, life and (((Happiness))) every day versus kicking them all out, collapsing it and doing it like Alfred the Great, bunch of cucks.

          ‘Oh, but muh capitalism is so great, jets and TVs and nice clothes and faggotry and divorce and porn. CUCKS.

          • The Cominator says:

            I agree with you that leftists think they can do better then God or Gnon (whichever you prefer I don’t think we should fight over this) and I agree that utopianism is always pozzed.

            Deviation from Old Testament law isn’t pozzed though because not even ancient Israel could really live under Old Testament law. Much of the Old Testament was devoted to describing how Israel just couldn’t do it.

            • glosoli says:

              There is no Gnon, it’s just something as atheist made up, so yes, we will fight about that.

              Not even attempting to follow Jehovah’s commands and thinking you can design something that will work better is the very definition of pozzed to a Christian, you deny the authority of God, anything else you do is leftist.

              The Bible defines right-ness, not a blog.

              • The Cominator says:

                I’m not an Atheist myself I just don’t think we should fight about fine theological points until the leftist are crushed.

                If God had favored Old Testament law for Christians then Cromwell would have been defeated by the Scottish Covenanters (the Christian world’s equivalent to Wahabbi Muslims, which Cromwell was actually not he was a much more moderate and conservative Puritan then the truly fanatical Covenanters) and then the new Scottish Covenanter Empire would have spread across the world.

                • glosoli says:

                  Fair enough.
                  Cromwell did get his just rewards in Ireland though.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Cromwell’s campaign in Ireland met with total victory, even if he had one siege where he took heavy causalties.

                  Cromwell represented the best aspects of the Puritans, I say this as someone who was part Irish. Most of the atrocity stories were propaganda. Droghedra fell without a surrender, massacring the survivors was both in accordance with the laws of war at the time AND it FELL SHORT OF Old Testament military law (where everyone was to be massacred).

                • glosoli says:

                  It just have been the ‘most’ bit that did for him.

                  Did you have your Irishness surgically removed then?

                • The Cominator says:

                  There were definitely massacres in Ireland but the English massacres of the Irish were preceded by Irish massacres of Protestants.

                  The atrocities were almost all due to the nature of war at the time, not Cromwell ordering them. He DID order a massacre at Drogheda but given that Drogheda was a fortified city that fell without a negotiated surrender EVERY commander during that time period would also have ordered a massacre. It was in accordance with the laws of war at the time.

                  When towns surrendered to Cromwell there is no case of him ordering a massacre.

                • glosoli says:

                  I’m no lover of Catholics, but I think Christians v Christians would not find favour with God. Hence, Cromwell did not leave Ireland alive, and the Irish have not had sovereignty in the north since.

                  You said you weren’t an atheist, so what are you? Christian or pagan, or Muslim?

                • The Cominator says:

                  “I’m no lover of Catholics, but I think Christians v Christians would not find favour with God. Hence, Cromwell did not leave Ireland alive”

                  Cromwell definitely left Ireland alive. Cromwell died at Whitehall.

              • Alrenous says:

                “There is no Nature’s God. Nature having a God is something an atheist made up.”

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      It means, broadly speaking, leftist degeneracy as well as the consequences and externalities thereof.

      • glosoli says:

        >Would someone define what POZ means. I thought it signified someone has HIV.

        Dan Kurt

        >Would someone define what leftist means. I thought it signified someone thinks they can do better than God?


        • Theshadowedknight says:

          You do realize that NRx, and especially Jim, are well aware of purity and holiness spirals? Do you really expect to reach us behaving in this fashion?

          • glosoli says:

            All you can accuse me of is sticking to the bible.

            Fire away, I’m guilty as charged.

            • StoneMan says:

              Zealous Puritanism was to the left of Charles II. That your zealous Puritanism is to the right of (current year) does not mean that you are on the side of Rightism.

              Read more Moldbug.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Left-right is useful and people who claim to have abolished it are always wrong, including third positionists and libertarians.

                Nevertheless, useful as it might be, the trap of left-right is Whig History, and you’re falling into that trap:

                “Zealous Puritanism was to the left of Charles II. That your zealous Puritanism is to the right of (current year) does not mean that you are on the side of Rightism.”

                Zealous Puritanism has its place. History can be seen to have drifted leftward in Europe over the past several centuries, but for human history overall, that can’t possibly be true.

                In the current year, we actually do need some authoritarian religious intervention. If that’s ‘to the left of X’, well then so be it.

                My attitude that influenced this article is that outright NATIONALISATION OF INDUSTRY has its place in the modern world for people like us. Religion’s tame in comparison to that, when it comes to ‘dude no left’.

                • StoneMan says:

                  >the trap of left-right is Whig History, and you’re falling into that trap:

                  One can reject the Whig meta-narrative while recognizing the particular historical memetic evolution of Whiggery. Perhaps Moldbug was wrong to place the blame entirely at the feet of Puritanism, but I don’t see how it’s possible to absolve Puritanism entirely. The Nrx worldview is simply incompatible with low-church-any-religion. If something is worth doing it’s worth putting someone officially in charge of doing it.

              • glosoli says:

                I’m not a Puritan, I wholeheartedly endorse polygamy for example.

                Moldbug is that Jewish guy? I’ll pass thanks.

                • Mycroft Jones says:

                  Puritan theologians (like Milton) were in favor of polygamy. They didn’t have power long enough to get the full program implemented; the English rebelled against something as simple as honoring the Lord’s Day by not working.

    • pdimov says:

      Poz means embracing vices and redefining them to be virtues. It comes from the gay practice of deliberately seeking to infect oneself with AIDS (“pozzing oneself”) because to be HIV positive is supposedly superior/holier/more progressive.

      Celebrating and spreading degeneracy and feeling morally superior while doing it, in other words.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      “Would someone define what POZ means.”

      It’s a meme that started out as people deliberately getting infected with the virus that causes AIDS.

      It’s come to mean basically the embrace, celebration or promotion of activities which are superficially recreational but in fact damaging to society as a whole over the long run.

  18. glosoli says:

    Unpozzed foreign dealings (literally the only unpozzed version there is, anything other than this is pozzed):


    ‘While fair and peaceable interrelations between nations were the norm, God had prohibited any interaction, trade, aid or treaties to be conducted with ungodly nations.’

    ‘Alliances and covenants (treaties) with pagan or ungodly nations are forbidden. Exod. 23:32; Exod. 34:12-16; Deut. 7:2-4; Judges 2:2-3; Ezra 9:12; Psa. 106:34-36.
    Covenants with pagan or ungodly nations leads to idolatry and adoption of pagan ways. Exod. 34:12-16; Deut. 7:2-4.
    Do not to follow the ways of other nations. Deut. 12:29-30.
    A treaty of peace, agreeing to do no harm to another friendly nation, can be enacted. Gen. 21:22-32; Gen. 26:28-31.
    Alliances made with wicked nations will not be fruitful. 2 Chron. 20:35-37. ‘


    ‘A canceling of all debts in the nation was thus to occur at an established time or year, according to the national cycle of seven years. If no period was established then the debt would last for only six years from the time it was incurred.’

    You are not to deal dishonestly or falsely with others when you buy and sell. Lev. 19:11; 2 Kings 22:7; Acts 5:1-6.
    When you sell to your neighbor or buy from your neighbor, you shall not oppress one another. Lev. 25:14-17.
    You shall not be unrighteous or have unjust gain in trading, selling or buying. Prov. 28:8; Isa. 33:15; Ezek. 28:4-8, 18.
    Free enterprise is recognized in trading and selling of all kinds of wares. Gen. 42:34; Neh. 13:20; Prov. 31:24; Isa. 23:8; Ezek. 27:12-24; Matt. 25:9, 16; Luke 22:36.
    Better is a little with righteousness, than vast revenues without justice. Prov. 16:8.
    Ill-gotten gains do not profit. Prov. 10:2.
    Sale of goods. Gen. 41:57; Deut 2:6; Prov. 31:24; Ja. 4:13. ‘

    ‘Whatever work you put your hands to, do it with all your might.

    Eccl. 9:10.
    Every man should enjoy the good of all his labor. Eccl. 2:24; Eccl. 3:13; Eccl. 5:18.
    The laborer is worthy of his hire (wages). Matt. 10:10; Matt. 20:8; Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18.
    We are exhorted to walk in a manner worthy of the vocation with which we have been called. Eph. 4:1.
    Every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labor. 1 Cor. 3:8.
    If any would not work, neither should he eat. 2 Thes. 3:10.
    Lead a quite life, mind your own business, and work with your own hands. 1 Thes. 4:11.
    Be not slothful in business, but be fervent in spirit. Rom. 12:11.
    Do not engage in work and labor that is vain or futile. Jer. 10: 3.’

    Don’t do it Deng’s way, do it the righteous way. Incorporate all of the above into your nation’s law, do not add or subtract, and guess the result.

    Blessed propserity and peace.

    Puny men debating otherwise is pozzed.

    • glosoli says:

      I had an inkling this post would be studiously ignored, yet it’s the wisest set of guidelines for dealing with these issues in existence, you’ll never do better.

      Just be humble and accept Jehovah knows exactly what we need, and some sort of reaction might be successful.

    • TBeholder says:

      It does little good if one doesn’t understand how and why things traditionally worked this or that way, and what modern applications of the same principles are. We aren’t in bronze age feudal economy, after all.
      The best for this is Taleb — he’s a trader himself, and shows these principles on clear examples.

      • jim says:

        People are always interpreting God’s commandments, usually in an alarmingly creative fashion, and never more so than when they claim to merely following them in a literal and mechanical fashion. You cannot actually follow them in a literal and mechanical fashion, and they are not intended to be followed in a literal and mechanical fashion, so anyone who claims to applying them in this manner is lying, Rabbinical Judaism being notorious for standing the Old Testament on its head, and very recent Rabbinical practice and doctrine on its head.

        Gods commandments always need to be interpreted. And to interpret them, you need to ask why this commandment, what is the problem that it is intended to address.

  19. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    Uncle JF once said……..

    A marsh along the mountain chain
    Infecteth what’s already won;
    Also the noisome pool to drain–
    My last, best triumph then were won:
    To many millions space I thus should give,
    Though not secure, yet free to toil and live;
    Green fields and fertile; men, with cattle blent,
    Upon the newest earth would dwell content,
    Settled forthwith upon the firm-based hill,
    Up-lifted by a valiant people’s skill;
    Within, a land like Paradise; outside,
    E’en to the brink, roars the impetuous tide,
    And as it gnaws, striving to enter there,
    All haste, combined, the damage to repair.
    Yea, to this thought I cling, with virtue rife,
    Wisdom’s last fruit, profoundly true:
    Freedom alone he earns as well as life,
    Who day by day must conquer them anew.
    So girt by danger, childhood bravely here,
    Youth, manhood, age, shall dwell from year to year;
    Such busy crowds I fain would see,
    Upon free soil stand with a people free;

    ….. then he turned reactionary.

  20. Carlylean Restorationist says:

    “Charles the second introduced sound economic policy at the same time as he exiled poz, and burned poz at the stake for heresy.”

    This is precisely what we need. It should be unthinkable in a civilised society for the radio to air ads which exhort the listener to “gamble responsibly”. It should be illegal for the radio to air an ad for youth-targeted alcopops followed by an ad for the gum clinic.

    In such a society, many industries would have to either be run by the state or else so closely managed by the state that they might just as well be run by it.

    This is something libertarians push back against, but Lew Rockwell’s idea of one town for me over here with pre-VaticanII, and one town over there like The Village is naive and Utopian. The Village would never cease in mental fight. The pre-VaticanIIs cannot in good conscience allow their sword to sleep in their hands.

    A running dog capitalist who gets it said on Monday “I wouldn’t be ok with France importing millions of savages: it’s a security matter for America and the world.”

    The time for ‘freedom’ has passed.

    • javier says:

      I’m not seeing this.

      When a gay person walks into your store, you need to be able to tell him to leave, and if he refuses the police should come and remove him for you, and if they rough him up in the process, let that be a lesson to him. The state only needs to protect your right to free association and free enterprise. What has happened is not “freedom” but rather the state has intervened in the natural order on behalf of the homosexual in order to make him higher status. The state says gays can come into your store whether you like it or not. It’s freedom for him, not for you.

      All that needs to be done is wipe away the unnatural laws which exist to artificially raise the status of low-status people.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        Gays are a nice easy example to use because the lines aren’t very blurry at all.

        What about pizza eaters? What about people who throw out their sofa because they fancy a change?
        What about people going on four holidays a year to foreign countries?

        The principles are the same. If we say “the consumer is sovereign: all men are equal under the law and it’s not our place to police the private preferences of free men” then we’re agreeing with the Founders.

        The alternative is to agree with Charles I.

        • javier says:

          No company willingly hires droves of useless sacred cows and pays them to take naps. They do this because the state power and religion compels them to, because it is the only way to remain in business. This is not “consumerism.” If this is a secret plan by capitalist jews to make money, they are failing miserably.

          We already have state-run industry in this sense.

  21. Michael Rothblatt says:

    If the freer the market meant the more the poz, and less free the market the less the poz then we would see Hong Kong be the most pozzed place in the world, and Russia the least pozzed place in the world. What we see is exactly the opposite, in spite of Russian posturing as being some kind of beacons of morality. So I am inclined to believe that capitalism without social democracy is not neutral, but even slightly pushes in cultural conservative direction. Indeed, we even see this play out in spite of all the anti-discrimination laws:


  22. reactionaryfuture says:

    There are a number of problems with current modes of organisation, but to understand it requires straightening out a number of points. First, capitalism is, and can only be, a state produced form of organisation. All those rubbish examples of unregulated pirate markets or what ever are bunk. They can only exist as parasitic on state created infrastructure. Once we recognize this we can look at the nature of this relationship between the state and businesses.

    Businesses exist as legal individuals at the acknowledgement of the state and so have no ability to act contrary to the state’s laws and regulations unless another actor (a state) creates enough pressure to stay the original state’s hand. This means they sway with the wind and don’t cause trouble. Where things get interesting is when these companies become very large and strategically important. Then two things happen.

    Firstly, the connection between the state and the business becomes very close. Look at facebook or google. The business becomes an arm of government (as all businesses are in reality.) Secondly, the now very wealthy individuals begin to use their wealth to make changes. The nature of these changes are very interesting and present the biggest case against this free trade/ free market nonsense (a state of existence which we may add never existed,and never will.) These newly wealthy individuals start funding pressure groups and start founding foundations. These foundations, such as the various Rockefeller Foundations and the Ford Foundation then get used to launch Poz attacks. Even in instances when the wealthy don’t do this, they still use their money to press for changes that benefit their business (like amazon) which basically amount to Poz attacks. These scummy oligarchs see from an oligarch eye view and invariably want to flood the labor market, undermine problems (like trade unions and families) and promote bullshit like free trade/ free markets which demands they be left alone (because, yeah, you are free to trade on equal terms with Amazon, its a free market…lol) except in cases when they get big enough and then support some legislation which proves prohibitive for any other business not of their size. There is a reason Marx made the mistake of seeing the state as being the vehicle of this scumbags, because from one angle it seems clear it is. The problem is the overall political structure is the problem and the businesses are acting in accordance with the structure. A healthy structure would really keep a serious lid on the creation of wealth because wealth becomes bastions of power that invariably get used by centralising actors. Amazon, for example, should have been squelched long ago and Jeff Bezos should have had his money removed from him. Letting him buy newspapers is insane. Maybe force him to work for the government if he is effective at organisation, but don’t let him rove around like this.

    Where trade goes off the rails is when we start believing the fairy tales around free trade, autonomous companies, and a non-political “economy.”

  23. Herodian says:

    Lack of poz in Trump’s America? The anti-poz are reduced to “owning the libs” through anon twitter accounts for fear of losing their jobs while every Fortune 500 repaints their logo with rainbow colors and heaps endless praise on the black female tranny who converted to Islam and just wants to code without being subjected to constant toxic masculinity.

    • jim says:

      It is significantly better than it was in Obama’s America, immensely better than it is in South Africa or Venezuela, and immensely better than it will be be if the Democrats ever return to power, which they will if democracy lasts a few years longer.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      In the real world Herodian, we live in a mass franchise Republic.
      The alternative to Trump in 2018 is not Charles II, much as all of us wish it to be. In 2018, the alternative to Trump in *plausible* counterfactuals is Hillary Clinton.

      Trump’s not perfect. On some things he’s not even good, but on the things that matter, he’s as good as is remotely imaginable under the current system.

      What Jim’s talking about in the article, and what all of us are engaged in talking about all the time, is what happens when the current system is gone.

      To complain about Trump operating within the current system is to completely miss the point. Would Trump push harder against Poz and immigration if he were really the God-Emperor? Or do you believe Trump himself regards 2018 America as the sweet spot? (If so, I fail to see why you’d think so. He doesn’t exactly seem to be applauding the press etc.)

      • The Cominator says:

        Trump almost unquestionably regards the 1950s as the sweet spot in terms of cultural/legal issues aside from economics (hes not as reactionary as most of us) with Calvin Coolidge’s economic policies as the economic sweet spot.

      • Herodian says:

        I’m not so sure if it’s significantly better than under Obama. I understand change takes time, but I don’t recall there being such a huge rainbow celebration of wokeness during Obama’s presidency like there has been the past couple of months. At least people are speaking up and actually fighting back, but the left responds with louder megaphones.

        CR: I agree with you. He is about as good as we can expect given the situation. I suppose the point I should have made is,, the poz is now baked into our mass culture. Okay.. what to do after the war we win so we get to start from scratch. The economic and cultural world we had in 1958 would be great, except 1958 still lead us to 2018.

        I’m sort of thinking the causality goes the other way. Once the poz sets in you start getting the economic nihilism. We got poz in the 60’s and early 70’s but the bugman economics didn’t really get going until the 80’s and early 90’s.

        I thought our side had pretty much settled on the notion that culture (morals) is upstream of policy.

        • The Cominator says:

          The rainbow coalition of wokeness is the left accelerating things they had planned to do slowly had things gone as they predicted and tried to rig.

          ” Okay.. what to do after the war we win ”

          No amnesty for anyone…

          White male progressives treated the most harshly. Probably won’t end up with a monarchy since Americans oppose the idea too much but if we get a Republic unamendable amendment that women can NEVER vote.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            The harshest penalties were reserved for people trying to overthrow the crown. This did not stop the crown from being overthrown. Focus on who is enforcing the rules, not what the text of the rules is.

            • The Cominator says:

              I’m saying that reactionaries like Pinochet are generally far too merciful in victory…

              If the left starts a war or forces one upon us (in order to defend ourselves) we should not make that mistake this time.

              • 7817 says:

                “I’m saying that reactionaries like Pinochet are generally far too merciful in victory…”

                Good point. Any idea what causes this, but it is a pattern that is hard to

                • The Cominator says:

                  Reaction is the cause of cynics.

                  Cynics find it harder to justify the kind of bloodshed the fanatics (and criminals) the left easily can.

              • 7817 says:

                Fat fingered it.

                Any idea what causes this? The pattern of being to merciful to the agents of poz when victorious over them is pretty common.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Universal principles

                • The Cominator says:

                  Quite the opposite when the reactionary faces the daunting and gruesome prospect of exterminating the other side the Billy Joel song “Shades of Grey” plays in his mind…

                  “Once there were trenches and walls and one point of every view
                  Fight ’til the other man falls
                  Kill him before he kills you
                  These days the edges are blurred, I’m old and tired of war
                  I hear the other man’s words
                  I’m not that sure anymore”

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Not sure what you’re trying to say, Cominator.

                  What 7X is asking is why Pinochet led to Bachelet and why Franco&Salazar led to o.m.g. etc. etc. and it’s a reasonable question.

                  IMHO, universal principles: “I don’t have the right to initiate violence against these people who’ve done me no wrong”

                  To hell with that.

                • The Cominator says:

                  Right wing victory leads to poz because victorious right wingers spare far too many leftists.

                  They spare them because it takes real fanaticism to put up the kind of numbers the left generally does and the right tends to be made up of angry cynics who just want to be left alone. When the war is won they don’t want to shot 50 people each… they want to go home and live in peace. The leaders on the right don’t want to go down in history with huge body counts to their names.

                  In practice this means a lot of leftist are spared, for a time they are excluded from government but in a generation or two they are back.

                • TBeholder says:

                  They spare them because it takes real fanaticism to put up the kind of numbers the left generally does and the right tends to be made up of angry cynics who just want to be left alone. When the war is won they don’t want to shot 50 people each… they want to go home and live in peace. The leaders on the right don’t want to go down in history with huge body counts to their names.

                  …and if enough of them are sufficiently fanatic (or pretend to be), that’s just new holiness spiral and new “left” in the making.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  For what use would there be in punishment? Why would a felon be executed? Why would a malcontent be exiled? Why would a thief or malingerer or profligate be sold into indenture?

                  It is not simply a question of ‘balancing karma’, or repaying some ‘cosmic debt’; such a thing approaches the issue with the wrong mindset, cannot be felicitously quantified by a being that is component of the comos, and hence a legal system using such a rationalization would quickly (and have quickly) lose memetic real-estate.

                  No, the operative kernel is that it is not *merely* for what they did; it is that what they did is evidence, indication, that they might well do it or something liken to it in the future; that they might well be *the sort of person who does such things*. It is because of expectation, *prediction*.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  Regarding Franco, I believe the problem was handing over the country to a sovereign who, alas, had been educated in America (sheep-dipped in poz).

              • Anonymous 2 says:

                Death squads seem not to have those disadvantages, such as excessive mercy, and are a popular bottom-up solution to communism too.

          • TBeholder says:

            is the left accelerating things they had planned to do slowly had things gone as they predicted and tried to rig.

            In part.
            In the other part, the holiness spiral is not something they can slow down much, so it got out of sync.
            Then the middle-high level community organizers are “riding the tiger” now: either lose control (and be eaten by former pets) or run off in the open and bring a bike chain into gunfight, without heavy support (legitimate and quasi-legitimate).
            Sure, someone like Soros could pull the leash on a single pack of his bitches when they strayed toward the wrong barn… but his lackeys can’t just pull back the whole kennel when it’s frothing — and if they’ll try, they’ll be mauled first. Oops.

  24. jim says:

    Carlylean Restorationist argues:

    > Is business the innocent bystander reluctantly dragged along for the ride, and hence harmless in a more just libertarian (or related) order?

    > NO……….. it is……. not…………


    If banks were allowed, they would refuse to lend to non Asian minorities, except for very small amounts, very short periods and very high interest rates, because such loans are very risky, because race is a better predictor of a loan being repaid than credit history. This would have profoundly reactionary consequences.

    If businesses were allowed, they would refuse to have women as board members or high executives, because of the female propensity for disruptive drama creation. This would have profoundly reactionary consequences.

    If businesses were allowed, they would never employ persons ethnically or culturally different from the existing leadership of the company for positions requiring trust, except those people were white Christians, because of the problem that diversity undermines trust. This would have profoundly reactionary consequences.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Business complies with the dictates of the left because doing so makes them money and not doing so makes them lose money to regulators, mobs, and grandstanding rent seekers. They are bowing to the edicts of a hostile and insane religion. The rational economic decision is to comply with the left, because the left has the power to destroy them.

      Look at how long it took and how much coercion was involved with making business kneel. Affirmative action, Supreme Court decisions outlawing competency testing, imposition of racial and sexual quotas, harassment and discrimination lawsuits.

      If we could free business from these requirements, we would have a very strong economic ally once the corrections occurred. To do that, we need power, or friends with power. The issues with business are that we are out of power and our enemies have it. They control the direction of business, hence poz. If we controlled them, no poz.

      • Anonymous 2 says:

        Business complies with the dictates of the left because doing so makes them money and not doing so makes them lose money to regulators, mobs, and grandstanding rent seekers. They are bowing to the edicts of a hostile and insane religion. The rational economic decision is to comply with the left, because the left has the power to destroy them.

        At this point, ‘business’ appears to joyfully signal and implement leftism, presumably because the managers actually are leftists, women, homosexuals, tribal foreigners, etc. Google is more zealous in destroying wrongthinkers than employment law putatively allows and nobody cares or even pretend to shake their heads with a smile at their youthful exuberance. (A bit of luck then that the judicial profession also appears to consist of leftists with little respect for the law per se.)

        In short, the infection of poz has proceeded farther than you think.

        To get to these positions of power, you first need to pass through the indoctrination centre and be approved by its masters. Universities must thus be sacked, plundered and burned. Law professors, among others, sent to the camps for reeducation never to be seen again.

        • jim says:

          Google got legal advice that they had to fire Damore, because crimethink was a hostile environment for women. So that was not spontaneous enthusiasm for suppressing crimethink, but fear of a hostile environment lawsuit. Social Justice Warriors were lying about what Damore said and thought, and would present the same lies before a judge to get their way. Remove the threat of the judge who would lean their way, they would have been fired for creating drama, not Damore.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            >Google got legal advice that they had to fire Damore, because crimethink was a hostile environment for women. So that was not spontaneous enthusiasm for suppressing crimethink, but fear of a hostile environment lawsuit.

            Not the story I’ve heard.

            The story I’ve heard is that the true believer head of youtube declared that he must be fired because she couldn’t explain to her daughters why Damore was wrong so the figurehead CEO hopped to it.

          • pyrrhus says:

            Nice try, but as an attorney I can tell you that it’s BS…Companies like Google can fight employee lawsuits for more or less infinite amounts of time, and very few employees would want to sue anyway, given the risk of becoming unemployable by Big Tech. Not to mention that the case would not have any merit, and might be rejected by the EOC.

          • Anonymous 2 says:

            It’s instructive to read, e.g., Damore’s complaint against Google. Sometimes with some legal dramatic flourishes but generally credible IMO.

            6. Google employees and managers strongly preferred to hear the same orthodox opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink. When Plaintiffs challenged Google’s illegal employment practices, they were openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google. Google created an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view or the “Googley way,” as it is sometimes known internally. Google employees knew they could harass Plaintiffs with impunity, given the tone set by managers—and they did so.

            8. Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with “boos” during company-wide weekly meetings. This unacceptable behavior occurred at the hands of high-level managers at Google who were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of hiring and firing decisions during the Class Periods.

            128. On or around August 2015, Adam Fletcher (“Fletcher”), a L6 SRE Manager at Google, Jake McGuire (“McGuire”), a L7 SRE Manager at Google, and Nori Heikkinen (Heikkinen”), a L6 SRE Manager at Google all publicly endorsed blacklisting conservatives and actively preventing them from seeking employment opportunities at Google.


            Et cetera, RTWT.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        >Business complies with the dictates of the left because doing so makes them money and not doing so makes them lose money to regulators, mobs, and grandstanding rent seekers. They are bowing to the edicts of a hostile and insane religion. The rational economic decision is to comply with the left, because the left has the power to destroy them.


        >If we could free business from these requirements, we would have a very strong economic ally once the corrections occurred.

        Not true.

        Look, what happens practically is that the old company officials complied because they were forced to but got replaced by true believers as time went on. The true believers then filtered for true believers resulting in a corp that’s entirely dedicated to furthering the poz – which is fine – the market *can* handle that but here’s the catch: the prog state then protects the converged companies with all the tools at its disposal – which are considerable.

        If you tried to rip out the state backing for the poz now all the converged businesses will fight it because the poz is what’s protecting them from competition.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Plenty would fight, yes. However, I speak of a period of time after the removal of the poz and the resulting economic corrections. Big business is not our friend now by any means, and it needs to be aggressively opposed. Once changes are implemented, they could be allies, but only once the poz is sufficiently weakened. At that point, businesses can be reactionary without fear of governmental intervention.

          If the left rules, business is leftist. If the right rules, business is rightist.

        • peppermint says:

          (1) signal that the snivel rights will never again be enforced
          (2) execs say, this is not Our Values
          (3) they just breached their fiduciary duty to the shareholders. Fire them.

          I mean, it’s not quite that straightforward, on paper it is, in practice maybe we need to incenerate some of the trash, maliciously prosecute it for this or that, whatever.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      >If banks were allowed, they would refuse to lend to non Asian minorities, except for very small amounts, very short periods and very high interest rates, because such loans are very risky, because race is a better predictor of a loan being repaid than credit history.

      Nah, they’d still act to please the prog state because what MM said about our banking system is 100% true. The combination of maturity transformation and fiat currency means that every bank is constantly in danger of having its long positions drop in value and being unable to liquidate them without undermining every other bank who are (of course) all holding the same long-term assets. The result is that none of them can cover their short-term obligations if anything goes wrong. How does it actually work? They all get backstopped by the Fed which will simply give them money and buy market assets with freshly created dollars if anything goes wrong… as long as the prog state is happy with the way you’ve been running your bank.

      Much better to pay the prog tax and make less money in the short term because you make loans that don’t get paid back than to have your whole bank go under when the next inevitable crisis hits.

      • jim says:

        > > If banks were allowed, they would refuse to lend to non Asian minorities, except for very small amounts, very short periods and very high interest rates, because such loans are very risky, because race is a better predictor of a loan being repaid than credit history.

        > Nah, they’d still act to please the prog state

        Which is the same as saying that they are not allowed.

        • glosoli says:

          Lend to all comers, including ethnics>make great short-term profits>help your fellow capitalists who sell stuff to fill the houses>sell on the packaged debts to the mugs>short those packaged debts, making more profits when the bubble bursts>apply pressure to your employees in FedGov to bail out the Boyz if need be, whilst allowing small competitors to fail>repeat today, add in autos too.

          You have to be stupid not to see the beauty of the scheme. Once you own the Fed and the FedGov, you know you’ll always get bailed out. It’s a Ponzi scheme with a bailout for Mr Ponzi.

          Things for Jim to ponder:

          Has the increase in feminism resulted in fewer households or more? Less debt or more? More spending or less?

          Had the promotion of homosexuality and other perversions resulted in less spending on medication or more? Less destruction of the trad family or more? Less alcohol consumption or more? Less societal happiness and contentment with ones kith and kin or more?

          Has the deliberate importation of millions of invaders to the West resulted in a smaller welfare state or larger? Less govt debt or more? More households or less?

          You Jim have to be totally blind and stupid to think that big business hasn’t been behind ALL of the poz for literally ever. Why do you think Jesus whipped the money lenders in the Temple. In the Temple!

          They covet the whole world, every physical asset, including people. I will do some research when I have time on the big biz people who also were involved in the Poz. It’s a well known fact which lobby took out blasphemy laws in the UK, to help their pozzing of faith, target No.1. Same people legalised faggotry. Same people installed Blair, Cameron and May. Same people installed Thatcher and Reagan. And now Trump, so they get their pipeline and fracking.

          I agree with the comment alive, trade with foreigners is bad, full stop. Babel is always the aim. Keep to yourselves, be separate, Holy, faithful, obedient.

          The reaction you want is literally going to be Dengist fascism. But you like that.

          • peppermint says:

            …so who would use their own money to buy the future revenue stream of mortgages to unemployed subhuman garbage?

            • glosoli says:

              That would be the likes of your parents, and their insurers, all over America.

              Bankers have silver-tongues, first they invented mortgage-backed securities, then they invented Credit-default swaps.



              Fools everywhere bought them by the trillion.

              Read Liar’s Poker, really captures the righteousness of those financiers.

              • peppermint says:

                Typical Christian socialism. Marx’s reply to Christian socialists is why are there still poor people after a millennium of Christianity? I think it’s an apt response. Inb4 ((Yeshua bar Yahweh / Yusuf / some Roman)) quote about poverty.

                Calling bankers morally evil doesn’t change the incongruity between their ostensible motivation regardless of its moral character and their actions, but Jim’s government control theory explains it.

              • peppermint says:

                Some other fag blamed capitalism for the word capitalism being used to sneak in government mandates, you take it one step further by explicitly blaming capitalism for explicitly non-capitalist behavior that you call morally evil. This is the muddled thinking of christcucks. You let a desert rat hijack your moral sensibilities and then you say all kinds of bizarre stuff as pompous moral judgements.

                • glosoli says:

                  It is literally easier than 2+2=4 to trace the exploitation for profit of every man woman and child in the West to the efforts and designs of big business. Governments are their poodles, much like your relationship to Jim.

                  We are now their slaves, wholly.

                  Face that fact and turn to God for freedom, or remain their slave.

                • StoneMan says:

                  >This is the muddled thinking of christcucks. You let a desert rat hijack your moral sensibilities and then you say all kinds of bizarre stuff as pompous moral judgements.

                  People are stupid. Non-Christians are rarely un-muddled thinkers. Your comments ooze spite and vitriol on a regular basis, and yet you call Christians muddled thinkers. You would easier to take seriously if your tone were more dispassionate and less like that of a resentful pissant.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Peppy how come you hate Christianity quite as fiercely as you do?

                  I’ve only ever known leftie atheists to feel this strongly about Christianity. It’s weird to find someone on the right who shares that prejudice.

                  I was re-reading the Sermon On The Mount after talking to some guy on The Guardian comments board and what struck me once again was just how HARDCORE it is……

                  This ‘christcucks’ thing is crazy.

                  That said, modern churches are an abomination, but then isn’t that true of modern governments, modern schools, modern newspapers, modern novels, modern textbooks, modern businesses?

                • peppermint says:

                  Because Christians are socialists, bless their hearts.

                  ((Jesus)) said the poor we will always have with us. That sounds like a prohibition on socialism, but socialism isn’t really about the money. It’s about the last being first, easier to put a camel through the eye of a needle, the rich man’s duty to give Lazarus everything he has instead of it being charitable to give Lazarus stuff he doesn’t need, it’s about blessed are the faggots, they will get wedding cakes.

                  Maybe it’s necessary to take up the good parts, as with Mein Kampf. Is there a community of nazi socialists who post that bankers cut their own throats in 2007 because they’re just that greedy for blood?

                  We can discuss taking up the good parts, Christianity is as good an excuse as any to be a good man in this world where it’s so easy to find an advantage by being bad, when we’re ready to admit that the justification for Clinton’s law to force banks to loan to minorities, that minorities had the same rate of repayment as humans, was a consequence of the banks being allowed to choose. Today’s men don’t say I’m a Christian, they say I’m a pretty chill guy but not a cuck. I say I’m a Christian in contexts where Christianity means that.

                  Christians have this idea of going to Church. At Church you hear from an anonymous priest, exactly like at a university or at Socialist Matter. Every good blog has one named guy, including Daily Kos and Huffington Post.

                  So Mike Enoch and Richard Spencer say they think a UBI might be okay in a White ethnostate. That’s an interesting argument that if you follow the logic all the way you realize it’s because in a White ethnostate Whites will naturally shun the people on handouts, though it would still be a disaster to let women out of their father’s house on UBI.

                  That’s just, like, their wonky view. Named people can have ironic and dismissable views. Institutions can’t.

                  8chan isn’t a blog. It’s a real university and the real scholars monitor and engage there and then post on their own blogs under their own pen names. The law of comments applies to the /pol/ community too: staff writers, guest bloggers and namefags like UBI, commenters hate communism.

                  Besides being led by staff writers, Christians assuage their personal doubts with moral and political posturing.

                • Yara says:

                  >Besides being led by staff writers

                  Their sermons are lead by staff writers in a distant office somewhere, and their “praise music” is canned by unpaid amateur interns in the shitty music factory attached to its back.

                • StoneMan says:

                  “Because Christians are socialists, bless their hearts.”

                  Christians are forbidden to knock over the apple cart, and forbidden to lust after the apples, and forbidden to permit others knocking over apple carts. That the Christian who owns the apple cart is encouraged to be generous with his apples is hardly socialism. A Taoist, a Hindu, a Muslim, would all tell you that the man who obsesses over his apples is far from enlightenment, are the Eastern religions socialist too? Perhaps you would say they are, but if you wouldn’t, you simply aren’t being fair to Christianity.

    • Carlylean Restorationist says:

      You’re the most important thinker in the movement Jim. It’s not my intention to sow dissent. If I could take the train to your Georgian/Jacobite world, I wouldn’t hesitate for a nanosecond. (Pace Ben Libet lol)

      “Is business the innocent bystander reluctantly dragged along for the ride, and hence harmless in a more just libertarian (or related) order?”

      Very sorry to keep beating this drum but it’s an important part of the puzzle.

      I worked in a hotel for about 2 years. I was an anarcho-capitalist when I signed up, and was overjoyed to be giving the public what they wanted and were willing to voluntarily pay for out of their own pocket.
      I’m not going to talk about the tax-funded guests, the arrangements that funded the various businesses, or any of that: we’re all grown ups and we know that we don’t live under free market capitalism. Nevertheless my simplification that this was a private business offering services people were taking up much of the time voluntarily and funding themselves was not unreasonably distorted.


      If Poz went away, that hotel would be screwed. They need the heavy drinking. They even need the occasional prostitute to rent a room for a few weeks.

      Now: they’d also be screwed if the various state-funded enterprises went away. I get that, and I’m willing to wave that aside, because in AnCapistan, that state distortion wouldn’t be available to them and I’m fine with that and they’d have to be also.

      But what about the whores, the binge-drinkers, the queer marriages?

      That stuff would be entirely conceivable in AnCapistan and the hotel would embrace it – heck, I don’t think it’s beyond reasonable consideration that they’d push for it.

      “So your covenant community has a traditionalist marital policy: ok but isn’t our AnCap paradise about individual freedom? What right does anyone have to prevent gays from marrying each other? Sure you can say “go somewhere else” but what if they’re from here? Why should every single outlet prevent their love from blossoming? Let’s think about a ‘live and let live’ approach: our safe propertarian society’s robust enough to cope with it!”

      Would *nobody* in the business community make that argument? I remember Ron Paul in the 1980s on TV making that argument for the legalisation of RECREATIONAL HEROIN!!!!!! Ron Paul!!!!!!!

      Business likes the Poz. If every Starbucks could have poker matches, blowjob booths and on tap crack cocaine, they would, and if they didn’t, Caffe Nero would. Then when Caffe Nero did, Starbucks would either go bust or cave.

      Ludwig von Mises, that infamous Nazbol economic illiterate, once said “any enterprise catering only to the rich will never grow beyond small or at most medium size. Capitalism is mass production for the benefit of the masses.”

      Yep, and the masses likes them a drink innit.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        I’ll concede that they’d be entertainment facilities owned and run by largely white cis-male hetero social conservatives, but so what? Society rots in the masses not the élite.

      • The Cominator says:

        “If Poz went away, that hotel would be screwed. They need the heavy drinking. They even need the occasional prostitute to rent a room for a few weeks.”

        A restoration (which would never quite go full Islam not in the West unless Islam took over, and if Islam comes close to taking over genocide by the Russians and Chinese is the most likely outcome) would not likely end heavy drinking or prostitution.

        On prostitution quite the contrary, women who resisted the married life would not get state support and their choice of professions would be very limited (nursing sales caring for other people’s young children in some way and secretaries). Hence there would be a lot more women in prostitution (which also would be legal) and it’s price would go down.

      • jim says:

        You are taking the poz for granted, accepting the progressive rules as natural an inevitable. They are not.

        Women don’t really like emancipation, any more than dogs want to be without a master. They want to be property, and look for someone strong enough to own them, and in our society, cannot find what they are looking for.

        Further, if women are not property, if they are free and independent and all that, men and women both find it very hard to form families and have children, are denied their deepest needs.

        So women need to be the property of men. All going well, they start off as the property of their father, and, as virgins, become the property of their husband, and remain his property. And that is what will happen to the vast majority of women – for most women, all will be well. Very few whores.

        As for gay marriage, there are no gay marriages. Not in today’s society, and not in a reactionary society. Today gays go through the motions of marrying to mock Christianity and mock straights. In a reactionary society, mocking will get you killed, and men who lie with a male, as with a woman, will be executed. Problem solved.

        If a woman sleeps around commits adultery, the rules that applied under King Solomon will apply. The state will not do anything about it, except perhaps haul her back to her husband on a leash, but the husband will be entitled to kill her and/or the man she slept with. This should put a distinct damper on both the supply of whores, and demand for their services.

        If her father or husband is too weak to control her, or complicit in her whoring, or pimps her out, then the old Roman rules apply: any of the men she sleeps with will be entitled to claim her and keep her. If a woman sleeps with one man, he is not required to allow her to sleep with the next.

        These rules should keep gays in the closet, and whores in short supply. Whoring will be legal, but feral women will not. Hence, no whores.

        • The Cominator says:

          Restoration England had whores.

          I’m fine with going back to the 18th century, we should not go back to the rules of a semitic tribal society more equivalent to Saudi Arabia then anything in “our” history.

        • StoneMan says:

          >These rules should keep gays in the closet, and whores in short supply.
          Capitalists will not, of their own accord, make these rules. Restrictions upon capitalists and capitalism must be imposed from above, from a place that is utterly disinterested in gaining material wealth (because already rich beyond desire). If I am understanding you correctly Jim you are saying, more or less, that capitalists will not be incentivized to introduce poz in a non-pozzed society. I agree, but capitalists will not clean up the mess. That task belongs to those whose purpose is grander than the pursuit of wealth.

          Capitalism is a wild horse. Very strong, very powerful. It must be broken and made to serve, not to be indulged at every opportunity.

          • Roberto says:

            >Capitalism is a wild horse. Very strong, very powerful. It must be broken and made to serve, not to be indulged at every opportunity.

            So how’s Nick Land doing these days?

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          “Today gays go through the motions of marrying to mock Christianity and mock straights.”

          Absolutely right, but gay marriages are about more than cake. The average wedding costs in the region of £20,000 whether it’s genuine or nightmare-clown.

          Every wedding involves expensive room hire, expensive clothing, expensive entertainments (DJ, sometimes live bands, confetti of all kinds, chocolate fountains), massive holidays, jewellery, present-buying, endless drinking, posh meals, hotel rooms, plane flights, the list goes on.

          The wedding itself generates £20,000 but the guests will probably spend that much again between them.

          Very, very good for GDP and very, very good for the myriad businesses that profit from the whole thing.

          It wasn’t a conspiracy by business but the idea that business would turn off the spigot in a restored or just normalised society is absurd. Business owners (including but not limited to bakers) are PROUD that they’ll serve just about anyone without prejudice to their ‘lifestyle choices’.

          They’re not pretending to impress oppressive regulators: most of them are connected to the local council. These are perennial themes in the libertarian literature of course: regulatory capture, the thirst for cartels, the strict amorality of the market.

          And let’s not pretend either that government action precedes social change: it doesn’t. Did children stop cleaning chimneys when the law came out? No, libertarians are the first to tell everyone the conditions improved first, then the law was passed to prevent the holdouts from exerting an antisocial advantage.
          Same with the shorter working week and with days off, holidays, sick pay etc.

          I’ve personally visited a fruit factory that had a non-contributory (ie. all provided outside pay) pension scheme for fruit pickers and line workers in 1913 in Britain.

          Poz is just the same. Gay bars predated gay lib. Just listen to “Sing if you’re glad to be gay”: Tom Johnson (I think? I forget now, been a while) talks about ‘our last magazine’ and ‘raiding gay bars for no reason at all’, etc. etc.

          Important disclaimer: none of this in any way justifies egalitarian socialism. It does however open the way to the point of view that the state ought to own and control far more industries than it does at present. Putting the ‘national’ into ‘nationalisation’ as it were.

          Bad for profit and GDP? Probably: far fewer chocolate fountains, for sure.

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Tom Robinson Band sorry, 1978: long before gay lib really took off. This was prior to the Thatcher ‘oppressive’ laws and a decade prior to equalisation of the age of consent: a full thirty years before gay marriage.

            Subversion is a multi-pronged affair. Just look at Thatcher’s liberalisation of the broadcast media: the new channel, Channel 4, was the gayest, most Marxian broadcaster this nation had seen up to that point and I think remains so, even in the face of Netflix.
            No Thatcher, no Derek Jarman.

          • javier says:

            This is very ignorant. If selling more weddings is the goal of liberals, why have liberals done everything possible to convince people to never get married?

            Weddings are expensive now because they cater to female vanity. Women want what they want and they don’t care what it costs. Men have been told it is abuse to ever tell a woman no. It’s status competition run amok. Men will put a stop to it as soon as the artificial state empowerment of women stops.

            Businesses do not benefit when they embrace the poz. Quite the opposite, they chase away customers, make products their customers do not like, search for new customers who do not exist, and spend all their money on useless diversity hires who are unqualified and unfit to work. They bleed money until they die and then lash out and attack their customers for not being progressive enough. Get woke, go broke, as the saying goes.

            Gays are bad for business. Embracing homos is a good way to drive away your customers. Normal people do not want to go to a bar where dudes in mesh tank tops make out with each other. In the town I live in, numerous bars suddenly embraced gays and said they were proud to serve gay customers. Now all those bars are closing.

            You are a very silly person.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            >Poz is just the same. Gay bars predated gay lib.

            Gay bars were owned by criminals.

            The infamous Stonewall Tavern was owned by the mafia.

      • peppermint says:

        …Vito Corleone got shot because he didn’t want to have anything to do with heroin. Michael Corleone got hooked into the family business because he had to assassinate a cop who was trying to let assassins kill Vito. Vito, and the guy you see in the beginning of the movie, just want justice for themselves and their families, but the government wouldn’t provide it.

        The government wanted to purify our essence by getting rid of booze hookers and gambling, and at the same time create anarcho-tyranny where rape is treated like it’s nothing and emancipated wymyn run wild, and ended up with organized crime and corruption which lead to heroin and illegals.

        You’re blaming Vito for the hotel.

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I’ve heard these tired arguments so many times: prohibition doesn’t work………. they banned booze and got the mob

          Nope, not true, simple as that. It wasn’t seriously tried with booze and it isn’t being seriously tried with smack.

          We need a zero deals policy combined with a zero tolerance policy. You’re found in possession of cannabis resin? You die.
          You’re found intoxicated outside your home? You’re beaten to a pulp.
          You’re found to have procured the services of a prostitute? Instant castration and excommunication.

          It’s not rocket science. There’s a reason that most people never rape children.

          • The Cominator says:

            Trying to ban old vices is not reactionary though its progressive.

            I think what would work best with cannabis is full legalization. It was a very marginally used and low demand drug until it was outlawed if legal it couldn’t sustain the cool factor.

            The 19th century had tons of laudnum (low grade heroin) addicts so legalization will not work with heroin, but it had almost zero cannabis use even though both were legal.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              That’s not true at all.

              It’s a common piece of libertarian propaganda but it’s not true.

              If a servant was found drunk whilst on lordly grounds, he’d come to regret it. That was as good for him as it was for the household as a whole and for anyone he might’ve attacked.

              I visited an English Workhouse a few months ago and one of the historical records showed how one of the male inmates used to slink away during the day by climbing over the wall, go sell his (provided) shirt, buy drink and then come back in time for bed.

              We were supposed to applaud him while condemning the punishment he received, but in point of fact the punishment was a huge favour to him: one day, potentially, he might leave the workhouse and become a free freed serf.

              That’s the classical liberal position after a century of no-strings-attached welfare turned very, very sour.

              The reactionary position is that laissez-faire applied to peasants is inhumane.

              • The Cominator says:

                A lord might not tolerate a house servant being drunk on the job but until the Victorian era almost EVERYONE got drunk every night outside the Islamic world, Puritans were an exception. British soldiers and sailors used to get daily rum rations.

                One reason the Islamic world did okay relatively speaking up until a certain point was its endorsement of sobriety as a virtue, whereas in the West nearly everyone would have been considered an alcoholic. I don’t drink at all personally… bad family history with it and don’t want to become an alcoholic.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  To be meticulously clear, I am emphatically not making the case for prohibition as an eternal, immutable law.
                  I’m saying we need it right here, right now, in the current year of the 2018th year of the Lord, because we face a world of acid attacks, rape gangs and casual violence on the street.

                  Once the imminent danger recedes, there’s no reason why we shouldn’t breathe a sigh of relief.

                  A society in which crack cocaine is a legal, socially eccentric vice for occasional use by those who can demonstrably cope with it would be a beautiful society.

                  We do not live in that world. We live in the world where if you leave your window, let alone your door, unlocked, the fault is entirely YOURS when you lose everything you own.

            • jim says:

              > Trying to ban old vices is not reactionary though its progressive.

              By stopping other people from real or imaginary sins, one demonstrates one’s own superior virtue without the inconvenience of actually doing anything virtuous.

              • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                Yes it CAN be about that, but it isn’t always.

                A prohibition of drugs including but not limited to alcohol in the current year is not about virtue, but safety.

                One person per day is permanently disfigured in London by having acid thrown in their face. We need very harsh measures to turn something like that around.

          • jim says:

            Alcohol is rightfully part of western civilization. It is a truth serum. It enables you to learn the truth, and gives you an excuse for speaking the truth.

            I only drink socially. I only drink about once a week or once a month, possibly less, but about once a year or so, I get falling down drunk.

            Suppressing routine drinking would undermine our civilization by impairing male bonding and male cohesion. Prohibition would be worse for male cohesion than gays.

            • The Cominator says:

              I don’t drink myself and there are many things I don’t like about drinking but banning drinking is progressive (and radically progressive at that, its for the holier then Jesus puritans that Cromwell suppressed) not reactionary.

              No reactionary should ever endorse alcohol prohibition.

              Now however while I do think there should be SOME restoration of paterfamilias rights I do think husbands and father’s should be prohibited from “disciplining” wives and children when under the influence of alcohol. Such disciplinary powers should only be allowed when they are in a sober state.

              • jim says:

                You are buying into a feminist myth. The feminists are frantically looking for a battered wife to demonize marriage and men, but their battered wife poster girls all smell as funny as their rape victims.

                The battered wife problem has a striking resemblance to the problem of coeds being raped by white male cishet fratboys. Their poster girls are transparently whores and liars.

                In just not in a man’s nature to mistreat a woman who is sleeping with himself, and not sleeping with someone else. His genes want immortality. To batter a woman who is sleeping with you and not sleeping with someone else is like battering yourself, both according to Saint Paul, and according to Darwin

                And if she is sleeping with someone else, while living with you, and being supported and protected by you, needs killing.

                • The Cominator says:

                  A drunk is not likely to beat his wife for no good reason. Somewhat more likely to beat his kids for no good reason.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              Go work in the entertainment industry for six months and then come back and say you were right about that Jim.

              People in the modern world are extremely unpredictable after heavy drink; every occasion (funeral, wedding, birthday of a 50-something, you name it) is marked by heavy drinking.

              Drink may well be part of western civilization. So’s the church, but modern churches are toxic places of filth that would make everyone on these boards violently angry if they ever stuck around to listen to what passes for a ‘sermon’ nowadays.

              One day, drink can take back its rightful place as truth serum, but not today.

              Today drink is the reason police vans fill every town centre every weekend and are proven necessary over and over again.

              To bring this into focus, drink proves that business is, at the very least, complicit in the Current Year culture. At worst, it’s a key driver on par with academia.

              • The Cominator says:

                “Today drink is the reason police vans fill every town centre every weekend and are proven necessary over and over again.”

                Same as it ever was. Still progressive to try to ban it.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  You’re really getting to the rub here:

                  Should the restoration be based on eternal, universal principles, or on the ephemeral contingent decisions of a conscious human agent?

                  A King can use prohibition as a tool to clear away the consequences of endemic drunkenness. A Walter Blockian judge cannot.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  If we’re siding with the King, well that King can use nationalisation of industry, socialist provision of goods and services and draconian regulation of whole industrial sectors as contingent correctives also.

                  “Nationalise Twitter” is something that most of us could take seriously.

                  All I’m saying here is that “Nationalise Walmart” isn’t so very different, for exactly the same reasons. Even Moldbug says “Nationalise universities, banks and newspapers”. I say “Nationalise music and media”.

                • StoneMan says:

                  Better to have a king and no booze than booze and no king, but frankly I don’t see what problems booze restriction will solve that couldn’t be solved better by strict policing.

                  “Should the restoration be based on eternal universal principles, or on the ephemeral contingent decisions of a conscious human agent?”
                  The eternal universal principle that the ephemeral contingent decisions of a conscious human agent are better than the alternative.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  What you just said, all of it

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  “Nationalise Twitter” is something that most of us could take seriously.

                  China has figured out tech pretty neatly.

                  One solution for a smaller region would be to require that the Twitter Community Council or whatever they call themselves, is filled by the government rather than Twitter.

              • jim says:

                People in the entertainment industry are, for the most part, whores and pimps, hence drink to obliterate the truth, not to learn it. The problem is to cut down the supply of whores, not the supply of alcohol.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Right but how do you do that?

                  What if the market says we need more of this because people like it?

                  Even a year ago my answer would’ve been “well if people want that, who are we to interfere?”

                  Sorry but no……. we need to radically interfere, at the level of the customer *and the vendor*

                • jim says:

                  You are blaming men for female bad behavior.

                  The solution is to put women under the authority of good men.

                  Women not under male authority behave badly, in substantial part to provoke men to take charge of their lives. A whore is a woman who is looking for manliness and male authority in the wrong places.

                • jim says:

                  No we should not interfere at the level of the customer and the vendor. That is just hiding the symptoms, not curing the disease. The disease is women out of control.

                  Interfering at the level of customer and the vendor is blaming men, and punishing men, for female misbehavior. Is unlikely to reduce the amount of female misbehavior.

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Curing symptoms isn’t always wrong.

                  “The problem is to cut down the supply of whores, not the supply of alcohol.”

                  Absolutely to the former, but why not the latter also?
                  For every sage thinker sipping a whiskey and listening to Brahms, there’s a lager lout screaming in the street and smashing car windows because they’re there.

                  Not all of them are women.

                • jim says:

                  Most people I know drink socially, and very rarely get drunk, and when drunk, would certainly never scream and smash windows. As I said, I drink once every few weeks, and get drunk every few years, and when drunk my most violent action is to say things I should not say. Indeed, I am far more dangerous sober, since when drunk, am physically helpless and need someone to stabilize me on my feet. I never get angry when drunk, I have never seen any white male get angry when drunk, never seen any east Asian cause problems while drunk. Not once in my long life that I can recall.

                  I have never seen anyone drunk screaming in the street and smashing car windows. Every violent act of anger or destruction I have seen or performed was done stone cold sober.

                  This might be a racial thing. Perhaps you are thinking of native Americans, or Australian aboriginals, but I just do not see white people fighting drunk. I have heard of it, but never seen it. And I have seen a great many people consume a great deal of alcohol.

                • Anonymous 2 says:

                  They should walk the press gang through the lout districts every now and then, conscript those too drunk to run, and gloriously send them off for a fight to … well, there’s nowhere to send them these days, is there?

                • Carlylean Restorationist says:

                  Just when I thought I’d made myself incapable of experiencing envy Q_Q

                  Nevertheless, the fact that some neighbourhoods aren’t experiencing what everyone else is experiencing when it comes to violence and the threat thereof, combined with property damage, faeces in the street, etc. etc. doesn’t mean it can’t be corrected everywhere else.

                  Sorry but you just paid the n-word tax.

      • pyrrhus says:

        Apparently von Mises had never heard of the George V Hotel….

        • Carlylean Restorationist says:

          I think Mises knew full well what was going on. He just thought some tiny but all-powerful military government would emerge to keep the proles in check.
          His lack of solidarity was what done him in in the end.

  25. D. Schmitt says:

    This just goes to show that conventional left/right as a basket of things (which may or may not actually be linked) is so silly. Is free trade left or right? Under the normal lines of thinking it seems to belong to either or both depending on the year.

    What free trade does is break down the boundaries between two peoples, create dependence, and undermines sovereignty. As goods flow so does language and culture. Eventually what was once two separate peoples becomes meshed together in such a way that any separation causes unbearable economic strain. Also the subjects of one crown must then compete directly with the subjects of another, only each is under different laws. So that the actions of one ruler can impoverish the subjects of the other. Of course this could start a trade war but only if the ruler is willing, which has been quite rare recently. This inability to defend the interests of his subjects makes a ruler obviously weak.

    Free trade is only ever a good idea with peoples you already trust as family, and for goods you could live without. Universal free trade is blueprint for the tower of babel.

    • jim says:

      > Free trade is only ever a good idea with peoples you already trust as family, and for goods you could live without. Universal free trade is blueprint for the tower of babel.

      If you are trading for stuff that is nice to have, but you could do without (and you cannot do without steel) then you don’t need to trust them as family. And if you trust them as family, then can trade with them for stuff you cannot do without.

      • Carlylean Restorationist says:

        This is absolutely right. Everything Leonard Reed claimed in “I, Pencil” was right: it doesn’t matter if you loathe and despise the people you’re trading with – so long as you’re voluntarily entering into trade with them, both sides are better off.

        There are those on the modern dissident right who don’t accept this, and they’re completely wrong.

        However, Ricardo was 100% wrong on the international division of labour. In the modern world, machines and blueprints can cross borders very easily, as can labour itself. That fact changes everything.
        The only sound reason for foreign trade of any kind is that the foreign country has some resource that we do not have, at all, or the goods&services they’re providing are things we have no interest at all in producing ourselves.

        In all other circumstances, free trade across borders is harmful to society, regardless of the benefits it brings to individuals and groups and the *economy* as a whole.

        When the Scottish steel works closed, Scottish steel workers were divided: the ones who stayed became defeated alcoholic nihilists and the ones who couldn’t bring themselves to accept that moved to places like Corby Northamptonshire.
        When the Corby steel works closed, Scottish steel workers largely fell into defeated nihilistic alcoholism.
        Rather than use the ‘freed up labour’ to work in factories, the factory owners imported cheap former-Soviet nation labour, to the point that some factories in East Anglia now infamously state in their advertisements “must speak Polish”.

        The government (of all stripes, across the decades) is of course guilty and utterly complicit, up to their necks in the corruption.

        But to claim that the businesses were dragged along for the ride kicking and screaming would be unacceptable.

        • pyrrhus says:

          Ricardo also assumed a gold standard that would automatically balance serious trade imbalances. Bretton Woods put paid to that…

          • Carlylean Restorationist says:

            Not only Bretton Woods. A pure, functioning gold standard is rubbish also.
            People lose, hoard or make jewellery (etc.) out of gold so the global supply is doubly unstable: generally deflationary but with sudden influxes from new mines opening, new stashes discovered, etc. etc.

            Using gold for money is basically monetary anarchism: no-one is in charge, the system just emerges from nature. That gold (or something very very similar) is the best of these emergent, anarchic monetary solutions is really beyond doubt.

            We’re not Lockeans however (see latest article); we don’t believe all men are equal so it’s not tyrannical for some men to manage the money supply.

            Hence in a healthy society, fiat money would be a very, very big improvement on commodity money.

            In our sick world, the healthiest, most noble technology can and will be turned to poison. Jeffrey Tucker sings the praises of the iPhone app, but iPhones are also the most tyrannical surveillance system ever devised.

            In a healthy society, you’d be glad the state knew where you were and what you were doing. In our sick society, it feels oppressive because the people using the information are your oppressors.

            • TBeholder says:

              > In a healthy society, you’d be glad the state knew where you were and what you were doing. In our sick society, it feels oppressive because the people using the information are your oppressors.
              “The people out there happen to be your oppressors” is one-step-and-yawn thinking.
              The people willing to be your oppressors will always be the ones using this information, if at all possible.

              Any mechanism of power waits to be abused not because sooner or later it just somehow happens that there’s absolutely no one trustworthy who could be given it, but because there’s always someone willing to abuse it, and it’s those with incentive who will actively seek access to this mechanism (whether directly or via bribing/coercing those already having access to it).

  26. […] Poz, capitalism, and free markets. […]

  27. bob k. mando - ( Creepy Joe Biden always asks your baby for consent before he changes her diaper ) says:

    Is there a connection between free markets and Poz. Is a sound reactionary polity somewhat socialist?

    come on, Jim. you’re supposed to be more up on Reality than this.

    Marx advocates free International Trade in the 1848 Communist Manifesto, it’s supposed to help drive the creation of the International Proletariat.

    which, as it happens, is the same time ( pre-1950s ) that the Republican Party in the US was very protectionist.

    like Muh Dumbocracy, there is NOTHING “reactionary” about Free Trade and neither of those philosophical positions have anything to do with the principles that the US Constitution was written to express.

    in fact, the US Federal Government was intended to be funded by Tariffs ( since the Income Tax didn’t exist until the 20th century ), which is the precise inverse of muh Free Trade.

    • jim says:

      I support bilateral free trade agreements supported by the threat and actuality of trade wars – I support Trump’s policy on tariffs. That peace is better than war does not imply that surrender is better than war. I also support Trump’s infant industry and technological externality argument for tariffs.

      I oppose, reject, and condemn, the American constitution and the declaration of independence.

        • jim says:

          The Battle Hymn of the Republic celebrates the state religion of New England conquering the states of America and suppressing the diverse and separate state religions of the individual states. Like Nazism, it is is now reactionary only in having been left behind by further movement leftwards.

          The battle hymn of the Republic celebrates what Harvard used to be.

          We will burn down what Harvard has become, and we should have burned down what Harvard used to be.

          That said, what Harvard was then was far to the right of 1930s Nazi Germany, so the Battle Hymn of the Republic is in some contexts reactionary.

          • peppermint says:

            The best looking building in Cambridge is Harvard’s Memorial Hall built to celebrate their victory in the War between the States.

            Everything else, at best functional and nice. Except the Cambridge Public Library which is tastefully half stone and half glass and steel.

            Meanwhile at night homeless people fuck in a nearby church doorway visible from the street.

            • Carlylean Restorationist says:

              That’s true in the original Cambridge too: major HIV scene, major heroin scene, major homelessness; lots of very righteous People Who Know Best, a booming retard support industry, 99% on the government payroll one way or another, very wealthy.

              The whole place needs to go into one of Professor Hawking’s messy black holes.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      “which, as it happens, is the same time ( pre-1950s ) that the Republican Party in the US was very protectionist.”

      For the same reason the South was against protectionism. It isn’t poz, it is sectional politics.

      • bob k. mando - ( your mom always did like me best ) says:

        For the same reason the South was against protectionism.

        ie – for purely economic reasons with no basis in politics or philosophy.

        the economy of the South was driven by exports ( cotton, sugar, tobacco ). therefore, they preferred lower Tariffs as this would boost their external market value and size.

        the economy of the North was driven by the strength of domestic industry ( the factories of the Great Lakes States ). therefore, they wanted protection against the strength of English and German manufacturing.

        the economy of the South ( approx 1/3 of the US population at the time ) was subsidizing the economy of the North because almost 3/4 of Federal revenue derived from Southern Tariffs … the North wasn’t exporting much.

        I oppose, reject, and condemn, the American constitution and the declaration of independence.


        so you would have voted for Lincoln.

        he hated the 10th Amendment just as much as you do, and he did his part to destroy the Republic.

        I support bilateral free trade agreements supported by the threat and actuality of trade wars

        as i’ve pointed out before, a Unilateral Universal Free Trade Agreement with the entire planet could be implemented today

        and it wouldn’t even require the filling of one side of Ansi A.

        1 – the US will drop all Tariffs against any nation which drops all Tariffs against our products

        2 – if any nation chooses to impose any Tariff or market quota,
        a – the US will take the highest Tariff which that nation imposes, add 10%, and apply that as a Tariff against EVERY product from that nation
        b – any import quotas will be likewise reciprocated against ALL products from that nation ( exemptions allowed only in cases of National Security concerns over raw materials that can’t be sourced in the US / Canada )

        boom. there ya go. a few more codicils for other types of interference in Muh Free Trade ( regulations and the like such as China and Japan like to use ).

        these ‘Free Trade Agreements’ which run to thousands of pages are clearly no such thing.

        I also support Trump’s infant industry and technological externality argument for tariffs.

        i’ve been pointing out for … thirty years now? … that Muh Free Trade is not a rational possibility when dealing with a slave economy.

        and, of course, it’s epic stupidity to have Free Trade agreements with nations which have sworn the destruction of the United States. ie – still overtly Communist China. in that case, the Free Traders are arguing directly against their own policies and philosophies. they claim that Free Trade will make BOTH parties stronger.

        why would you *want* to strengthen China? and give them nukes? and give them ballistic missiles? hrm. that looks quite like a strategic plan.

        but to get back to refuting your original proposition:
        Obviously sound economic policy is trade with outsiders,

        the historical data disproves this, categorically. in the same way that it disproves the utility and efficiency of the Federal Reserve.

        the United States ( both North and South ) grew more robustly in the 18th through early 20th century than it has since the artificial enhancement of WW2 destroying the industrial base of almost every other 1st world nation on the planet.

        IF the ( privately owned ) Federal Reserve cannot create greater and more consistent growth than the minimally regulated 18th century
        THEN why are we paying them billions in interest every year? especially since they have utterly failed at the purpose for which they were created ( normalizing business cycles, the Great Depression and Great Recession both occurring *after* the creation of the Fed ).

        IF Muh Marxist Free Trade is so beneficial to the economy of the nation
        THEN why have American incomes stagnated since the mid 1970s?

        International Free Trade is uniquely beneficial to certain ethnic groups who insinuate themselves into governments and nations around the planet, though.

        • Samuel Skinner says:

          “ie – for purely economic reasons with no basis in politics or philosophy.”

          Self interest is the driver of most human behavior.

          “as i’ve pointed out before, a Unilateral Universal Free Trade Agreement with the entire planet could be implemented today”

          That doesn’t solve the issue of countries subsidizing firms; instead of openly fighting with tariffs, they now find new and harder to measure ways.

          “IF Muh Marxist Free Trade is so beneficial to the economy of the nation”

          The United States has uniquely low levels of international trade compared with most of the rest of the developing world; while our elite do use free trade to screw over the working class, it has little affect on the countries overall growth rate.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          How do all these boomers keep finding their way here?

        • pdimov says:

          >why would you *want* to strengthen China?

          Well because the Experts on China have figured that since China is Communist, it can never be an economic threat to America and hence there’s no danger in moving half of America’s economy there for cost efficiency reasons.

          >IF Muh Marxist Free Trade is so beneficial to the economy of the nation
          THEN why have American incomes stagnated since the mid 1970s?

          Good question to which I’d like to know the answer. NAFTA and WTO are from 1994 by the way.

          • Samuel Skinner says:

            Mass immigration is from 1965; it depresses wages as well as increasing the number of low income earners. There is also the rest of the left apparatus put into place at the time (civil rights, ethnic cleansing, incentivizing crime, etc) which probably had an effect.

            • pdimov says:

              There is also women entering the work force.

              I’m familiar with the various possible answers, I just don’t know which one of them is correct (or to what extent each has contributed.)

          • Michael Rothblatt says:

            >THEN why have American incomes stagnated since the mid 1970s?

            The end of Bretton Woods.

        • pyrrhus says:

          Indeed, growth since slipping the Fed and the Income tax past the American public has been about 50% of what it had been before 1913…Perhaps appointing (((elites))) to pillage the American economy wasn’t such a good idea?!

        • TBeholder says:

          > the historical data disproves this, categorically.
          How so?
          Everyone who matters or prospers traded, a lot.
          Trade is possible at all because side A values products from side B a little more than side B does, and vice versa.
          The only troublesome cases are extremes of power imbalance:
          1. Formation of trade empire, that leads to smugness, incurable class separation, excessive brutality (thus hate from neighbors, and attempts of retribution up to genocide once its grasp weakens) and rot in some form (the ones from Picture This, or Khazarian Kahanate per Gumilev). And
          2. Thoroughly export-oriented, especially slave driving economy, like American South or Russia from Peter I to Alexander II. Which is apt to become a de-facto colony of a foreign empire, waste all its excess product for beads and mirrors rather than development and reserves, stagnate and breed laughable forms of poz.

Leave a Reply