There is always a state religion, always has been, always will be. Universities are seminaries of the state religion to train priests of the state religion, always have been, always will be.
No man rules alone. You need a tribe, or a synthetic tribe. For a large state a natural tribe is inherently too small. A faith is a synthetic tribe. An army needs a faith, and a state needs a faith.
Hence your mandatory participation in DEI religious gatherings and coerced prayers.
We don’t need everyone trained in priesting, need an enforceable apprenticeship system. Most people, and especially most scientists and engineers, should not attend university in their youth. The University, by its nature, is a bad place for science and technology, though to prevent heresy, successful and influential scientists and engineers should be pulled in and given high status well paid academic sinecures, sinecures which seldom require their physical presence at the university. (We will be paying them in money, status and influence, as we paid Newton, to not preach heresy.)
Next stop, tanks in Harvard.
Before the War of Northern Aggression, each state of the union had its own official state religion, and the official headquarters and primary seminary of the official state religion of New England was Harvard.
After the war of Northern Aggression, the United States had one officially unofficial state religion, and its officially unofficial headquarters and primary seminary was Harvard.
Before the war of Northern Aggression, the official religion of most of the states was a Episcopalianism, a faith that lives in its adherents, as for example Tucker, but its hierarchy openly disbelieves and discourages anyone who shows up from believing. Today, the Episcopalian Church is a real estate business..
When we are in charge, the officially official religion of the United States will be something that we will call Episcopalian, and will have a live connection of faith and ever faithful laity with the Anglicanism of 1660 and the Episcopalianism of 1770, but little continuity of organisation and hierarchical personnel, and such continuity as it will have will be through GAFCON.
If your state religion is incoherent, as with Communism with Chinese characteristics, or widely disbelieved by its priests, as with Sadducee Judaism in Israel at the time of Christ, or Anglicanism from 1820 or so to the present, your state lacks what Putin calls spiritual security. You are subject to hostile entryism by organisations whose faith is more passionately and sincerely held, leading to hostile takeover from within or without. Anglicanism was overthrown by what we now call Woke, though back then it was called “Evangelical”, and before that and after that many different names. They keep manufacturing new names as the old names start to stink. In the US at the time of the war of Northern Aggression, Transcedentalist. The name is ever changing, the ostensible beliefs keep changing, but there is complete continuity of personnel and organisation, which personnel and organisation in the US derives from the priests that Charles the Second purged from the Church of England in 1660 for heresy, some of whom went over to America to found Harvard.
Putin built the great Cathedral to protect Russia against such enemy hostile entryists. White men are building Cathedrals again. When we are in charge we will do the same, to celebrate God, the faith, our forbears, and to protect the state against its enemies.
You’re counting on a church full of blacks (GAFCON) to get modern Americans to believe passionately and sincerely in a centuries-old offshoot of a millennia-old religion from the other side of the world?
How about an ethnic group?
“You’re counting on a church full of blacks (GAFCON) to get modern Americans to believe passionately and sincerely in a centuries-old offshoot of a millennia-old religion from the other side of the world?”
The birth of Christianity was so fun we do intend to repeat it. We want YOU to convert to the heretical offshoot of foreign religion that rejects everything our civilization holds dear and whose mainstream got crushed by imperial legions.
“How about an ethnic group?”
Ethnic group doesn’t work. For high clannishness, Jewish Bolsheviks in the early USSR- they made a disproportionate amount of the party until the Great Purge where they completely failed to prevent being liquidated. For high violence, the initial spread of Islam or the Mongols, who both had highly coherent mono-ethnic groups that imploded with infighting in a couple generations. For ethnic isolation, see Japan which had violent infighting every couple of generations until the Tokugawa Shogunate (followed by more infighting). For high civilization, see every civilization that went through a decline and fall.
Most state religions (particularly in first-world countries) only “work” because they are barely enforced. The majority of Scandinavians for example are nominally members of their state churches, but actual church *attendance* is a low single-digit percentage.
Exactly. You tacitly admit that most nations historically were largely mono-ethnic- partly because the ethnicities developed naturally over time in those areas, and partly because people prefer their own kind. Your cherry-picked examples could also include the majority of past civilizations.
They didn’t fall because they were mono-ethnic, they fell because no civilization can last forever.
What you should be looking for to prove your point is state religions that successfully held together ethnically heterogeneous civilizations. Not too many of those- whereas on the other hand, large religious minorities are historically commonplace, and they rarely pose an existential threat to a ethnically homogeneous country.
Islam has absolutely routinely held together ethnically heterogeneous populations, the entire Middle East being ethnically heterogeneous and always has been, in extreme cases (which happened a lot) by resorting to the millet system, where each ethnic and religious faction got its own limited self government, and laws adapted for each ethnicity and faith, similar to the highly successful segregation system, which was far better for blacks than integration on all objective measures.
And back when the state religion was somewhat plausibly Christian, and segregation was in force, it worked, in that black communities were firmly under the thumb of prosperous married middle class Christian black men. That was our millet system, and it worked fine. If you look at very old black movies, and black television shows, they show it working — the black trash gets arrested by black cops, and judged by black judges, the respectable blacks attend a black Church, and the affluent and upwardly mobile blacks attend a black university full of black professors.
Of course, if you have large ethnic groups, this does not actually work with democracy, because, as with Mandami in New York and the Greens in the recent British byelection, you get people voting their ethnicity and faith. Mandami and the Greens platform was “open borders and we are going to take away white people’s stuff and give to our guys”.
From here on, Britain elections are going to be ethnic, Australia very soon, and an increasing number of American states. The Dems are going ethnic in America, but they are still white Karen dominated. Maga contains very large numbers of somewhat assimilated, somewhat whitish, Hispanics, notably the Cubans and a sprinkling of the better blacks. So it just cannot go all the way ethnic, and if it did, would lose, because you are not going to get all the way ethnic voting because whites are divided by faith — Christian versus woke. White Christian is not nearly a large enough identity to win, and white just is not an identity.
The existing Maga coalition is not white, even though Maga is disproportionately white — it the coalition of the not woke. And at the leading edge of Maga, the realization is soaking in that to win against woke, unity just has to be on old type Christian. White just will not get you anywhere, since whites are the wokest of them all. To win in the coming age of tribal voting, just have to be old type Christian, or at least somewhat plausibly fake it. Or we could just cancel democracy, since with ethnic voting, it works even worse than it already does. But if we just cancel democracy, the state apparatus and the army needs a faith, which brings us back to the same place — unity on faith. Unity on whiteness not going to fly, because whites are naturally fissiparous. We are not going to include the Karens, and would not be able to even if we wanted to.
You always need a state religion, and “white” just is not a religion. The whitest religion is old type Christianity, which forbids your coalition from excluding nonwhite Christians. And which is not all that white, since the surviving old type Christian Churches are disproportionately black, due to the fact that it is a lot safer for a black pastor to stick to Christian teaching on sodomy and females in positions of authority over men than for a white pastor.
You need a ruling faith. Not going anywhere without one. And if the ruling faith is old type Christian, it cannot be white Christianity. It can be, and almost certainly will be, Christianity that just happens to be disproportionately white. Which is to say, the existing faith that existing Maga is adopting.
That’s false. Everywhere Europeans went outside Europe they set up a caste system. In america they explicitly said “free white man” was a requirement for citizenship. Unless you mean something far different with ‘coalition’ than I am picturing. I don’t consider the vast underclass and it’s middle-species management to be part of the Spanish coalition. Spanish civilization maybe.
This mass universalist thing is extremely new. Not even the abolitionists thought about bringing the masses of blacks into their “coalition”; perhaps you can find one guy, but I mean taken as a whole. Abolitionism was invented as a moral cudgel to rally troops to take out the Cavalier culture, which was organized around great households. Mostly a way to “smash the patriarchy”– it wasn’t a snap return to some Christian idea of multiracialist utopian governance.
It’s just simply false to say white is not an identity. The wokes all whine about how white they are. You can make a good argument that no one is fighting wars for white racial identity, which is true, but not that it is not a political identity. Appears to be a longstanding political identity that naturally forms anytime Europeans leave the home continent. Also simply false to imply that old Christians felt duty bound to include non-whites in their coalition; again, unless you mean something very peculiar by coalition.
NASDAP, as much as you may dislike them, and for good reason, did fight wars for ethnic identity, faith rooted in blood. Fought a war to the very bitter end. Looks like you can make a specific-white coalition. Not to say that you should, especially in our particular circumstances, but that you can.
As a corollary to,
may I suggest
I don’t want a black king, or a mestizo king. I wont fight for that world or that government, no matter how old type Christian. I suspect the Appalachian chuds that actually fight wars feel the same. They may not emphasize whiteness, but also by the way theres been an intergenerational campaign to arrest torture and humiliate anyone that does. It’s felt in the bones and acted upon as such. God, King, Nation. Nation as in Natal. I want to live in a country that functions as an extended kin network. You talk about Alfred uniting the germanic tribes, well, *they were all closely related.* This was a union between patriarchs. It was an extended kin network! Look at Byzantium politics if you are so sure you want rule by theology alone. Looks fucking terrible.
Appalachian politics is already fairly insular and tribal, historically caring less about even Republican vs. Democrat and more about local boys vs. outsiders. In a pinch, generic “southern” can stand in, as there’s a decent amount of migration to and from states like Florida, Texas and Alabama (and depressingly, far too many migrating from California and New York in recent years, so this is probably getting diluted).
I’d say Appalachia is actually a pretty good example of ethnicity not corresponding very precisely with race. Christianity is big, really big, and although it is often weird denominations like Jehova’s Witnesses, on the whole Christian identity in the region is far more important than White identity which barely exists at all.
Appalachia forms the natural moral hierarchy where identity is mature and includes folkways, faith and biological heritage. We have to build a coalition that is not so specific, find the political Schelling point that allows us to install a king with a state church. That doesn’t mean we need to ignore the fact nations are built from extended kin groups, the best coordination is built from longstanding relationships between patriarchal family networks on up.
Our goal on the right now is ethnogenesis. Ethnicity includes biology, folkways, regional history, faith, all of it. Its a complex map like everything else in our reality. Doesn’t matter. That’s the project. God, King, Nation.
I don’t care that white leftist liar degenerate losers want to destroy all concept of ethnicity and cannot be ingrouped. It doesn’t fucking matter, they could be my brother or from an alien planet. Ethnicity requires a biological component to remain coherent and build coordination that works over generations, and it requires a faith component to expell the degenerates that would destroy the coordination, and provide a Schelling point for super-Dunbar organization. We must have both. As we are at war, we also need a concrete materialized martial leader that can decisively say who is and is not ingroup, and can decisively say who is and is not to be killed.
I am really tired of seeing my biological heritage trashed because white leftists exist. Baby and bathwater. Ethnicity is God, King, Nation.
The Weimar republic had many problems but it’s people weren’t being ethnically replaced by foreigners a few Poles and easter jews aside. Expelling foreigners wasn’t a major campaign plank of the NSDAP.
And ironically when Germany first dud get mass importation of foreigners they were brought there as slave labor during the war by the NSDAP government.
Damn right.
Jim:
That just doesn’t follow. It’s like saying “Because some Chinese are traitors, Chinese identity is not a thing.”
Anyway, it’s irrelevant, because white identity has been thrust upon us against our will. It has been thrust upon us by the left, with their “If you’re white, you’re pure evil and deserve to be genocided.”
As I and Pseudo noted a few months ago in a similar debate, the left is clear enough on what “white” means for purposes of practical politics, which is what we are talking about. They find it easy enough to use for identifying enemies.
You may not be interested in white identity, but white identity is interested in you.
Jim, you are going to play the white identity game, whether you want to or not. No one is asking you whether you want to play it.
The Democrats are running against whiteness, but we cannot run on whiteness.
“Restore” is running on Britishness, which identity actually exists, and this campaign is working great
We cannot let the enemy define our identity, because it, of course, is defining an identity that is incapable of defending itself.
Look at “Amelia”. She happens to be white, but does she represent whiteness?
Hell no. She represents Britishness. Those frog eating surrender monkeys that have taken charge of British finances are going to get the heave ho also.
She is “Europe Exit” as much as she is “Pakis Go Home” No love for those icky white foreigners running the permanent government against the merely elected government. A major issue is that Starmer, like the Weimar liberals, is doing the will of a hostile white aliens. She does not like those Pakis, but neither does she think funds should be sent to the Ukrainians, who are whiter than anyone.
The enemy intends to eradicate whiteness, Amelia and Restore intend to restore Britishness.
White is far to amorphous an identity, and too full of hostile groups (like those frog eating surrender monkeys running the British permanent government) for it to be capable of defending itself against those who intend to eradicate whiteness.
The enemy is coming for whiteness. Because whites are wolf to whites, each separate white identity must defend itself.
No we don’t need to start shouting sieg heil 14/88 here that would just mean the overall IQ of this place would go down and the amount of feds shilling about would go up.
The left hates straight white males as a kind of religious tenet but notice that whites still don’t cohere very well based on racial identity. You cannot magically make them do so ex nihilio. Whites could sometimes cohere in preexisting herrenvolk societies where the institutions were setup that way like the pre civil rights South and South Africa but notice they all folded to a little outside pressure from greater power because the coherence was always weak and dependent on institutional pressure and they folded under slight outside pressure (Rhodesia I guess took a lot to fold but Rhodesia was much more of a light touch as far as being a herrenvolk state with blacks mostly having legal equality just denied the franchise for obvious reasons). Good luck fostering such coherence under the opposite conditions.
“No we don’t need to start shouting sieg heil 14/88 here.”
These issues are far too important for straw men.
“whites still don’t cohere very well based on racial identity.”
Bullshit. Yes they damn well do, enough for practical purposes. Look at voting patterns by race. In 2016, 2020, and 2024, a large majority of whites voted for the candidate whose main platform was “kick out the foreigners.”
Fidelis:
How was I “trashing your biological heritage” by describing how politics and religion work in Appalachia? Calm down.
Neurotoxin:
Except when they don’t, such as the “White Hispanic” label that was invented ex post facto to categorize certain nonwhites as white.
The left certainly does use Whiteness as a rhetorical club, but in postmodern discourse, Whiteness is not a biological or even cultural identity, it is a “system” of “oppression”, and anyone, white or not, can simply be a part of that system, and anyone else, white or not, can become temporarily exempt by advancing leftism and backing leftists in power, or by being a leftist in power.
They are happy to use biological whiteness as a proxy when it lines up with their interests, which is often, but if it does not line up, then their interests take priority and they will either ignore biology and appearance or concoct a flimsy rationalization. It is absolutely true that their goal of “deconstructing whiteness” is going to involve killing the majority of white people, which is why they [the leftists, not the white people] all need to go, but this should not be mistaken for a genuinely racially-oriented ideology or a coherent sense of racial identity.
I am not participating in the debate this time about whether there is or can be a white identity in America. The debate has been had, dozens of times, each instance practically a verbatim copy of the previous instance. What I am saying, in this instance, is that if you want to base things around a white identity, you absolutely do not want to use the left’s incoherent and utilitarian concept of whiteness; not even as a corollary or cautionary example. You need rectification of names, and “white” has to be rectified to something that is far away from the amorphous postmodern definition, otherwise you get the opposite of what you want, where anyone can be white or nonwhite as befitting the situation.
If you don’t want to do the strawman (which it isn’t really its what white identarian internet spaces prettymuch inevitably end up like) then what do you propose?
Also no whites don’t vote as a bloc, in some southern states they get close (and per Jim’s religion thesis Southern bloc voting whites are overwhelmingly of the Southern Baptist heritage though probably less than half are practicing Southern Baptists).
Kicking out the foreigners is different from kicking out the nonwhites.
I do wonder, in a pure thought-experiment sort of way, how said candidate would have fared if he had run on an explicit or implied platform of kicking out the nonwhites.
As a simple point of fact, I’m not sure that 60% of men and 50% of women constitutes a “large majority” of whites who voted for Trump (at least according to the official data). But for the sake of argument, let’s concede that point to you anyway. It is interesting that in the same election, and according to the same data, 50% of Hispanic (i.e. mestizo) men and and 45% of women voted the same way. And supposedly Asians were 40/40. Basically all of these numbers are “pretty close to half”.
Does this demonstrate an already-coherent white racial identity? Doesn’t really seem to me like it does, seems to demonstrate an already-coherent Woman Problem as well as the fact that biological whites tend to be more right and/or Republican leaning. Both of which have been known for a long time. And demonstrates pretty solidly that the MAGA coalition is not majority-white at all, and is only barely plurality-white.
Where in the data should we be seeing coherence based on racial identity? Admittedly it is hard to provide a test case, but one such test case would be any election, even for a minor position in a local or state election, where a majority of white men vote for a white Democrat over a black Republican, and of course this would have to be in a region where the majority of white men don’t always vote Democrat.
We need a poster boy to back this up, some example of white people or just white men voting in an election, or deliberating on a jury, or engaging in any other group consensus mechanism and coming to a consensus that we wouldn’t otherwise expect from white people just behaving normally, that can only really be explained on tribal lines. It’s incredibly easy to come up with black examples, e.g. OJ Simpson trial, so where are the white ones?
Britain, Restore, and Amelia are our test case. Does Amelia represent whiteness? Hell no.
She represents one particular very specific white identity — the permanent government are not traitors because brown. They are not brown. They are a lot whiter than the British conservative party. They are traitors because they represent the European Union.
Britishness is real. Whiteness is an invention of our enemies — in Britain, an invention of hostile alien Eurocrats, in America an invention of the Democrat party. Those damned permanent government people are going to get the heave ho also, and Israelis and Ukrainians can deal with their own problems, for all that stuff is no business of the British.
Amelia is an interesting right wing mascot because being portrayed as a drinking smoking purple haired art ho chick (I think originally she was taken from some bad propaganda game the British government made where a chick with purple hair was “racist” and anti immigrant), maybe its her very non tradness that makes her effective.
Restore exists in large part because of Amelia. She includes every voter Reform and Restore is after, and excludes every enemy that Restore is running against, which enemies Reform is failing to exclude.
Restore Rupert Lowe incarnates trad Britain, but the labor voters don’t like wealthy upper class land owning gentlemen. Very non trad fish and chip eating Amelia incarnates the labor voters who have discovered that the traditional left has betrayed them and defined them as enemies.
The left has been using the hostility between two white identities — trad landowning Britain and white working class Britain — to destroy its enemy, whiteness. Amelia unites those two identities, while vigorously excluding the frog eating surrender monkeys.
Off-topic, but we should publish a list of “Jim-isms”, with all these funny eggcorns that pop up on the blog every so often.
I’m not sure how to think of it I know its been very effective memetically and I’m not sure how it happened but it did. In America when you think art ho you generally think of a girl with a middle class background or occasionally the very badly behaving daughter of a girl from a rich family (if rich family art ho ussually also has a hard drug problem), at least thats been my experience. Not generally a girl from a poor rural or white poor urban background though.
Amelia otoh does seem to shift between classes sometimes eating fish and chips and sometimes seeming outright upper class which is as you say a feature not a bug…
Restore is what immediately comes to mind as a recent example of something at least approximating blood-and-soil nationalism, and as you say, Restore is British, not White.
Restore is implicitly white, I don’t think they are going to have a whole lot of black and brown constituents, but even if they are implicitly racial, they are explicitly ethnic and cultural.
“American” identity could be a tough nut to crack, because the left has been piling horse shit onto it for decades upon decades, but it is a real and semi-intelligible thing. It is a frontier identity, an adventurous, individualistic, and frequently quarrelsome and rebellious spirit, with an odd Puritan-descended live-to-work mentality that is not really seen in the European father nations. You see bastardized traces of the Heritage American identity even in the boomer grillers and the gloomy zoomer neets. We are really the only nation that treats science fiction as a sacred art form and treats space exploration and colonization as a serious pursuit, although Russia does have some of that in common.
And obviously Christianity is such a big part that it’s hard to even point to specific examples; even the woke progressive religion is just Christian heresy, and the militant atheists all define themselves in opposition to Christianity, not any other religion. There just isn’t any America without Christianity, which is not to say America is nothing but Christianity, but obviously it is an essential ingredient, without which the cake will not bake.
And this American identity, buried as it is, is implicitly very, very white. It’s ham and processed cheese with mayo on white bread, white; it’s 8 inches of snow on a January morning white. But it is not explicitly or exclusively white, and the fact that it could potentially include some non-trivial number of non-whites seems to give aneurysms to a certain corner of the internet.
I don’t feel particularly threatened by having some Cubans or bagels in the coalition, as long as the former don’t press too hard on Catholicism and the latter can shut up about Israel for five minutes. If they want to fight for Team America, and aren’t trying to redefine “America” in their own image, fine. The ones fighting for Team Globohomo, regardless of their race, all need to go.
White is all we have to describe the Amerikaaner to a normie. They all get it, everyone knows what white is and white means in the American context. Hence the jokes about Italians, and even slavs.
If you say “American” you are painting with a brush so broad you cannot get it in the paint jar. Huge mess of ethnic litter in the geography, all with a US passport. So we say white. Our enemies know what white means. The kids I sat with at lunch in my multiracial school knew what white meant. Every man in the prison system knows what white means. Miraculously, however, white is meaningless in American politics. Well, except when the nigger stabs you for it. lol lmao no white coalition my ass, what do you think MASS DEPORTATIONS means? Why do you think they tried the sob story of an Irishman who overstayed his visa? Why did everyone on the right celebrate the South Africans?
White is a coalition that is illegal to name. They have spent generations murdering, imprisoning, and torturing anyone who names the coalition in a positive light. It’s a clear and obvious force in US politics, and will only grow more meaningful as zoomers and alphas grow up.
They name it all the time, and tell us it is a coalition, when rather obviously, it is not a coalition. Whites are wolf to whites. Always have been, always will be.
“White” excludes far too many of our allies, and includes far, far, far too many of our enemies.
Our enemies want the coming civil war to be about whiteness, because they are inside that identity and can make sure it loses.
What is coming is not race war, but holy war. We can win a holy war. The fissiparous nature of whites guarantees we lose a race war. Our enemies are trying to organize a race war because that is a war that they would win.
Pete Hegseth is tattooed all over with Holy War symbols, and our enemies keep trying to interpret them as race war symbols. Don’t buy what your enemies are trying to sell you. Buy what Pete Hegseth is selling.
I would very much like to meet this Mr. Everyone who is so wise in the ways of science and culture. I am always and forever hearing about the many things he knows.
Prison gangs are interesting to study from a Hobbesian point of view, but there are limits on what they can teach us about mainstream society, given that they are working with the lowest forms of human capital in a small, isolated, mostly lawless, fully defect-defect environment. And even the prison gangs tend not to use “white” as an identity–they use “Aryan”.
If you say “White” you are painting with a brush so broad you cannot get it in the paint jar. Huge mess of white leftists and mutts in the geography, all with white skin.
Anyone can use the same rhetorical trick to validate or invalidate any grouping. But I know my friends and neighbors, and my friends and neighbors all know what an American is and all code American as implicitly white, with a few explicit exceptions. All of my friends and neighbors also know what white is, but do not code it as an identity nor a tribe, simply a description of a person’s physical characteristics. To the extent I’ve ever seen “white” used as a tribal identity in normie and dissident-lite society, it usually refers to SWPLs and AWFLs which are enemy tribes.
Normie coding is that white conservative Americans basically just are American, white and nonwhite leftists are anti-American, and other races/ethnicities can sort of pass at being American but they really have to work at assimilating, often over multiple generations. It is somewhere in between ethnic nationalism and civic nationalism; let’s call it civnattery for implicit biorealists, perhaps two or three parts nature to one part nurture. This perception may be very wrong, and even if it is right, does not justify Infinigger or infinity immigration, but that is not the point I’m making; the point is that we are talking about how normies think and cohere, and this is how normies think and cohere.
If you want to argue that White could become a tribal identity in the USA, especially if the demographic decline continues and white people start to become a visible minority, then go nuts, as I am just tired of rehashing the same debate; but do not try to tell us that White already is a coherent racial identity in the USA, because it simply isn’t, except for the negative shapeshifting identity conjured up by the (still overwhelmingly white) progressive left, which is not rhetorical ground that we want to cede to them.
Here’s a simple thought experiment in the form of a series of questions: What political ideals do Americans believe in? Who influences and leads them? What are their hobbies and pastimes? Are they generally religious, and if so, what religion? I believe most of us, and indeed most people in the USA, would have no trouble answering these questions and would give similar answers even if they are leftists and hate the answers. Our European and Asian commenters might get some of the particulars wrong, but I’ll bet they’d be pretty close too. Now change “Americans” to “Whites” and try to answer the same questions.
Scarebucks: “The left certainly does use Whiteness as a rhetorical club, but in postmodern discourse, Whiteness is not a biological or even cultural identity, it is a “system” of “oppression”…”
You’re paying attention to the magician’s off hand.
“their [the left’s] definition of whiteness can expand or contract to include or exclude anything they want.”
Without arguing about whether this is true or not, I will just note that in war, everyone is willing to make use of a traitor from the other side. The left is happy to make use of whites who (e.g.) push for open borders, because that is lethal to the interests of whites. Please don’t say “This shows the left sometimes regards whites as their allies.” No, they regard them as traitors they can make use of.
Scarebucks: “Kicking out the foreigners is different from kicking out the nonwhites.”
Not at the crude, low-resolution level at which electoral politics takes place.
“I do wonder… how said candidate would have fared if he had run on an explicit or implied platform of kicking out the nonwhites.”
No doubt it would have gone horribly. But that’s about implementation, not what the ultimate goal is. I do not have any panaceas as far as implementation goes. I wish I did.
“I’m not sure that 60% of men and 50% of women constitutes a “large majority” of whites who voted for Trump (at least according to the official data).”
I don’t trust official data in the least. Among other things, it’s corrupted by the fact that admitting you voted for Trump is literally dangerous.
“Does this demonstrate an already-coherent white racial identity?”
No. If we already had that (and people were free to speak of it and act on it), we wouldn’t be in our current situation.
But we are moving in that direction. If the “pussy-grab” video had surfaced in an election in the 1980s it would have totally and permanently destroyed his political career. White voters didn’t care in 2016 or after because attitudes have hardened.
“If you want to argue that White could become a tribal identity in the USA, especially if the demographic decline continues and white people start to become a visible minority, then go nuts… but do not try to tell us that White already is a coherent racial identity in the USA, because it simply isn’t.”
I don’t think anyone here is saying that it already is. Moving in that direction, though.
You continue to play the Motte-Bailey here, and it is annoying the hell out of me, because this is an important topic. Do you not see it?
Your Motte is: white alone is not a cohesive enough coalition, plus white leftists exists so we cannot select on whitenes, we need a faith.
Your Bailey is: therefore we ignore white completely because it’s a losing strategy, will never work, whites in America aren’t even real, because white leftists.
You never seem to actually respond to anything I say on this, you repeat yourself over and over in different words. How about the fact I said, paraphrasing, “when we say white in the American context we are referring to the Amerikaaner, whom otherwise lacks a name.” Do you disagree with that? Is that false? Why do you think it is the Latinos like the Cubans, whom are overwhelmingly more composed of European heritage, that are more consistently for MAGA? Why is it that the Congoloids are not? Surely the Haitians here should be voting to kick out the competition! Yet the people signing up for MASS DEPORTATIONS were all white — Amerikaaner, Jim, white American which *is an ethnicity* — and the people passively against, not the freak leftists but the passive against, are mostly not! What a mystery!
The English fought a Goddamned civil war too, birthed the leftism of today, and you are talking about how “British” Restore is. Talking out of two sides of your mouth. The English exist now, but the Amerikaaner doesn’t? The English can exist despite ideological tribalism, so can the white American, the Amerikaaner.
Yes they name the coalition all the time, like they say “racist, sexist, transphobic” etc etc They have had the equivalent of the state church for generations and are chimping about heresy. They are threatening you for being in the coalition! Arguing that the coalition doesn’t exist because… the left noticed it exists?
I am tired of people saying my ethnicity does not exist, except when they use it to select me for extinction. I am also tired of people telling me my ethnicity is worthless, a political non-entity. No one is saying we do not need a faith, and to select on whiteness alone. I am saying we admit that white is a valid ethnic group, it is THE American ethnic group. I am not interested in universalist Christianity. I will not join that coalition. You could be universalist back when it took weeks and years of wages for some foreign group to travel internationally, not anymore. We need particularist Christianity, which can be in communion with the other nations but recognizes itself as a nation with a distinct people.
Well, why not do what I do all the time, and say “Amerikaaner”?
I just named him, you just named him.
The problem with “white” is that our most important enemies are obviously white, and obviously not Amerikaaner, the Karens we see at the anti Ice protests, and the Karens we saw getting out the Muslim vote for the Greens in the recent British by election. Classic alliance with far against near, just as the Populares allied with Samnites. You going to tell me the Populares were not Roman, because they pulled in allies who wanted to level the walls of Roman and kill or enslave every Roman?
Are you going to tell me the Karens are not white? You are being silly. No one is going to understand you as saying Karens are nonwhite.
The Karens are white, and childless, and they intend the white race will die with them. Classic reproductive competition — childless women don’t want other women to have children. Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
If we say “white”, we are conceding our enemy’s frame — observe our enemies who insist on reading Pete Hegseth’s Holy War tattoos as race war tattoos.
We have to ally with everyone who does not want the Karenocracy to rule, against everyone who does want them to rule. Our coalition is noticeably whiter than the enemy coalition, but not a whole lot whiter. We never see white block votes, because whites are innately fissiparous. We see faith blocks of some very white faiths.
I am defending the Bailey, not the Motte. Again, I say imitate the winners — Amelia and Rupert Lowe. Outgroup the losers, who only want to drag us down with them. Amelia is ignoring white completely, because does she not like Starmer being subservient to the Eurocrats.
You are telling me the Karens are nonwhite, the Eurocrats are non white. That is absurd.
Yes, we should ignore “white” completely, because we have too many white enemies. Whites always have too many white enemies. Always have, always will. That is who we are. We are the apex predator. Lions always worry more about other lions than they worry about hyenas.
Heretofore and henceforth unless it is stated otherwise, in the American political context let it be known that I use the term white as interchangeable with Amerikaaner. I dont talk about white Russians, or white French, because those other classes in those nations that are not “white” are not Russian and not French. If I do talk about whites in the political entity of the Russian Federation, it’s a slip and I simply mean “ethnic Russian by biology.”
As far as the term Amerikaaner, I say its great for our purposes but is not fit for mass memetic spreading. We speak English not Afrikaans. White American means what we mean when we say Amerikaaner, to large degree.
Those Karens are indeed white, White American white, just as the people who beheaded Charles I were English, and Robespierre was French. Just because I say we name the ethnic group as a real thing with real interests that needs a real and particularist faith with a real and particular leader explicitly representing the interests of the White American/Amerikaaner ethnic group doesn’t mean we cannot kill intra-ethnic traitors for being traitors. This is not a real divide. You can have traitors! Cancer cells can be rogue endogenous cells! The existence of cancer does not invalidate the concept of a body.
Those media outlets trying to box Hegseth into some white nationalist construction are doing that “the best lie contains a grain of truth” thing. We shouldn’t be white nationalists. I will never say, hey lets be white nationalists. I am saying we make explicit the natural reality of a White American ethnic group, that which we call Amerikaaner but cannot be called that if we are mass-memeing, that has a right to a particularist faith, even if it is in consensus with a universalist faith, and a particular leader acting as our collective will in matters of determination. We can be an ethnic group that has traitors within the body of the ethnic group, in fact that is what already exists. Being part of the ethnic group does not mean we don’t kill traitors, and whip those reluctant to go along with the plan.
I am for making explicit that we need the construction of God, King, Country. This is the stability point that will allow us political forms that can heal us spiritually and physically.
Nuts.
Look at the karens at the Ice protests. They are white Americans. They are not Amerikaaners.
And look at the Ice cops. They are Amerikaaners, that is why they signed up when Ice did its huge expansion, and many of them are not white.
If you try to use “white American” to mean Amerikaaner, you will not be understood. Amerikaaner stands for a tribal identity. White does not.
Our coalition is whiter than their coalition, but you would not think so looking at the conflicts between Ice and the protestors.
Just use Amerikaner it is OUR special code (because using white has a lot of problems and because Amerikaner excludes enemy whites) we dont want to deal with your personal special code.
It’s not even my special code. This is how everyone intuitively uses the word white when talking about americans. It is here where we somehow need definitions.
Pretty intuitively “white” is a standin for “ethnic American via biological compatability.” When news outlets start asking “are asian students propagating whiteness?” they are asking, have asians assimilated into the white American ethnic group. Are they allied with the white American coalition. Are they heretics of the prog coaliton, which is partially defined as opposition to the natural and healthy American ethnic group.
Apply the same rubric for when they talk about Latinos. Zimmerman was considered white, as was Rittenhouse. Thats not because they were Ben Franklin’s notions of white, but because they clearly map to the American ethnic group and its norms. They were off-white, but their behavioral standard allowed full white, American ethnic, identification.
Sitting around asking “what is white” is like asking “what is a woman.” There are some genuinely confusing edge cases like XXy weirdos! Yet everyone knows what a woman is. Everyone knows what an American is. Whiteness is another word for ethnic American. When they talk about Whiteness outside the USA, it is a loanword, and still means about the same. How much does the topic match the ethnic American. Don’t like it? When we win we can run a Rectification of Names. Right now, that is how the word is understood by nearly all participants in the English language.
Yet again, I will repeat, just because leftists exist does not mean there is no white American ethnicity. Simply because cancer exists does not mean the healthy body is not a coherent concept. I do not find this distinction hard. Why is this distinction hard? What is confusing about the notion of a traitor?
The easiest and best way to meme this, “Everyone knows what an American is.” Then we just follow our King, who can be allowed the final say on drawing the practical boundaries. The King will have natural allies that are not white, are not the natural American ethnic group. The King will need to reach for a faith. That’s Christian Nationalism. To be national, needs an ethnic group. Thats the white American. Everyone knows what an American is.
Are Karens white?
If Karens are white, white is not Amerikaaner, and building a coalition on the basis of whiteness is stupid and useless. We don’t want to include Karens and exclude George Zimmerman, who is biologically not white, but culturally white.
You are making the point that whiteness is real. Yes, it is real, but it is not an identity the way “English” is an identity. And you cannot make it into an identity. The Democrats have applied the full power of the state trying to make Latino into an identity, and have failed miserably. Black, as in American blacks, was a genuine identity, blacks being less fissiparous than whites, but that identity is not holding under the mass importation of hordes of blacks from Africa.
Did I ask “what is white”? It is not a question I am interested in. I am interested in who is with us, and who is against us. I am not arguing that whiteness in unreal because you cannot define white — that is a leftist argument. Whiteness is unreal because it is not a tribe like identity. You are never going to get block voting on the basis of whiteness the way you get block voting on the basis of blackness. Rupert Lowe might well get block voting on the basis of Englishness — at least he is giving it a try, and it is not stupid to give it a try.
“What is white” is a question that leftists ask of imaginary racists. Do I care? I don’t care. You are arguing with leftists, not with me.
Sane person says: “Black people are stupid and dangerous”. Leftist asks sane person “what is white”. Do I ask? You are talking to the voices in your head.
Jim I addressed this multiple times over. If you don’t feel like reading my comments just ban me so I lose the compulsion to attempt discussion here.
Karens are ethnic Americans, just like the men who killed Charles I were ethnic English. We are allowed to punish them, even if they fit inside the ethnic group.
I even addressed the pragmatic and political:
A traitor needs a cohesive entity to commit treason against. A faith, or a real identity. Whiteness is not a coherent positive tribal identity and cannot be made into one. People of Yankee biological descent have been consistently loyal over the centuries to the enemy faith that is ideologically and organizationally descended from the Puritan faith. As Moldbug said “Communism is as American as apple pie”
Moldbug, a Jew, was implicitly defending the Jews from the guilt of Marxism, implying that they are merely mercenaries for whoever has power. I, an Aryan, am explicitly defending them — they are merely mercenaries for power, and the group that actually exercises, or attempts to exercise, power over the many voting blocks they have mass imported, the Jews among them, is indeed as American as Apple pie.
Whites are always at each other’s throats, and Aryans more so than other whites. White has never been a cohesive identity or tribe that it is possible to commit treason against, and Aryans least of all. My race was born in endless war against each other, which is why whites are the most militarily capable of all the races, and Aryans the most militarily capable of all the white ethnicities.
White Identitarianism is not going to fly, because it never has. English identitarianism might well fly, as German identitarianism did in the 1930s, because England is ruled by white, but alien, Eurocrats, as Germany was ruled by people installed in power by foreigners. American identitarianism is not going to fly, because Communism is as American as apple pie.
If, as seems likely, English identitarianism flies, it is not white identitarianism, because they don’t like the frog eating surrender monkeys exercising undue influence over Britain either. When Starmer wraps himself in Churchill’s mantle over the Ukraine, he is an alien wearing a skinsuit. Things are looking good for English identitarianism today, for the same reasons as they looked good for German identitarianism in the 1930s. Rule by enemy aliens.
You went back and edited your comment to add ever more detail to your argument that I already anticipated and addressed in the comment you quoted and responded to.
We’re Rectifying Names here.
Yes, your very first line was interrogating me about Karens.
Oh then maybe you would understand that I addressed this:
This was nested inside two short paragraphs under the theme of explaining what whiteness actually means, how everyone uses the term whiteness to mean “does this map to the core American ethnic group.” When they talk about “whiteness” or “white” abroad it is always a loanword. White is a signifier of the core American ethnic group.
This is going to come up more and more as we approach the singularity, because the Empire is wide and broad, straddling the Globe. As the Empire fights itself, it will pull all peoples it can into the fight. We need to know who we are — and by and large, the normies instinctively understand these ethnic maps. We live in a world with airplanes and easy travel. Cannot be universalist. It will just be this fight all over again.
I’m going to predict you will skim and not address any of my points, again, but for anyone who does read, here is the pragmatic way of dealing with this:
I did not ask “what is white.” I asked “are Karens white”, and you did not answer.
You did not answer. You listed various degrees of whiteness, italians etc and failed to reply about Karens.
That was a rhetorical question. Obviously Karens are white. Therefore white identitarianism is nonsense, something invented by our enemies. They claim the world is seething with white identitarianism, it is dripping off the trees.
By our enemies. I declared him an honorary white, on the grounds that I wanted someone who could hit the target while his head was being pounded into the concrete at my back. Obviously Zimmerman is not white, and no one except leftists think he is.
Screw your points.
You have one central point, that “white” means Amerikaaner in common parlance, and I have one central point. That it does not mean Amerikaaner in common parlance.
All your points are all empty irrelevant wind restating this absurd and obviously false claim and attempting to evade my points. So I just keep repeating my points over and over and over. Way back in the beginning I said Karens are white and are not Amerikaaners, George Zimmerman and large numbers of Ice cops are nonwhite, and are Amerikaaners, and you have not answered.
Nuts.
As I said over and over and over and over and over and again in a multitude of different ways, they use it to mean “maps by biological descent from America’s core ethnic group.” Unfortunately the enemy faith maps completely by organisational continuity, and in consequence maps largely by biological descent, from America’s core ethnic group, the Yankees.
Unfortunately the very core of American biological ethnicity is the Yankees, who are the core and leadership of our enemies.
The enemy faith is descended by organizational continuity from the New England, and a whole lot of the Karens, as for example Margaret Meade, are descended biologically.
As Moldbug said, “Communism is as American as apple pie”
The enemy faith is more core American ethnic group than we are. The Minnessotan leftists are biologically Swedish descent, and you just told me that group is the whitest of them all. Massachusetts leftists are biologically Yankee. — New Englanders of English Puritan descent. I am Aryan via the Scots, so i am very white, but that still makes me considerably less core ethnic group than the Yankees.
The war of Northern Aggression was Yankees conquering America, and Globohomo imperialism is Yankee empire. White identitarianism is not going to fly, because our enemies are as white or whiter than we are, and they are considerably more American by biological descent than we are. They mass import foreigners as voting blocks so that they can continue the pretense that our democracy is majority democracy, but the foreigners are only a threat to the extent that Yankees succeed in ruling and manipulating them.
Our primary enemy is 100% ideologically and organizationally descended from the most core of American ethnic groups, the Yankees, and their leadership is still in very large part biologically descended from the Yankees. Which makes them whiter than many of us, and more biologically American than most of us.
When Carter took the Whitehouse, his crew of Southerners kept making jokes about how Yankee Washington was — they Southern white, Episcopalian, and in large part Southern whites by biological descent, and they kept making the point that Yankees were grossly over-represented in the permanent government.
This… is… exactly what I said earlier. The identity that everyone knows and can agree on is American, not White. It is understood among those who know–which is everyone but leftists pretending not to understand things–that American is predominantly white. If we want to be even more specific in reactionary discourse we can say Amerikaner, though the actual Amerikaner normies won’t really get that.
You want a particularist church. So does Jim. So do (almost) all of us. No one has stated more clearly than Jim that the papacy’s inherent globalist and universalist characteristics make it unsuitable for a Restoration. We need a national church, subordinate to the king. We are going to need an American Orthodox Church, or an American Anglican Church, or something of that nature. Can you imagine a “White Orthodox Church” or even “White American Orthodox Church”? It’s absurd even to contemplate. The attendance is going to be almost all white, but “white” is not going to be in the name and it is not going to be a formal membership requirement.
Blacks want to go to black churches, and browns care less about race but can’t let go of Catholicism. We do not generally have a big problem with blacks and browns demanding to join majority-white organizations. We have a problem with white Karens and Social Justice Warriors demanding that the organizations include more blacks and browns (and women). Nonwhites do not really want to blend in with whites, they only want to be governed by whites. Blacks and whites were both happy with the Jim Crow arrangement; it was white leftists who demonized it, demanded an end to it, and saw fit to “inform” the blacks how terribly oppressive it all was and how all their problems were caused by badWhites.
No one is saying that “white” has no meaning, no one is pushing for color blindness, and no one wants a universalist church. But “white” is not the identity that people cohere around, “American” is. It is unfortunate that “American” has become so watered-down in practice, but that is a matter for Rectification of Names. On the other hand, White is a term that was coined by our enemies to use against us and is still controlled by our enemies. So be white, with a lowercase “w”, and American, with a capital A.
Jim: “A traitor needs a cohesive entity to commit treason against. A faith, or a real identity. Whiteness is not a coherent positive tribal identity and cannot be made into one.”
Oh for God’s sake. I haven’t the faintest idea what the genetic definition of (say) a hornet is, but plainly spraying insecticide all over their nests in the nearby trees would be an attack on them.
When lefties advocate the importation of tons of Chinese, Africans, Mexicans, etc., they know exactly who they’re attacking.
That is a human spraying hornets. But what we have is some hornets attacking other hornets. So cohering on the basis of being a hornet is not going to fly.
Watch MikeBenzCyber. https://rumble.com/v76dhj2-how-the-blob-built-the-censorship-complex-in-spain-now-attacking-x.html?e9s=src_v1_upp_a
He identifies the enemy and their networks person by person, network by network. And they are all white. It is just their bipedal bioweapons that are non white.
Jim: “The enemy faith is more core American ethnic group than we are. The Minnessotan leftists are biologically Swedish descent, and you just told me that group is the whitest of them all. Massachusetts leftists are biologically Yankee.”
If 2% of white people are trying to genocide the other 98%, they are the enemies of white people. It’s not complicated.
And this is why a religious/ideological component is also important. They may be very white biologically, but they’re also very evil, because they’re extreme leftists. Since they’re evil, they are to be dealt with as if they’re evil.
It is a lot more than 2%, and a lot less than 98%. The Democrats have an open border policy, and are perfectly willing to say so in public. Similarly, the major British parties — Greens, Labour, and Tories.
If you threw all nonwhites off the voting rolls, it would not make a huge difference. Look what happened to Rhodesia and South Africa, and that was existential.
if you throw all women of the voting rolls, would make a huge difference.
Perhaps in a world where it is the hardcore white male leftists, the Bill Ayers, Jeff Jones’s and Tampon Tim’s of this world versus the rest of the population, you can stick to 2%. But of course it isn’t. It’s white Karens versus the white men. It’s the white Italians versus white non-Italians. white Irish versus white non-Irish. white English versus white Germanics. White Protestants versus white Catholics. And just about a million more ethnic conflicts all sprinkled over America.
The category ‘white’ exists, we agree. But there is simply no cohesive identity to be ascribed to it.
(Note also the parallels between white identity and proletarian identity. Both exist as a descriptor, not as a cohesive identity. Both are loved entry points by the left.)
“He identifies the enemy and their networks person by person, network by network. And they are all white.”
I haven’t looked, but I believe you. And that’s why components other than biological ones are also very important.
Again, no one is saying it has to be one or the other.
“If you threw all nonwhites off the voting rolls, it would not make a huge difference.”
It would make an enormous difference. Check out the maps that show the Electoral College from recent elections, if only ___ could vote. It ranges from if only non-white females could vote – totally or almost totally blue – to if only white men could vote – totally or almost totally red.
Alf: “It’s white Karens versus the white men.”
In the right ideological environment, women will fall into line.
Well I am saying it has to be one or the other. To keep out the enemy, you need a faith. And the only faith going is Christianity, and everyone is invited to be Christian.
There are pagan faiths that are inherently restricted to a particular clan. To legitimately worship Odin, you have to be descended from Odin in the male line, though adoption counts. But they are long dead. No one alive today can track his patrilineage back to Odin.
We had white only laws. And we lost them. And do you know why we lost them? We did not have Christian only laws and a creed, articles, and affirmation to keep postChristians out.
Now we have a Holy War coming, and the enemy is importing six hundred million bipedal biological weapons. But the enemy is as white as we are, and by some measures, such as Ice versus protesters, whiter.
If one already has power, and does not feel that one needs a coherent ideology, one can say stuff like that. But if you do not have a coherent ideology that is, for the most part, genuinely believed, you are not going to take power, and if you already have power, are going to suffer entryism and “spiritual insecurity” as those Europeans did, with the result that after 1840 Europeans started losing wars.
It is certainly not a formula for taking power, and it is a formula for losing power.
1453 Constantinople fell to the Ottoman empire. 1573 the Ottoman empire conquered Cyprus.
What do you mean when you say that after 1840 Europeans started losing wars? Of course, they were losing wars after 1840, but they lost some important war against the Ottomans before that. What is so special about 1840? Is there a special date between, e.g. 1573, and 1840 that marked a rise of European power?
Europe had a totally one sided winning streak from the Peace of Westphalia to 1840.
Except that in a mass democracy in degenerate Germany NASDAP ran on ethnic identity conflict in order to seize power.
I’m sure you’ll turn this into a critique of how NASDAP also did a bunch of crazy things and blew up, but my real point is that ethnic identity is a political schelling point *obviously.* Okay, white alone is not an ethnicity. Who fucking cares. No one besides shills argue this. Name someone who isn’t a bad actor here arguing we should ingroup white leftists because they’re white.
The ingroup looks like Hajnal European plus some formerly catholic European heritage biology (extended from Anglo-Saxon alone, but barely, white american majority hajnal still by biology) and state backed Christianity, combined. The friend group looks like Latinos that don’t want to erase white identity and hate the left communists. They can live with us under a priviledged millet system, but cannot be full ingroup.The outgroup looks like white leftists who will never swear faith to our state backed patriarchal Christianity, plus their pets. It also looks like Lady of Guadalupe squatemalans that vote for gibs and more squatemalans. Your distinction would ingroup the squatemalans. Needs biology and faith.
When you universalize on faith, you are recreating that chart of moral priorities with your extended kin weighted less than some who profess faith far away. Yes we need faith, but faith alone leads to paradoxes like holiness spiralling into replacing your kin with haitians and squatemalans, as long as they swear the Nicene creed!, and is not a coherent ingroup.
The boundaries are shifting, and we are getting many white-identifying white-supporting latinos mixing into the defacto ingroup. Cannot be helped. Will have to account for them. God, King, Nation. Need all three.
Ran on socialism and anti semitism, which is not quite the same thing.
Trouble is that woke degeneracy is not nearly as Jewish as the Weimar degeneracy that inspires it, so the same tactics are obviously not going to work here.
And running on socialism led to multiple crises, starting with the night of the long knives.
If you are trying to build a mass movement on “white” you are going to have to care.
The NSDAP ran on a lot of things but mostly that the government was run by the November criminal Marxist traitors (but Hitler was the good socialist not a conman preaching the jew Marxs bad version of socialism) who then also ran the country into the ground. Anti semitism wasnt the main plank. Hitler became a more extreme anti semite when he figured out the British adopted a hostile attitude to him in 37/38 and decided that as the British should have no problem with him fighting the Soviets this irrational foreign policy must be due to jews.
How did I know you would turn it into a discussion on socialism.
The Japanese can recognize outsiders, organize and expel foreigners. How can they do it??? What a mystery??? You are being hardheaded. The Japanese know their *ethnicity* because they have a Faith (composed of folkways, and philosophy), they have a Emporer (Schelling point for faith and martial coordination) and they have a People (long biological ties between patriarchs that formed clans, organized peasants that are composed mainly from the patriarchs that lost status in the misty past).
Guess what, we can build the same thing for Amerikaaners! We don’t have to ingroup everyone who swears the Nicene creed as if they were the same ethnicity as us!
We won’t have it be explicitly the same “white” as the founders were. Duh. Not saying that. I’m saying *biology matters* and we are building an ethnicity, none of this matters if we do not build an ethnicity! God, King, Nation!
Because white leftists exist, white identity is not a thing, never has been, never will be.
If you try to make it a thing, you are making enemies part of your ingroup, enemies who will continue to regard you as part of their outgroup. So you lack what Putin calls “spiritual security”.
When Europe rose to greatness, and came to rule the world, people said “Europe is the faith, the faith is Europe”
White identity only became a thing when whites started losing. And led to a war from which white power has never recovered.
“Never hate white leftists so much”
Every single one of them needs to be put in the ground.
I’m well aware of the impossibility of pro-white politics in our modern democracy. But why is a neoreactionary like you hand-wringing about voting blocs?
You sound like a Democrat who talks about the “changing face of America” and how too-white movies don’t appeal to “modern audiences” and whatever other euphemisms for white genocide. And who insists that race doesn’t exist and whiteness isn’t real but it’s also evil and we should be capitalizing “black” because that’s somehow real. And how we have to make concessions to non-whites and allow them to become even more numerous and influential, after which we’ll have to make even *more* concessions because our situation is even *more* dire.
Fuck that. Whiteness exists, and it matters. The average whiteness of the population of a country/state/community correlates more to the eventual well-being, wealth, and safety of that group than any cultural factor, because whiteness (or rather, lightness of skin tone) is an indicator of evolutionary progress, which determines culture.
If the “based old-type Christian” MAGA coalition fails, then multi-ethnic democracy is over, period. A minority of whites can’t win an election, but they can win a war.
That’s more like it. But, if faith can’t unite ethnically diverse votes, why would it be able to unite ethnically diverse guns?
There are in fact religions that elevate certain ethnic groups above others, but we don’t even need to get metaphysical: if modern leftism is able to place whites below blacks, why would a competing faith not be able to place whites above blacks?
I simply assumed you were thinking in terms of voting blocs, because “white” is far too large, ill defined, and amorphous to take power.
We reactionaries always think in terms of extremely small groups with a clear leader, ideology, and command structure taking power.
This point deserves emphasis because its something the ethno nationalists always gloss over.
Just travel around Europe. The differences between “whites” is immense. Romans warring with completely different looking Germanic tribes, vikings plundering completely different Anglos and Franks.
Hell, the differences within countries between whites is immense. There’s whites on the countryside that’ve been bred for centuries of farnwork. There’s citywhites that’ve been optimized for large social network scamming. They are supposed to unite on the basis of their race? They are each other’s evolutionary rivals, much more than they are the rivals of some African race!
If you want to know what actual large scale cooperation among whites of all backgrounds looks like, look no further then the crusades. note that:
a – wasn’t explicitly white, was Christian. Because large scale cooperation always follows the lines of faith.
b – it was a very hard thing to pull off, with a lot of infighting and questionable results.
What screwed the Crusades was the papacy. Pete Hegseth is tatooed with the symbol of a Crusader King who was fighting the Muslims in front of him and the priests sticking knives in his back.
Modern leftism is all too happy to place woke whites, especially sexual degenerates, above blacks. And the white leftist elite continues to remain at the top. AWFLs are their core constituency now and they know it.
The progressive stack is just a tool of opportunists that happens to get pulled out extremely often; it is not a sincerely-held belief or a rigorously-enforced policy.
The goal of (neo) reaction is good government, not a racial hierarchy with whites at the top. If successful, whites are going to end up implicitly at the top, on average, because whites are just better at good government and large-scale cooperation, but no one is getting a free pass to do socialist/communist shit just because white.
Are you fucking high? I don’t want to be ruled by aliens, who are always going to be hostile to me anyway. We have gone through a long real-world experiment in which it has been made undeniably clear that non-whites are hostile to whites. Your notion has been subjected to real-world testing and it failed.
We are being slow-motion genocided precisely because we have been trying to play the color-blind game, which non-whites will absolutely never reciprocate.
No one is asking you whether you want to play the white identity game.
We don’t have a say in who rules us. None of us do. That is fake and gay democracy.
We don’t have a choice about playing racial politics either. Jesus. You think we’re being given a choice?
No one is asking you whether you want to play the white identity game.
Your preferences are not being consulted.
No one is making inquiries as to whether you’d prefer not to play this game.
Lefties are not politely asking, “Before we declare whites to be the enemy, we’d like to solicit your valued opinions about whether you’d like to be identified as the enemy.”
You have not been given a vote, and you will not be given a vote, about whether we are going to be playing global genocidal war with whites as the main target.
Is this point getting through?
NO ONE ON THE LEFT IS ASKING YOU WHETHER YOU WANT TO EXPERIENCE THE POLITICS OF WHITE RACE-HATE. GET IT THROUGH YOUR FUCKING INCREDIBLY THICK SKULLS AND INTO THOSE PEA-SIZED ORGANS THAT YOU USE IN PLACE OF BRAINS.
Sure they are. Our enemies want us to play the white identity game because that is a game they are guaranteed to win and we are guaranteed to lose.
Don’t let your enemies define who you are.
Copy the winners, not the losers. Is Amelia playing the white identity game? Labor and Reform wish that she was.
Show me a cohesive white voting block, and I will show you a faith. An old type Christian faith. The SBC, following scripture, maintains that the office of pastor is reserved for men, stating this in “the Baptist Faith” and “Message 2000”. In 2023, the convention expelled two churches—Saddleback Church and Fern Creek Baptist—for having women in pastoral roles.
Okay once again step back and THINK
The left is declaring whites their racial enemy (applecarts and white males who are not midwits tend to be very hostile to the left) nobody disputes that
Many minorities want to join in for the loot nobody disputes that
Does that make totally outgrouping everyone who ain’t white but also hates the left (and I’m in Florida there are lots of minorities here who hate the left) a good political move, no there will always be some white leftists so we can’t win without some minority support now because our demographics ain’t that good anymore. Doesn’t mean we should pander either, or support further immigration from them, or support DEI, or even support the civil rights act as is, but shouting that we are going to expel or genocide everyone who isn’t white from the rooftops is not exactly a good idea either.
Does that mean we should ingroup leftist whites, no no no no no fuck no. They are enemies, they are traitors, they all need to go…
Well, you’re right about that part. My preferences don’t matter, racially or otherwise. Nor do yours. We were not consulted at all in 2020, and in 2024, only consulted as a pretext to an intra-elite coup.
(“This isn’t about voting, it’s about the left declaring holy war on whiteness!”)
Which, again, has nothing to do with biology at all, and their definition of whiteness can expand or contract to include or exclude anything they want. If whiteness stops serving their interests, they will target something else.
They are already starting to target “Christian Nationalism”. It is becoming a regular fixture of the progressive Two Minutes Hate. How long before “Christian Nationalism” becomes just “Christianity”, same way “White Supremacy” became just “Whiteness”?
We seem to be arguing at cross purposes. White identity may or may not be coherent among the Amerikaners, but the left’s definition of whiteness is entirely incoherent, and I very much can ignore it, and will.
This does not mean I am trying to be colorblind. I am not, and that is silly. It means simply what it says: that the postmodern leftist definition of whiteness and how they act on it is immaterial and irrelevant, because leftism always ends in killing fields regardless of its purported ethnic preferences. Their fixation on race is not a sincerely-held belief, it is a fig leaf for knocking over apple carts.
Thank you everyone who kept their cool when I lost my cool ,laid on the caps lock key, and made reference to pea-sized brains, etc. I’ll be back later, but I’m suffering from computer screen eye strain at the moment.
Scarebucks: “Modern leftism is all too happy to place woke whites, especially sexual degenerates, above blacks… AWFLs are their core constituency now and they know it.”
You have entirely misunderstood that. The left is not friendly with those groups; rather, the left has already won the war against those groups. Gays don’t reproduce, trannies don’t reproduce, white leftist women don’t reproduce. Don’t confuse a lack of active fighting with the left being friendly to those groups. Those people have already killed themselves – or their genetic lines, which amounts to the same thing on a slightly longer time scale. So the left correctly chooses not to waste bullets on them.
To see the distinction, note the left’s attitude toward white women who adhere to ideologies that encourage reproduction.
Me: “No one is asking you whether you want to play the white identity game.”
Jim: “Sure they are. Our enemies want us to play the white identity game because that is a game they are guaranteed to win and we are guaranteed to lose.”
No, we are losing now, having been losing for a long time, by trying to play the “I’m colorblind” game.
Jim: “Copy the winners, not the losers.”
The losers are the “I don’t see color” conservatives. That’s what got us into our current situation.
I used my hardcore computer skills to track down Jim’s true identity. It turns out he’s actually… Mitt Romney.
Neurotoxin, we will always be ruled by ‘aliens’. Whether they hate you or love you is determined by their faith. Elites listen to different music from you, eat different food, marry different, think different, play by different rules, the differences are innumerable. They call it cultured. If their faith is demonic, we see them as reptilian so to speak. If not, we call it divine right.
No elite faction has ever been defined by strictly ethnicity or something more abstract as race. The Japanese Emperor admits to Korean ancestors. The historical Korean Kings had Chinese ancestors (although Korean nationalists, similar to Japanese nationalists pretend otherwise). The Chinese Kings… well they’re a mishmash of dozens of ethnicities. The English had a ‘German’ King. Much of Europe had ‘German’ Kings. Many of those Kings were married to nobility from all over the place. Simply put, top level feudal aristocracy were a bunch of mutts who by their ethnicity didn’t identify with their subjects. They identified through shared faith, and identification is the precursor for love.
White Identity and “I don’t see color” are two poles of the same losing game. The left wants you to play the identity game because they can accuse you of being racist if you choose A, and flood you with migrants if you choose B. But this is a false binary choice. Flip the table over and play a different game. The winning game is shared faith (because that way you might actually get alien rulers who identify with you and love you). The best contender being Christian Nationalism.
Their have been purely ethnic elites before but always in colonial or herrenvolk states where the conquering army was a different ethnicity then the natives they subjugated. The most important state like this in the history of white Amerikaners is Norman England. Definitely an elite ethnicity herrenvolk state for at least a couple centuries after the battle of Hastings.
I’m afraid it is you who have misunderstood. The salient point is that the left is not friendly with any groups, other than whichever groups are able to advance its interests in the moment. Leftism has no essence. Like any demon, it welcomes everyone, but is loyal to no one, and will always betray its nominal allies whenever the opportunity presents itself.
The left is not anti-white by nature, it is anti-white according to circumstance. “Whiteness” is just another magic spell in a long line of magic spells–“White Supremacist”, “Racist”, “Sexist”, “Homophobe”, “Transphobe”, “Imperialist”, “Colonialist”, “Misogynist”, you get the picture–that they use to silence the opposition.
To you and to I, and to most people, “white” means what it means. To a leftist, it means nothing at all. It’s a fnord, or a thought-terminating cliche.
This is not me making the case that “white isn’t real” or somesuch, because again, that would be silly. Obviously white means what it means, and we know that. The only case to be made here is that leftists attacking whiteness does not prove that whiteness can form a coherent positive tribal identity, any more so than transphobes and misogynists and colonialists can form coherent positive tribal identities.
Well said.
“Guaranteed to lose” my ass. White identity is empirically their greatest fear.
Why do you think white nationalist groups are the #1 target of glowniggers? Why are non-whites permitted to form radical groups, including right-wing Christian groups like GAFCON?
Why are Hitler and Trump more demonized than other leaders who are much more Christian? Why are the Nazis the “worst people ever” and not the Crusaders?
Why do they seem so unconcerned with the possible resurgence of Christianity among young (brown) people? Why do they advocate for the mass importation of young Hispanic Christians?
And why is white replacement the one consistent outcome of every domain and every organization that they gain control over?
It is obvious from their actions that they view the largest threat to them to be WHITENESS, not Christianity.
They don’t seem very threatened by your particular offshoot of an Abrahamic religion whose prophet says to love your enemies and turn the other cheek. What they do seem threatened by, and rightfully so, is the collective potential of awakened white people.
If white identity loses elections, and they still view it as their greatest threat, then it logically follows that we ought to dispose of *democracy itself* in order to win.
If you want to know how to defeat your enemies, find out what it is they fear the most.
Speaking of fears: you, Cominator, seem to have so many of the same paranoid Nazi fears that our enemies do, judging by your incessant strawmen. Just saying.
The left is anti-humanity by nature. Whites are their primary target because we are the subset of humanity with the most potential.
Obviously they do not fear white identity or they would not be trying to manufacture it almost as hard as they are trying manufacture latinx identity.
Most white nationalist groups are manufactured by glowniggers, and the rest of them are manufactured by Soros foundations. Glaringly obvious examples being the Patriot Front, Azov, and the Groypers.
Patriot Front was always obviously 100% glownigger organised, and this has always been completely obvious to anyone with half a brain, and so instantly vanished when Trump purged the most egregious evil and madness of the FBI. The Groypers are equally obvioiusly Soros–USAID, and Azov is state department CIA and that they are state department and CIA is not even a secret.
Nick Fuentes attacks Trump, Pete Hegseth, and Charles Kirk day and night, but suffers a strange mysterious inability to mention anything bad Soros might or might not have done. Similarly, Patriot Front and the FBI.
Nick Fuentes not only will not go near Soros. He will not go near anything that might near anything that might be near Soros. No end of topics are strangely outside his limits.
There is not one currently existing white identitarian group where it is not completely obvious that they are creations of those who intend to exterminate whites. Not one. If you think one exists, name it.
Whites are nonexistent in the same sense as kulaks were nonexistent — there was a well known definition of kulak, and a whole lot of peasants met that definition, but they were in no way a distinct group with a distinct identity, and the communists classified people as kulak or not kulak with total and complete disregard for their own definition. If they wanted your stuff you were kulak, if they felt like killing or torturing you, kulak.
White is not an identity, it is merely a club that the left uses to smash in the faces of children. Like “kulack”, it has a meaning, but no one pays any attention to that meaning in practice. Not the actual kulaks, and not those crushing the kulaks.
“Why do you think white nationalist groups are the #1 target of glowniggers”
Because most of them are fucking retarded and they can use them as assets.
They’re more threatened by the (other) retards than they are by you.
Then why did it take the left 300 years to declare that target, and why is their targeting so selective even now?
Whiteness means the same thing to a leftist that it means to ChatGPT. It is just a word, with no real-world referent. And, like ChatGPT, leftists can even identify white people in a photo or draw pictures of them, but this is just following programming, pattern recognition on autopilot.
Of course, I completely agree with the statement that “White people are the subset of humanity with the most potential”, but the evidence for that lies in the historical achievements of white-skinned ethnic groups, not in the spite and envy of (also predominantly white) leftists who will target anyone for any reason as long as it is to their benefit.
“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” – Vladimir Lenin
Was there no legitimate opposition to Soviet communism?
If there is a legitimate white identitarian group, name it.
Sure there is legitimate opposition to DEI, which is the official instrumentality for destroying whites, males, and straights, but the people actually opposing it do not think of themselves as white identitarians any more than those opposing the liquidation of the kulaks thought they were kulaks.
Nick Fuentes theoretically opposes DEI, when he is not licking Mandami’s dick clean, but in the same breath identifies DEI with color blind meritocracy. With opponents like that, what does DEI need supporters for?
Actual opposition to DEI tends to focus on the pilot ballsing up the landing, the doors coming off the plane, and the bridge falling down.
An actual opponent is not going to argue that it is terrible that those really smart Jews are going to get hired in place of us dumb goy cattle.
There was no legitimate organized opposition to communism in the Soviet Union because any such group would be murdered or at least Gulaged almost immediately by whatever the Soviet secret police was calling itself at the time.
Scarebucks: “leftists attacking whiteness does not prove that whiteness can form a coherent positive tribal identity”
The hell it doesn’t.
Unless you’re being really spergy about the word “prove.” Does it prove it? The way the Pythagoean Theorem has literally been proven? Cut it out.
My response to this is the same as my response to Jim’s statement “Whites are wolf to whites. Always have been, always will be.”
Nonsense. This has been true in the past and may be true after white people band together and defeat those who are trying to genocide us (if we can), but that does not mean that we can’t, in fact, band together to defeat those who are trying to genocide us. Temporary alliances against the most urgent common enemy happen all the time on this planet.
E.g. the US went from “We must fight the Communist menace!” before WWII to “Let us join with the patriotic Russians who are defending their homeland against the evil Nazis!” during WWII, back to “We must fight the Communist menace!” after WWII was over.
The Jim/Scarebucks position is, if leftists wanted to kill all the blue-eyed people, then blue-eyed people should NOT band together as a group to resist the slaughter, because that would be “accepting the left’s categories” or something. Just disastrous, just an incredibly stupid take.
Leftists putting far more effort and energy into creating a totally fake and artificial white identitarian movement than they put into creating a totally fake and artificial latinx movement proves that leftists do not believe white can form a coherent positive tribal identity.
Trouble is that the common enemy is at least as white or whiter than we are.
If brown eyed people wanted to kill all the blue eyed people, then obviously blue eyed people should band together. But if the brown eyed killing squads are being organised and led by blue eyed people to exterminate other blue eyed people, on the grounds that “ninety nine percent of blue eyed people are witches, excepting us, of course”, then maybe blue eyed people banding together is a really bad idea, and it would be a far better idea to organise on the basis of shared disbelief in blue eyed witchcraft, and shared desecration of the holy symbols of the belief system that attributes black magic to blue eyed people.
The reason English identitarianism can potentially work is that it is reasonable and realistic to depict the British uniparty and permanent government as being run from across the channel. Americans are not in an analogous position, and far less are whites in that position.
“I’m afraid it is you who have misunderstood. The salient point is that the left is not friendly with any groups, other than whichever groups are able to advance its interests in the moment.”
It’s completely irrelevant for us that, if they succeed in genociding us, they will then look for some different apple cart to knock over.
Pax said, “Neurotoxin, we will always be ruled by ‘aliens’.”
Where is that written? I don’t buy that. Has there never been a country that was ruled by its own predominant race or ethnicity?
I wonder if I have been misunderstood. I am not saying that “White people rock!” is an adequate ideology/state religion. It hardly qualifies as a religion, let alone a satisfactory one. Maybe there is an excuse for misunderstanding me about this, but there is no excuse for misunderstanding Fidelis about it, because he has been perfectly explicit. As he said, “No one is saying we do not need a faith, and to select on whiteness alone.”
What I am saying is that whatever the other content the state religion has, it must also affirm the moral soundness of jettisoning the “I don’t see color” crap which non-whites are never, ever going to reciprocate. We’ve tried that. Any state religion that is consistent with a non-white President, for example, is going to end up with relentless attacks on white people, as it did under Obama. You might respond, “White leftists will attack us too,” but all non-whites will always do it. Some white people won’t attack us. The Karens we deal with directly, by pointing out that they’re evil and then punishing them. Statements like “All men of goodwill should be able to be President” sound good, but we have already tried that, for I don’t know how many decades, and that created our current dire situation.
I’ll acknowledge that just because organizing around whiteness hasn’t happened in the past does not mean it can’t happen in the future. But surely you understand the skepticism that if that has *never* happened in the past, not the safest bet for it to happen now. All the more when we view the track record of the actually existent white identity groups.
You can call it spergy if you want, but you made the very literal argument that white identity is coherent because it is nominally opposed and vilified by the left. Whether the left-wing vitriol is conjectured to meme the identity into existence or merely prove that it already exists isn’t specified, but in either case I believe I have shown that the argument is not logically sound for multiple reasons.
As I’ve said a few times now to both you and Fidelis, none of us are advocating color blindness. All other factors being equal, I prefer to live with, work with and be governed by as many whites as possible and as few nonwhites as possible. That question is separate from the question of precisely what national identity is going to be promoted by the state, and by extension act as foundation for the state religion, which after all is what this blog post was originally about.
I mean, Jim made a post saying “there is always a state religion and we need/want the state religion to be [whatever]”, and a bunch of people replied “nuh uh what we really need is white identitarianism”, and I’d say that debate played out rather predictably in the end. I get that a lot of folks are put off by the blackness of GAFCON, and if any of you recall, I was the first person here to take notice of that a couple of weeks back. It is a subject worth debating directly, and doesn’t require all these digressions over white identity.
@Neurotoxin
>Where is that written? I don’t buy that. Has there never been a country that was ruled by its own predominant race or ethnicity?
I was speaking with a bit of hyperbole, but I’ll use a more at home example to drive my point. The Southern Aristocracy was of the same ethnic extract as good ole southern boys, yet Southern Aristocracy were and still are obviously distinct in physiology, culture, behavior, and any other innumerable traits. These are obviously not your Duck Dynasty volk. Functionally, Southern Aristocracy, were and are aliens who ruled, and yet good ole boys were and still are willing to fight and die for an aristocratic cause. Why? Because shared faith allowed the aristocracy despite differences to love the volk, and in turn the volk loved the aristocracy.
It’s very much like the Officer-Enlisted relationship in the military. There is an inherent textbook term of ‘otherness’ (hyperbolic alienness) to the Officer that no matter how much he loves and is loved by the Enlisted, that difference just doesn’t go away because ‘otherness’ is fundamentally built into relationships between hierarchical differences.
What happens as aristocratic dynasties (monarchical dynasties included) mature in their power throughout history is that we see significant genetic leakage between groups and between national borders. I’d argue that it’s inevitable for reasons that entail a separate discussion. For much of human history that leakage was confined by practical physical limitations of travel and diplomacy and yes, faith too, but much less so today. The Southern Aristocracy did make advantageous marriages to Yankee power brokers in the North and vice versa. Similarly we see Europe’s aristocracy marrying outside ethnic and national groups frequently. Remind me if the Habsburg are Swabian, or Austrian, or Styrian, or French, or Spanish, or any other ethnic groups they married into… Or tell me if the Anglo monarchy was Anglo or Viking or Norman or French or English or Germanic?
But bringing the examples back home, what would a Black American aristocrat look like, we already have an answer, a light skin, and my time around Blacks cutesy of the military has shown me light skins and dark skins know they are very different groups even if they get along most of the time despite darks usually being the subservient of the two groups.
Let’s take this out to a more abstract hypothetical. Suppose Japan were located, say 50 miles off the shores of Spain during feudalism, and that the Japanese monarchy were Christian. Can you see the Japanese nobility and European nobility intermarrying even if the vast swaths of their peasants never did? I do not think it would merely be a possibility but a near certainty. The evidence being today’s modern elite. Trump is a Germanic American, he first married a Czech, his first two Germanic Czech American sons married a Eastern European mutt and some kind of American mutt. His daughter married a Levantine Jew (at this point Trump has mixed race grand kids). The lineages are all over the place and will only get more alien as time goes on.
This post has already gotten too long, but I’ll refer to my previous post. What keeps an elite and their subjects cohesive is a shared faith, which patches over the ‘otherness’ that inevitably in inherent to the relationship and more often than not will occur to do marriage patterns among elites.
Pax: “Functionally, Southern Aristocracy, were and are aliens who ruled, and yet good ole boys were and still are willing to fight and die for an aristocratic cause.”
If that’s true, I think that’s horrible, not a good thing. Fighting and dying for alien rulers is about the worst thing you could do, for yourself and for your genetic line.
Yes, the elite are always going to be culturally distinct from the masses to some extent, and they are always going to look down on the masses. However, there is still a huge difference between an elite that sees itself as a part of the same people as the masses and one that does not.
The old American WASPs certainly looked down on the Amerikaaner masses, but they felt like they were on the same team and genuinely wanted the best for them: they thought it was their right and duty to lead the masses for the masses’ own good. The Jews and their various foreign and bioleninist mercenaries who make up the current American ruling class despise the Amerikaaner masses and want only the worst for them out of hate, fear, and righteous revenge. As they see it, their right and duty is to humble and destroy the Amerikaaners so that the beautiful multicultural egalitarian ideal of America can finally be realized (and they can gather up the apples mysteriously rolling all over the cobblestones). This makes a difference.
Whites are wolf to whites. Always have been, always will be. That is how we became the most militarily capable race.
Blacks are wolf to blacks. Christians are wolf to Christians. Muslims are wolf to Muslims. Siblings are wolf to siblings.
Everyone is wolf to those whose differences to them are most apparent in their lives, even if those differences are relatively small.
We became the most militarily capable race for the same reasons that we became the most scientifically, artistically, and civilizationally capable race.
Well not really, that’s the whole point. Christianity goes a very long way in negating man’s inner wolf.
It was Christian civilisation, not white civilisation, that circumnavigated the globe and put a man on the moon. Roman civilisation, for instance, while very impressive, achieved neither. And of course, even the Romans did not become a major empire by merit of their race, but by merit of their faith of the ancient city. Which faith, like all pagan faiths, was markedly worse at preventing fratricide.
Roman civilisation achieved to become Christian. No small feat, but Rome shows that it is possible
This is a little too self-congratulatory. When whites were conquering the world, they read the Bible, they read the Illiad, and they read the Aeneid.
I’m not going to argue that Christianity can be thrown away, but it’s not the only thing. When you try to make Christianity the only thing, you get the communist uptopia types of the Protestant revolution and the Great Awokening. A lot of what made Europe great was the fact we were not some unified polity like the Caliphate or the Han Empire. Nobles and high agency merchants and explorers could search for and find patrons. This option existed because of our tendency to form city-state like kingdoms and polities and resist too much centralization by nature. When we centralized, we stagnated. Rome, Constantinople, Paris, London, Moscow, D.C./NOVA.
When these whites prayed daily before their dinner, did they pray to the Iliad? And when they erected the most beautiful, highest, most central buildings in every town and city, did they build them in the name of the Aeneid?
When the republican Johan van Oldenbarneveldt was beheaded on instruction of his biggest rival, prince Maurits of Orange, both regarded as founding fathers of the Netherlands next to William, his last words were: ‘Jesus Christ guide me, Lord take care of me. Lord in Heaven receive my spirit.’ History overflows with such examples.
Of course Christianity is not the *only* thing. But it was the *crucial* thing.
That misses my point. I am saying Christianity is necessary but not sufficient. When you have only Christianity, you get Anabaptists and you get Great Awokening Evangelicals. The iconoclasts of the Byzantines. These groups objectively suck.
We need a balance of our deep roots in the past, and the heart and soul of faith in the Immortal God. Neither works without the other.
That is a rather vague and open for interpretation statement. Who is this Immortal God? Christian God? Another God? Is this heresy?
What I will say on where we probably have common ground is a point I’ve been looking to make for a while. Namely, that it seems to me that the overwhelming majority of those making the jump from (atheistic) neoreaction to Christianity are by heart rather sympathetic toward Arianism. Something I have struggled with for sure and here’s to hoping I express myself accurately and non-heretical.
The Arian position is much more easily integrated with a grander scheme of historical events outside Christianity. Also integrates easier with physics, miracles, that sort of stuff.
BUT, Arianism is heresy. As simple as. The debates have been had, the message is clear: Jesus is both fully God, both fully human. Christ, it is clear, demands our full worship, not partial, and historic events have show that to be the correct path.
I recall reading Adversus Haereses by a proper and well-regarded Nicene Christian and coming away thinking that taking too fine a point on these debates just makes you myopic and stupid. I cannot recall the exact points he made, it was a long time ago now, but quite a few of the heresies Iraenus was railing against later became something like doctrine. The notion of “angels dancing on the head of a pin” was developed by the church intellectuals as a hormetic meme, trying to combat this tendency to argue about metaphysics that don’t matter, and later got used against them as if it were not polemic.
There’s room for proclamations of anathema and heresy, for excluding those teaching poison, but it’s hard to take seriously when you hit these metaphysical questions that cannot be answered on this side of death. They function more as tribal signifiers, rather than helpful theology. Lets try to avoid myopic theology debates while the civilization burns because the elite class became auto-genocidal.
But that’s the point your raise is it not? That we need Christianity with a balance of our deep roots in the past etc etc.
Best I can do is Jimian Christianity and trust that it downstream leads to the similar outcomes you want to see.
Yes exactly, and my reasoning is not metaphysical but rooted in observation. We’ve had ~150 years of universalist evolution of Christianity into post-Christianity. I am promoting the idea that universalism shouldn’t be so emphasized.
For example, there was a recent genetic study done on old Levantine bones. Samaritans happened to cluster as close to Jews as those in Yorkshire to Derby. Colored in this way, it makes it sound like the Good Samaritan was telling you not to get into tribal feuds, rather than telling you that ethnicity matters not. Angles and Saxons, love each other! It’s a far different message than, “race doesn’t exist, and it wouldn’t matter if it did, because we all worship Jesus Christ.” This message is blasted from just about every pulpit. It’s toxic and pushes sane people away, and pushes those with high attachment to the church to adopt children from all over the world, forsaking their own, and signalling how holy they are for it. We need the ability to call these people not just insane, but destructively insane, and have it fit in our state church doctrine.
Christianity is in balance with our cultural roots. Thes roots are older than Christianity.
Depending on who you are, these cultural roots might be slightly different. Russian Orthodoxy is different from GAFCON. Different churches that are in communion with each other is better than one Church for all people.
Maybe the English speaking countries can revive Christianty via GAFCON because Anglicanism fits theit cultural roots. For central Europe, I think it would be easier to revive Christianity via Orthodoxy or do something similar that created Anglicanism, namely split from the Catholic Church.
Well we are in agreement! Do you find Jim lacks on this front? He can be called many things, but a universalist Christian I’d call him not.
Exactly.
Reflect on the wars between European Christians and European pagans. King Alfred won because his pagan enemies kept knocking each other off, while he united Christian England fairly peacefully. There just has been a whole lot less fratricide among Christians.
I can name lots of similarly deleterious groups and effects. The Quakers thought themselves just as Christian as Alfred, only moreso. What argument do you have against them, besides appeal to the senses, appeal to the fact Quakerism clearly does not work? They were perhaps more ‘tight’ theologically than you, as they had nothing but scripture to cohere around. We need Christianity, but this trend here to throw away everything else is madness to me. Lets copy everything that worked, not just the one thing.
Further, and this is tangent but still quite related, how can you control for the fact the Christianized kings were more educated and influenced by the Latin traditions of governance? The West adopted the Latin alphabet and norms of organization alongside Christianity. The East adopted the Greek alphabet and norms of organization. Why do you think it was Christianity specifically, and not the adoption of a huge body of knowledge in warfare, governance, and philosophy that came along with it? Christian tradition is rooted in the same tradition as the ancient man of the city. They come together. I find those people so Christian as to try and ban Maypole celebrations absurd, and missing the point, and yet we see similar strains today in the US. Everything is bad except what the pastor told me Jesus said.
But they weren’t. They were heretics, and the orthodox (lowercase-o) Christians of the day clearly thought of them and labeled them as such.
How is neopaganism doing? The old gods died, and today’s neopagans are faggots worshipping demons. Gafcon’s Christianity is live. Taliban’s Islam is live. Everything else around is walking dead or openly demonic. Islam is showing signs of life in Tajikistan and Kazakhstan, and Orthodox Christianity might be waking from near death in Putin’s Russia, but everywhere else is slim pickings, and Episcopalianism is our tradition.
You’re not going to get anywhere talking about GAFCON. Right wing people are revolted by the worship of blacks (negrolatry) practiced by the post-Christians that captured all the mainstream churches. It doesn’t matter if their theology is good, you’re being far too abstract. We have people close by telling us to adopt black children, marry blacks, apologize to blacks, watch black events, invite blacks into your home and feed them, pay blacks money. No one wants to hear “okay now adopt black Christianity.”
Look for the quietly smouldering embers around the West and use them as an example. You are too prone to reflexively ignoring the fact *ethnicity does matter* because you have gotten too used to arguing with bad actors trying to claim it’s the only thing that matters. God, King, Country (i.e. Nation, that word rooted in Natal, it’s ethnicity by another name). Going around trying to convince the right to copy blacks is going to fail. Go back to talking about the Duck Dynasty guy.
Gafcon is just old type Anglicanism, and the reason it is primarily Nigerian today is that Nigeria was simply overlooked by the elites. It is just easier to get away with stuff if you are far out in the middle of nowhere far from power.
There are plenty of white anglican and episcopalian pastors in white countries that are adherents of Gafcon.
If you want an ideology and belief system that is one hundred percent white, not Jewish, not black, and not brown, you should go with sexually transitioning infants by drugs and surgery. The decadence always starts in the center of power.
Great. Please name them, because when I search gafcon, I get their website, which features prominently pages like this. I’m not interested in whatever this is. I would feel stupid trying to tell people about how great GAFCON is, when the first thing they might do if they were truly interested, is search the name, and find this page. This looks like bog-standard globalist universalist “please adopt nine african children, but never ever fuck your wife thats unchaste” Christianity.
messed up the link somehow, https://gafcon.org/priorities/ this page.
You are promoting GAFCON as if you exist in a vacuum. I travel internationally and visit these kinds of churches. Do you understand how much they worship blacks? They will get one black man visiting, and pull him on the pew to deliver a sermon. I’ve seen this more than once! The african was just some guy, showing up to church, not even a regular attendee! We have a serious negrolatry problem, and you are promoting a black church. Why? Are there no other pastors or organizations or anything else like that to point towards?
Pretty sure that the nigger worshiping Churches do not allow anyone that they suspect of Gafcon tendencies anywhere near their church, not matter how black he is. They would howl at him, scream at him, throw rocks at him, and shit of all over their pews.
Which is much how the post Christians came out on top originally. You see the anti Ice crowds go frothing at the mouth crazy with Trump derangement syndrome? They have nothing on the post Christians. They won by going to the mat like howling baboons when the actual Christians were reluctant to act in an uncivilized manner.
Jim, my point is why do you support GAFCON over all the other churches that are less Africa-assosciated? Are they really that much more based than Doug Wilson?
When I go and click through their site, it looks like generic post-protestant nonsense. What am I supposed to take away? What is their message that has negrolotrous churches screaming?
You say they’re not just a globalist diverse post-Christian church, but I don’t see it. Where is the based white pastor? Why are we going with GAFCON and not the church of Doug Wilson and Andrew Isker? I would rather go with the Appalachian guys that have quietly converted to ROC than this, just based on what I’ve seen. Where is the based, living, old-Christianity here?
Doug Wilson’s organisation is three congregations. The ACNA (which is Gafcon in the Americas, primarily in North America and the US Army), is over a thousand congregations.
And the shitting on the pews and pooh flinging is under way. The converged post Christian Churches are getting ACNA derangement syndrome.
I suppose Doug Wilson is probably a lot more based than Archbishop Steve Wood. But if Pete Hegseth gives the troops a mission from God, having Doug Wilson in his pocket does not make much difference, while having Steve Wood in his pocket would make substantial difference.
“Doug Wilson’s organisation is three congregations.”
Doug Wilson’s Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches started as three congregations, it’s been growing at a good pace and now has around 160+ member churches.
He embraces the label of Christian Nationlist, advocates biblical patriarchy, that wives should submit to their husbands, church leadership should be restricted to men, and that the 19th amendment should be repealed. I wouldn’t dismiss them as a candidate for a new state church.
If I recall correctly, Doug Wilson rejects an episcopal national church in favor of a congregational. There’s also the fact that he is a literal young earth creationist, although he performs some impressive mental gymnastics to argue that 6000 years doesn’t really have to be 6000 years.
Otherwise, he is wonderful.
A congregational Church is headless. We had this argument shortly before the English Civil War: “If no Bishop, then no King”
Trouble is, a headless state religion is going to holiness spiral, and that Doug is a a literal young earth creationist would indicate it is already holiness spiraling.
Further, I believe Hegseth already has ties to Doug’s church. Doug is to the right of Gafcon, and moreso he cannot be confused with typical negrolotrous post-protestantism, whether fairly or not.
I look up gafcon, I look up assosciated churches in regions where family and friends live, I cannot in good faith recommend them. Are they truly Christian? Impossible to tell from afar. Doug Wilson, it’s easy to tell. He’s in your face, telling you what he is, what he believes, and is inlining the message from Jim/NRx about the need for a state church. He is telling you to your face, well, to your face through a screen, that he should be the state church.
Why promote gafcon? If gafcon is both so large and already on board with the program, should be promoting itself. We should favor Doug, because he seems far to the right of gafcon. Gafcon can be dragged kicking and screaming to the right by Doug Wilson’s organization. If gafcon is already on board, they need to make the message clearer. Looks to me like they’re not fully on board.
As for Steve Wood, is he even really still archbishop? In title, yes, but he seems to have gotten himself in the type of situation one rarely recovers from, be it deserved or not.
Rather unfair — it was money morning quarterbacking manufacturing a storm in a teacup. It turned out he should have taken more extensive action, but what he did seemed reasonable enough at the time. We was not covering stuff up or sweeping it under the rug, and it was not obvious at the time that further action was needed.
He let other people get on top of uncovering the dirt — he should have been on top of it and was not, but he was not covering it up.
Dalrock exposed Doug Wilson at great length years ago.
In addition to Dalrock’s expose. This also:
https://moscowid.net/
@i
This has a bunch of stuff that reads like the shill spam links here. What should we be looking at?
@Adam
Where’s the link?
At your direction I’ve been doing some research and turns out Dalrock has written many things on Wilson, quantity of course not necessarily equating quality.
Wilson’s 21 theses on submission in marriage seem like a fine posterboy example, unless you have a better one in mind.
Reading through, seems fine honestly. Not Jim-level based, but really not that bad. The only point somewhat contentious is #11:
Not totally untrue, not like I beat my wife every morning to ensure her submission. But not totally true either, since a husband is most definitely required to establish his dominance, especially when his wife provokes him.
Point 11 is what people including Dalrock take issue with. But if that’s the worst thing, eh, could be much worse.
The ACNA is gay. They have women clergy and are progressive in both doctrine and praxis. That said, there are good men among them. The ACC is the closest thing we have to gafcon in the US. It’s only a little gay, but that element is aging out. It will be mostly men with beards and well behaved children in 20 years.
There’s lots of good people in Doug Wilson’s thing. They will be better off once he goes to his reward. He’s a terminal boomer. His problem really is the same as the leadership in the ACC: they can’t tell what time it is. Can’t switch to a war footing, even as the bullets whiz past.
I am personally on the ground with both of these groups, and I can’t help but be optimistic, despite the current state of affairs. God will always preserve a remnant, it seems. There are ranks forming up.
“not like I beat my wife every morning to ensure her submission”
Simp
Christcucks have been preaching the stuff in that 21 thesis for 50 years and at every opportunity they have put the wife on a pedestal. Where are the thought crimes?
If he can’t stomach the thought crimes, not passing shit tests.
What does that word salad even mean? It means he thinks if we can build a better beta, woman problems disappear. Kind of reads like a woman wrote it.
I don’t really know anything about Doug Wilson, but if this is the poster boy then I find it worryingly purple-pilled.
For example, points 3, 6, 9 and 10 are great. They all say in essence that it is natural and good for the woman to submit in marriage and that society is better for it. And point 5 is OK as a clarification: submission to the husband (or guardian), not any man anywhere; that’s a key distinction from Islam.
But then we have point 8 (equalism is totally fine and somehow compatible with this via some obscure pretzel logic), point 11 (husbands cannot enforce their own authority) and 17 (feminism is somehow really about men?). And most of the points from 16 onward are just plain incoherent.
So, I don’t know. There is some very good stuff in there, stuff that you hardly hear anyone else but Jim ever say. But on the other hand, taken as a whole, it reads like a bizarre plea for women to just start submitting, to fight their own urges to shit-test and make life easier for betas. He appears to be writing to women, not men, and women aren’t going to listen and are for the most part not even able to hear.
Is he cloaking a firmer patriarchy in this loosey-goosey rhetoric to avoid the Eye of Sauron, or is he truly hoping that women will save us? Because I can’t tell, and it makes all the difference in the world.
Obviously that is not going to work, and in all of history, has never worked, not for any woman ever, no matter how she was raised, no matter what the incentives.
It is not the will of Gnon that those obedient to his commands shall die childless and alone.
Christianity is not a suicide pact.
On the other hand, in the current political and social environment, that is all a facefag can get away with. We may hope he is hiding his power level.
Watch him on video interview, he is toning it down. When he makes the purple pilled points, his body language reveals he knows he’s toning it down. He also has gotten steadily more “radical” in rhetoric as the years have gone by. He’s good. Maybe not our perfect manifestation of a High Archbishop of Jimianity, but as far as mere mortals that are out there to pick from, I would go with Doug Wilson no problem.
Yes it does and that sounds very much like the nail on the head. He wants women to just get it. Also does not sound like he is hiding his levels of based – this is what he really believes.
But again, this is kind of what I’d expect from a very public Christian Nationalist. An OK-ish answer on the women question. Would he be able to pass the moderation test here? I think yes.
It is not always easy to tell what a facefag believes.
I visited a based Anglican church once. They used the old prayer books and the priest would meet the town’s orthodox priest for dinner once a week. Kindred spirits in a town of Churchianity.
This church had a black priest visiting from Africa. Very dignified, very middle aged, wearing glasses, and I’m sure his theology was traditional.
He was friendly too, and we chatted. The problem was, the guy was just plain dim. You really wanted to like him, you *did* like him, but he was just not a smart guy even if his heart and soul were in the right place.
Setting aside the negrolatry question or difficult ethnic issues, it’s hard to partner with people, or at least organizations, that are presumably top to bottom run by low IQ people.
Obviously you want leaders who are smart and have their hearts and souls in the right place.
And the more followers whose hearts and souls are in the right place the better, even if some of them are not very smart, they can still accomplish many useful things. If on the other hand, you have smart enemies on the inside, the smarter they are, the worse for you.
It is a lot easier to partner with those people than with enemies.
And the top people in the Church of Nigeria are considerably less black than the average Nigerian, so there is presumably some selection for smarts. Not as dumb as the typical black.
@Fidelis
On the tab near the top you can see the Sitler and Wight Archives on 2 particular individuals. Including Timelines. Court Records on their crimes of preying on children while Doug covers for them.
Scratch that its Sitler in particular that Doug covered for that was particularly egregious. Even enabling him to marry after and endangering his son. Who he did deviant sexual behavior with:
https://moscowid.net/2017/08/12/steven-sitler-update-the-house-that-wilson-built/
Wight doesn’t fit that description except domestic battery.
@I
I don’t trust this source. It’s not fully coherent. It presents Sitler as an incontrovertible convicted pedophile with… 25+ instances, across state lines… What? And he’s walking around free? And Doug performs his marriage, and he has children with the woman… so is he straight or is he a pederast?
It smells fishy. I don’t know the person writing it, and I know none of the characters involved in any personal manner. I know Doug Wilson from his writing and his video content and the men assosciated with his organization. Via the writing and the video and the assosciated men, Doug seems like a pretty good guy. I’m going to go with that, instead of whatever this is. If you have better evidence, I am willing to listen, but this is not good evidence for me.
I read through several hundred pages of reporting on the Sitler incident from credible sources. It is not simple. Sitler is an incontrovertible convicted pedophile for which the state prosecuted.
The accusation that Doug covered for Sitler is heinous.
This accusation primarily comes from Wilson not notifying the congregation until after incarceration. Sitler confessed to Doug Wilson, a pastor and sought counsel multiple times. Presbyterianism upholds strict confidentiality regarding personal confessions made to pastors. Had Wilson told the congregation the details, it would go against religious tenets. This is an extremely difficult situation to be in, I do not know what the “right” choices in the shoes of a Presbyterian pastor would be here, and cannot in good faith criticize Wilson for this.
The reason why we know it was 25+ cases of molestation is that Wilson convinced Sitler to confess in court to all of them. That he did not get life in prison is almost purely the fault of the legal system and the judge.
Wilson:
What I can fault Wilson for is his letter to the Judge:
I believe Wilson believed there would be a very lengthy prison sentence, but also understandably was trying to give Sitler some credit for confessing which made prosecution much easier. That the second bolded part may have been a factor for why the judge was as lenient as he was. This was likely not Wilson’s intent as per the first bolded section. However, based on the case, it’s far more likely the main reason for Judicial leniency was that one of the fathers of the victims pleaded with the Judge for leniency. This I do not understand.
As for Doug performing his marriage… that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. I do not find fault in what Wilson did. I can elaborate if people want, but will cut it here if not.
On the larger conversation about Doug Wilson. His congregation, and the larger 160+ churches in the CREC, have been moving closer and closer to Jimian Christianity under political protection the Trump administration has been providing. Dalrock’s criticisms may have been ‘true’ about the public facing Wilson at the time of writing, but it’s clear the public facing Wilson is not the hidden Wilson.
I do not care where, according to Dalrock, Wilson’s ‘position’ was in 2020 or earlier on women and feminism. I care where he is today. Repealing the 19th is where he is now. I care about where he will be in 2028 should he have sufficient political protection. Likely it’s coverture, which he consistently hints at between the lines for decades. Dalrock didn’t read between the lines, took one end and ran with it to the logical conclusion which is rightfully sometime to criticize but also clearly not what Wilson believes.
I believe Wilson was personally hurt by Dalrock’s accusations based on his responses and calling the criticism unfair. You can really tell he was toeing the current year political line without it being taking seriously while also trying to convey truth without getting burned for it… and Dalrock didn’t see that.
@Fidelis @Pax Imperialis
Yep. I wouldn’t have linked this without the Court Documents as shown by the hyperlinks and tabs near the top. So I consider the allegations beyond reasonable doubt
“As for Doug performing his marriage… that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. I do not find fault in what Wilson did. I can elaborate if people want, but will cut it here if not.”
After what Sitler did it was unwise to contract a marriage afterwards. In addition the second link I provided had a dot point of claims each of which backed by a Court Document accessible by hyperlink.
In 2005 according to this court document:
http://sitler.moscowid.net/2015/12/17/idoc-to-judge-stegner/
He was diagnosed as a fixated pedophile. And other claims in this document in regards to his son.
The fact that he was introduced to a woman to marry in 2010 afterwards is egregious:
https://moscowid.net/2015/09/25/the-open-letter-part-6-the-arranged-marriage/
The hell are you talking about? Transing infants is so absurdly Jewish that it’s hard to even take a denial of that fact seriously.
Are you perhaps telling me that Dr. John Money and his fellow academics were controlled by Jewish mind rays emanated by Jews embedded in the walls?
Iranian state religion slaughtered these people
x.com/GivsonAlex/status/2027126137025917172
x.com/GivsonAlex/status/2027125834943807587
Jim, Alf
Put Me off moderation, please, I’m sick of being censored while being Transcedentally faultless, having done no wrongdoing, passing the shill tests as asked, committing crimethink & being amiable & respectful and even trying not to be too lexically innovative, diglossiac, hyperglossiac etc while also being sociolectically compliant while nontheless striving for sui generis, Hyperuranion, Aonian Transcendental literary excellence & Bardic/Philosophaster/Logico-Epistemologist/Musial/Poetological/Prosodic/Litteraria Infinitudes due to My Transcendent Sovran monarchal pride.
Jim, please, if you have any specific ordalian or even directive orders which if I accept then I’ll be put off moderation then go ahead.
I have repeatedly asked you to use regular English. “Transcendentally” has meaning, and you are not using it with that meaning. Also, you mispelled it. You are not allowed to make up your own meanings, still less are you allowed to make up your own spellings.
Rectification of names: In order to communicate, people have to agree to the meanings of words. Your ignorant illiterate gibberish undermines the ability of better informed and more widely read people to communicate.
Uncommon words are uncommon because they refer to uncommon and highly specific things. If you use uncommon words to talk vaguely about common things, you deprive everyone else of their ability to speak specifically about uncommon things.
Fine, I accept that, I’ll concede and do as you say.
Sorry about the misspelling, genuine mistake due to rapidity in typing.
Jim: “I have repeatedly asked you to use regular English.”
I accept that & would try to keep nonstandard terms at minimum from now on, being inordinate …
[*deleted for the use of nonstandard words, and for using those words in ways that are inconsistent with their usual meanings*]
Certainly you used considerably fewer non standard words, and about half of them were used in a way that arguably corresponded to their correct and normal meanings. But the other half clearly did not correspond to their correct meanings, which really pissed me off.
You complained about me abusing you. Well I guess I should not abuse you, sorry about that, but you keep using unusual words, and using them incorrectly, and I ask you to stop, and you just go on doing it, and this just pisses me off, and when I ask you again, and you just keep on doing it, I just keep getting more and more pissed off
Shakespeare’s Constable Dogberry is funny because written by Shakespeare. Sheridan’s Mrs. Malaprop is funny, because written by Sheridan. You are not funny.
“Please stop moderating me even though I am going to continue doing the exact same things you started moderating me for, including in this specific post asking to be taken off moderation.”
Well, at least he’s honest, but man, fuckin’ jeets.
While there are plenty of people I’m willing to defer to on Jim’s blog, such as Jim, Red, Mossadnik/Shaman, Cominator, Western Taliban, Oliver Cromwell, Samuel Skinner, Pseudo-Chrysostom, Pax Imperialis, Starman, Not Tom etc, you’re not one of those people, this dispute is between Me and Jim, your relationality to it being less than none.
I don’t know whom you are & you are certainly unfamiliar with Me, don’t understand what possesses you to interject in something that has nothing to do with you, thus far I’ve ignored every pronouncements & admonishements on this dispute from parties other than Jim.
In any case I’m on moderation & half My comments are deleted & so walking on a tightrope with the boundless deep abysswards beneath Me, it has also been high decreed that I entirely not use nonstandard words which greatly constrained Me.
I apologize for being dramatic, I truly know nothing about you & had nothing against you, but twice you’ve dared attack Me unprovoked.
Don’t incense Me to force Me to raise My hand against you, with these childish perjurious racial assessments, My potent arm levelled with deadly aim against your head which will surely make you taste eternal folly, eternal woe & pain aeviternally unending stretched in infinitudes, will cast you down to the realm of infelicity & omniexcluduntur death
Completely wrong use of aeviternally, inappropriate use of infelicity, and omniexcluduntur is just not a word.
Next time you do this, silent deletion. When Miss Malaprop does it, it is funny. When you do it, it grates.
“Omniexcluduntur” from Latin Omni + Excluduntur, [*deleted for all the usual reasons*]
“Omni Excluduntur” is not gramatically correct latin, the words do not belong together, and the most similar gramatically correctl latin phrase means something like “he is excluded from everything”, which has no resemblance to whatever it is you may have thought you were saying.
By using non words, and by using actual words in ways inconsistent with their meaning, you are pushing the postmodern worlview that reality does not exist, communication does not exist, there is only power.
No one wants to read this stuff. Which means that if I allow you to dump it all over my blog, no one will want to read my blog.
Maybe there is an audience for this somewhere. But I am definitely not in that audience. Your words grate on me.
[*Deleted under the walls of boring text in the moderation policy, for taking several screens to repetitiously say what can be said in six lines*] I have among the highest verbal IQs in the world,
[*Deleted for similar reasons.*]
I’m not a prescriptivist, I don’t have any critiques of prescriptivism but I don’t find that frame to be artistically satisfactory or transcendent,[*Deleted for similar reasons.*]
Your creative coinages are frequently painfully off key. As for example coining a word from irrelevant pig latin, which is going to grate on anyone that has faint knowledge of a few fragments of Latin. Therefore you don’t have a high verbal IQ. You have a lower verbal IQ than anyone who finds irrelevant pig Latin grating. You should have found some more relevant word from Latin to follow the “omni”, and used it the grammatically correct case..
If your text appears under someone else’s logo, in this case “Jim’s blog”, then whoever owns that logo has the job of editing. An editor has the job of prescribing. It is not an idiosyncratic preference, it is part of the job description. This is a place for communication, not artistic expression. You are not communicating. Publish under your own logo, or find someone who has a place for artistic expression and likes your artistry. I don’t like your artistry. I don’t want “transcendent” text. People who read this blog are not looking for “transcendent” text. Maybe some readers do like your “transcendent” text, but if they do, that is not what they are coming here for, just as they don’t go to Domino’s for sushi. Maybe you cook great sushi, but you are not going to get a job at a Domino’s. Maybe some Domino’s customers do like sushi, but that is not what they going to Domino’s for.
It comes across to me more as if the only notion he’s trying to communicate is that he’s a really special boy who uses lots of big words.
Just don’t talk bs man. Not that hard.
What a strange fetish. Wanting to talk like that
I repeat, Jim’s patience is legendary
Half of those aliases haven’t posted in, what, years? Convenient choices. And in spite of that, the name at the top of the list is Jim, and any trace of deference to him is only being done with extreme reluctance and very low effort, so I rate this statement “false”.
To reward you for your almost-readable English in this paragraph, I’ll explain it in simple terms for you: these comments form a public forum. Your dialogue, your dispute, is with anyone and everyone who reads and chooses to reply. Private one-on-one conversations are a benefit you get from friends and mentors. If you can’t tolerate being publicly criticized, don’t post in public spaces.
Really brings to mind what Bhandari wrote about the jeets a couple of years back: that all the sycophantic “kind sir” talk goes out the window the instant one of them perceives their own social status to be higher than yours, and then it’s all abuse, all the time. You’ve really laid bare the jeet psyche here: “these are the people who appear to be higher than me on the totem pole, if you’re not one of them then here, have a bowl of impotent threats”.
“My potent arm levelled with deadly aim against your head…”
This made me think of a moment in A Confederacy of Dunces in which the main character, Ignatius J. Reilly, tells someone to stop doing something “lest you feel the sting of the lash across your pitiful shoulders.”
[*deleted for the usual reasons*] contemptuous manner or breaks My heart & causes Me inward grief.
This was a huge improvement on your previous offerings, in that it contained no grating malapropisms. All your uncommon words were used in a manner appropriate to their normal meanings. But it was still prose poetry, rather than communication. And, I will say, this time not bad prose poetry at all. Better than I could do, though I am not interested in trying. But that is not what this blog is for. There is not a large market for prose poetry.
Sorry, was distracted & mentally fatigued to due excessive posting in rapidity.
OK, I understand your perspective, I will do as you wish, won’t use nonstandard words (or keep them to a minimum), won’t do ungrammatical conjugation, inflection, erroneous derivational morphemes etc, I should probably refine myself through the arts of Progymnasmata.
You don’t have to take Me off moderation, I’m probably too frantic, crazy & intemperate, temperamentally cruel & immature to be a regular commentator, just goes to show that I have am sure you’ll allow My messages if you judge them as befitting, just don’t do silent deletion.
Why is prose poetry not communication?
Let’s just agree to disagree on that, we have different views and there is an ingulft chasm between our perspectives and we’re miscommunicating due to our metaphysical, doxographical & aesthetic evaluations being alien to each other, perhaps this is literary pedantry from Me or I lack mental clarity.
you can check this stuff out if you want, I consider stuff like stuff like this the supreame form of symphonious & mellifluous, silver-tongued eloquence.
https://archive.org/details/englishprosepoet01manl
https://archive.org/details/oxfordbookofengl00oxfo/page/152/mode/1up https://archive.org/details/bellsedition00bellgoog
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.502967/page/n106/mode/1up
https://archive.org/details/completedictiona00hale/page/n12/mode/1up
I can ignore others if they stiff, derogate, disparage or decry Me, but For Me to be insulted by you is unsufferable, unendurable & intolerable precisely because you’re one of the few people in this world I look up to, truly respect & esteem, I’ll heed your will, but it causes Me unutterable misery if you condemn Me, I don’t know… I don’t know what I will do if you insulted Me again, I don’t have the heart to harm you or harbour enemity & wrath in My breast against you due to My immeasurable respect for you, I’ve been following you since 2018-19, & have recently been fortunate enough to read many of your earlier usenet posts, you clearly have an innate, all-superseding polymathic genius & u’re too important to resisting globohomo & the world-restoration of patriarchy, if dejected again, I will probably do self-mortification, circumfuse a circle of ferocious flames compassing Me and self-immolate in the blazing flames, the eternal course of the dire primal terror which being burned & falling into the bottomless pit of eternal, unquenchable wrath, will be much less miserable than the infinite unendurable, dispirited, overspread misery I’ll feel from being insulted by you again, take care.
well, I am letting this comment through, because it was very polite, and did not commit any of exasperating malapropisms that I was complaining about, and since you were clearly doing what I asked, would be unkind and unfair to block it.
I told you that sacrificing meaning for sound is a malapropism, and you refrained from doing it. So I kind of implicitly promised to let your stuff through if you refrained from malapropism. Oops.
But this is not a poetry blog. There is a place for choosing words and structuring sentences for sound value as well as meaning, and that place is poetry. This is a prose blog, and I was pissed because you were sacrificing meaning for sound. Which sacrifice is bad poetry. Poetry has to sound in ways that support the actual correct meaning of the words and symbols that it is using largely for their sound value. Has to have both sound value and meaning value.
But even if you are doing good prose poetry, this not a poetry blog. It is a political blog. which makes your stuff spam. And it is still spam, even when you are flattering me like a King, while using poetically chosen words in their correct meaning.
I should not be doing poetry critiques. But here we are.
And I suspect my audience would find poetic flaming much more fun than poetic flattery. Albeit your last poetic flame really pissed me off by malapropism and the audience gave it the thumbs down. It was not a hit. It seems my view of it was widely shared by the audience.
If I am going to have to reluctantly endure poetry recitals, I would prefer to see some good poetic flaming of our ideological opponents. I am sure my audience would prefer to see flaming than to see flattery of a King — I am not running for King, I am running for Grand Inquisitor.
Or you could try a poetic rendering of the red pill and game. In my game posts I complained that game is very hard to express in words. Maybe prose poetry can express meanings that that tend to slip away from words. But you would have to understand game at a level that words find hard to express, and I am not at all sure that you do. And it requires poetry more Kipling’s style — fewer polysyllables, for game is not intellectual at all, it is pre-rational and pre-verbal — though understanding it in the light of game theory and evolutionary psychology is highly intellectual, and obviously polysyllables are appropriate for its theoretical understanding. But the game theory and evolutionary psychology is only useful if you already know game at a pre-verbal and pre-rational level and are trying to understand what you know verbally and rationally.
If you can’t bedazzle ’em with brilliance, baffle ’em with bullshit.
Which is why Omnisuperessentialiter Gyalpo is on moderation and off the white list, despite passing the shill test. No matter what the moderation policy says, whatever drives my audience away is always a violation of the moderation policy. No concrete and explicit list can ever be complete.
On Heartiste’s blog there was a commenter “Great Books For Men”, who over many years posted vast amounts of silly nonsense. Why did he do this, and why did no one complain? Did you read his comments or just scroll past them?
Blog comment section acting is a tricky niche.
People actually enjoyed his posts. He was playing the role of court jester posting what looked like incoherent bullshit but was not. The gyalpo guy is just pure bullshit
Great Books for Men was a classic poster. Don’t get desouled by Bernanke butthex!
Whoa, why in the world would you bring me up, and since when have you deferred to me or any of the others you bring up?
Considering the number of times I’ve agreed with Scarebucks, this is especially funny.
@Scarebucks, lol, ain’t no way I’m typing out your full handle.
Faith as synthetic tribe is a necessary thing. However, a faith that cannot distinguish between what is essential and what is peripheral is a faith that will eventually consume itself. A religion must be clear enough to be grasped, definite enough to mean something, and confident enough in its core claims that it can tolerate disagreement on secondary matters. When every metaphysical refinement becomes a boundary marker of salvation, the center does not hold.
Much of the tragedy of Eastern Orthodoxy lay precisely here. Christians did not divide over whether Christ mattered. They divided over how to articulate, in increasingly technical philosophical language, the exact mechanics of His nature. Diphysitism versus Monophysitism. Monotheletism. Monoenergism. Iconodules against Iconoclasts. These were not denials of Christ, but disputes over conceptual precision—arguments that might have remained in the schools and monasteries. Instead, they became matters of anathema, exile, riot, and blood.
What was meant to unify believers instead fractured them. Bishops and emperors elevated abstract theological distinctions into tests of loyalty. Christians persecuted Christians over formulations that few farmers, soldiers, or merchants could even meaningfully comprehend. The artificial tribe—“Christendom”—shattered itself from within.
The consequences were not merely theological. A civilization that spends its strength fighting itself will not long resist external pressure. Egypt did not become Islamic in a vacuum. Centuries of Christian infighting left populations alienated from imperial orthodoxy and unwilling to rally behind it. When Islam arrived, it encountered not a coherent religious civilization, but one already exhausted and divided.
The irony is stark. The Gospel of John says: “For this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.” There is no commandment there about mastering the metaphysical relationship between Christ’s divine and human natures. No requirement to resolve the exact mechanics of wills and energies within the God-Man. The core proclamation is relational and moral, not scholastic.
The bishops were meant to guard unity and proclaim the central truth. Instead, too often, they pursued ever finer distinctions in the grand Hellenistic tradition—straining language to capture the infinite, then excommunicating those who differed by a syllable. In doing so, they transformed theological reflection into tribal warfare.
Had the emphasis remained on the teachings of Christ and His example, and His death and resurrection, much of this could have been avoided.
Precision has its place. But when precision becomes obsession, and obsession becomes division, a faith designed to bind men together can become an engine of fragmentation.
In some cases, perhaps in a lot of cases. But in a lot of cases they were responding to tribal warfare by clarifying doctrine.
A lot of overcomplicated doctrine is a reaction to heretics engaged in hostile entryism.
The thirty nine articles did not cause years of terrible and bloody warfare. It was a response to and a result of years of terrible and bloody warfare.
Feeds from the other side
x.com/PahlaviReza/status/2027409016129810480
x.com/PahlaviReza/status/2027445822384685058
Iran National Revolution TV SD 10762 Vertical 27500 2/3
https://xcancel.com/SecWar/status/2027474502876070386
(accompanied by video speech).
Is it time to seize the endowments? We have bombers in Iran, but all I really want is tanks in Harvard Yard! Supreme Holy Crusader Hegseth please 🙏
Two small steps towards tanks in Harvard:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7ZLG0hiVhU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U66mrcRyU9Y
One of my regular lines is that fighting men must be on top in the military, and the logistics workers should be lower status, should be defined as camp followers and second class to warriors.
Pete Hegseth has made a good start on that https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9s0kjXIyULQ
The stakes in elections have gone too high for democracy. Loser gets eliminated. It looks like Trump has an executive order in his pocket for the mid terms, turning off the voting machines, stopping the mail in votes, and requiring voter id.
Will he dare use it? Will the US army obey him if he does use it?
“Oh no,” the Democrats will cry, “Trump is violating the constitution.” Which of course he will be, if one thinks the constitution is whatever judges say it is.
[*deleted for presupposing that Hegseth, and presumably everyone, agrees that academic degrees are “merit”, and for a dozen similarly egregiously unreal claims about what conservatives believe and how conservatives behave. Social Justice warriors always project.*]
You are entitled to your own views, though because you have never taken the shill test, you are not entitled to present them here. You are not entitled to your own reality. Not here, and not anywhere. Such behavior is deranged and repugnant, and remains deranged and repugnant even in places where the social environment, being itself deranged and repugnant, encourages it.
Ironically, the word “evangelical” has largely been taken back, by Christians who refuse to be part of the leftoid apostasy of the rainbow-flagged liturgical theater of mainline protestants.
The episcopal and presbyterian “churches” lost communion with Christ a long time ago.
Not all of them, and not every priest or pastor. The largest survivor surviving as an institution, rather than as a tiny handful of faithful priests struggling to continue in a hostile institution, is the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion). And you will notice that the normal negrolatory we see in the rest of the Episcopalian Churches does not extend to the Church of Nigeria.
Christianity survives in the West as mustard seed, and some of those mustard seeds are in the Episcopalian and Presbyterian Churches. Not a totally lost cause. Whereas proposals to revive paganism are a totally lost cause. Paganism died in the Roman Empire before Christianity took over. Live paganism subsequently invaded and conquered Britain, but it died before Alfred reChristianized Britain.
Given the extravagantly evil history of “Evangelicals” I am automatically suspicious of anyone who wants to take back that poisoned word. Kind of like anyone who claims to be a “liberal”.
I arguably am a “classic liberal”, being in favor of markets and modern capitalism (meaning seventeenth century corporate capitalism based on sixteenth century accounting, as distinct from postmodern capitalism and postmodern accounting), but historically the “classic liberals” made a united front with the left, and got eaten by their partners, who proceeded to wear “liberal” as a skinsuit. And people wearing the “Evangelical” skinsuit did enormous damage during the nineteenth century.
You might truthfully say they were not real Evangelicals, and today’s liberals who want to debank, demonetize, deplatform, and cancel anyone to the right of Pol Pot are not real liberals, and they obviously are not, but who cares? No one who really is a classic liberal goes around calling himself a classic liberal, because of what people wearing the liberal skinsuit have done and continue to do.
The difference between postmodern accounting and modern accounting is that in modern accounting, equity goes into the equity column, assets go into the asset column, and liabilities go into the liability column.
I suspect that “evangelical” is used by spiritually damaged but alive people who can smell the sulfur of “protestantism”, but haven’t found their way back to the Church yet. A serious evangelical will call himself “little c Catholic” or “little o Orthodox” within a decade, and then will convert a decade after that. Late stage mass media is pulling them back from the abyss. Memes and trolls reach out to them the way stiff old conservative university professors can’t. And the professors rely heavily on tradition and cultural momentum alone, a very bad strategy when the birth rate doesn’t back it up.
The early evangelicals practiced usury and divorce. 19th century evangelicals were liberating slaves. I attribute this to the 19th century being a phenomenal time for everyone. But now the tide is out and we can see who is naked.
You always need an autocephalous national Church, though ideally it should be in communion with other similar autocephalous Churches. The trouble with Roman Catholicism, and to a considerably lesser extent Orthodoxy, is its Ultramontanist tendencies. An ultramontanist Church is dangerously independent of warrior authority, and thus always ends up holiness spiraling, or run by faggots, and usually both.
The Ayatollah is apparently dead.
Did something happen?
Hes definitely dead lol he got taken out in a decapitation strike with most of the political leadership and their entire top military leadership.
Wasn’t generally in favor of an Iran strike but Trump rolled a hard point and may come out smelling like a rose.
Iran’s entire military is designed to strike stationary targets in Israel, not carrier groups, and SEAD has proven capable at allowing US planes to fly with impunity. If Israel soaks up two thousand missile strikes, that’s a sacrifice I’m willing to make for American interests. Even if US fails in regime change, this will fuck with the Chinese and the European oil supply. It makes the Chinese weaker, and the Europeans more likely to have their own regime change. I think this is a positive.
> Irans entire military is designed to hit stationary targets in Israel
Wow so you’re saying the mullahs were really fucking retarded.
I don’t buy the rational of fucking up China’s oil supply I think it was Trump rolling the dice on strenghening his hand back home, rolling over Cuba next (I honestly thought Cuba was next after Venezuala and this Iran talk was a distraction) maybe without firing a shot as I believe the people who are the most terrified after Iran are the people at the top of the Cuban government right now, and getting rid of a local troublemaker in the Middle East.
You may well be right, but the Chinese definitely do buy that rationale.
I have a hard time not believing that rational was a factor. This is the second time a major exporter of oil to China just got an American intervention. Trump was pretty clear about Venezuelan oil. It goes to American friendly markets and not Chinese. Hard to see a similar deal not being hashed out with a new Iranian regime. Both Iran and Venezuela accounted for 20% of Chinese oil imports that are now gone. Sure, they can import more from Russia, but that gives the Russians even greater leverage and the two have historically not exactly gotten along all that great.
@TC
It’s not that they’re stupid, but targeting systems are hard to make and we are simply decades ahead of them. Terminal guidance systems are a highly guarded classified secret. Their newer missiles are actually quite advanced, hitting within 10s of meters. Not many non-Western nations can boast of such accuracy. However, many of their missiles are originally GPS guided, although they have been switching over to China’s version of GPS. That technology is fairly susceptible to electronic warfare.
What they would need to hit US warships is an active guidance system, which typically uses radar or a combination of various other sensors. Most of their advanced radar systems are Russian imports, this points to a lack of ability to build their own. If you can’t build your own radar, chances are you also can’t build active guidance systems for missiles. The result is that Iran can only really hit stationary targets with their missiles, which is what we’ve been seeing. They do have some anti-ship missile which use radar systems, but so far haven’t been hitting anything that has countermeasures.
There has been some massive damage to US bases in the region (we lost the AN/FPS-132 Radar in Qatar), but that doesn’t exactly deter carrier groups. Also, there isn’t much strategic value in hitting those bases as the vast majority of US assets being used to pummel Iran are on ships. The destruction of the radar in Qatar mostly means hitting stationary land targets in Gulf states or Israel becomes much easier. The only high value military targets they can hit are in Israel. (I’m more than happy for them to soak up Iran’s missile, a sacrifice I’m willing to make)
Worse for them, they managed to hit civilian buildings in a variety of Arab states which they’ve effectively been waging war against for a very long time. There’s the possibility we’re going to a pile on effect. If that happened, and they are particularly spiteful, they could target refineries, but that would certainly risk Arab demands for total capitulation. The Saudi’s actually have a somewhat modern air-force unlike Iran. As soon as US fully dismantles Iranian anti-air capabilities, even the Saudi’s could start bombing Iran with impunity. That’s a pretty grim state of affairs for Iran.
What could prove dangerous for the US are Iranian drones combined with with anti ship missles. In theory with a swarm attack, with human guidance, they could hit US ships, but SIGINT would pick that up pretty fast and counter measures would be employed, and the US had the initiative in dismantling much of their C5. It’s going to be difficult for them to do that.
If you don’t like what someone is doing then you kill them. Assassination is always the most parsimonious form of warfare, and so on by degrees of continuum.
That aside, this all smacks of neocon wormtongues in his ear finally bending him their way though. Who cares if Iran has nukes? Bad people up to bad things, generally.
First the pagers, then Maduro, now Khomeini… The recent levels of information era warfare have truly been through the roof. The Russians could learn a thing or two.
As for the neocon angle… Yes, scary. But every single time in these situations Trump has so far conjured a rabbit out of his MAGA cap. So… Let’s hope he repeats that trick.
What are the opinions on Iran lashing out at literally all of its neighbors? Desperation? Prelude to launching nukes?
Beheading strike, headless chicken running in circles.
Everyone tends to over ascribe rational goal oriented action to collective entitites. It is hard enough to accomplish collective rationality when no one is blowing up your leadership, headquarters, and communication apparatus.
Given what we know of Trump and how he operates, my hope and educated guess, though it is far from being anything remotely provable, would be that he expects this one move to secure long-term or permanent support from the neocon factions. Deal done, favors owed (or debts paid), and if we’re all very lucky the deal includes them taking their grubby little mitts out of Russia/Ukraine and keeping them out.
It is the most optimistic possible explanation, but it is a possible explanation. We will have to see if there continues to be warmongering in the region or if this is effectively closing the book on it.
Lol. Give the other party everything they want right now, irrevocably, and in exchange get vague assurances that they might give you some of the stuff you want later, maybe. The Art of the Deal, ladies and gentlemen.
Of course you would frame it that way, because you always frame it that way, despite having no knowledge whatsoever about the structure of any hypothetical deal or what conditions are included to mitigate the counterparty risk.
Most high-stakes deals are going to involve a carrot and a stick, and if this was part of a deal (which again, don’t know for certain it was) then obviously this was the carrot, and for all we know, the counterparty already fulfilled its side of the obligations.
Every time Trump makes a deal, you are sure it is a bad deal and that Trump is going to lose because of all his bad deals, and every time, Trump somehow, inexplicably ends up winning, with the deal somehow, inexplicably turning out in his favor. Curious, that. Almost as if Trump has a strategy and talent for not only negotiating to his own favor, but making his adversaries and critics think that they made out like bandits in the process.
But it’s not as if he has a reputation for that sort of thing, or wrote a whole book about it. I’m sure he’s just a big losing loser who’s going to keep on losing, and if you keep making the same prediction every time for hundreds of iterations, then one of those times you’re bound to eventually be right, and then you’ll be vindicated.
Seriously, though: you might find it distasteful or confusing, but the “favor economy” is how politics works in clannish, medium-trust, Mafia-style organizations, and is a far better model than either the mythical Rule of Law or clownish shit-flinging nihilism.
If Donny’s such a winner, where’s the wall?
We had net negative migration, and it’s accelerating. It turns out enforcing the law is stronger than any wall.
Get real. Net outmigration is a minuscule fraction of even just the illegal immigration under 4 years of a Dem administration, and even that small win will be entirely swept away and wiped out in the first 6 months of the next one. Too little, too late. The Great Orange Boomer was America’s last chance, and he flubbed it twice. His greatest accomplishment is making sure Israel can wring one last idiotic counterproductive war out of us. And the Jews and neocons still despise him.
Typical, you move the goal posts. There are legitimate reasons for being rather pessimistic, but if you’re going allow pessimism color your arguments to the point of being disconnected from reality, there’s not point in conversation.
I didn’t move the goalposts. I asked about the wall. There is no wall. You said the wall doesn’t matter because we supposedly have a tiny bit of net outmigration for the moment.
Trump is a loser who craves his enemies’ approval more than anything, just like every American conservative for the past 80 years. His innovation was pretending he doesn’t in mean tweets and speeches, trick he learned as a WWF heel. He obviously thinks he’s playing the ethnic mafia machine-politics favor-bank game, as Daddy Scarebucks said, but it’s equally obvious they don’t recognize him as a player and don’t honor their deals with him, and no matter how many times they rug pull him, he keeps coming back for more. His brain is fully mineralized, and he’s been unable to assimilate new information for 10-20 years.
Thirty miles have been built since Trump was elected, eighty miles are under construction. Three hundred miles have been contracted, meaning actual builders have a contract in hand to actually build it and be paid for building it. Twelve hundred miles are planned and budgeted, and theoretically scheduled for completion before the 2028 election, but the process is being slow walked by an obstructive bureaucracy, with the result that people are starting to doubt.
You doubt. It is reasonable to doubt, but it is not yet obvious that you are correct. It is not over yet — that any at all has been built indicates the bureaucratic delaying tactics are being overcome.
Grok is optimistic:
“I didn’t move the goalposts. I asked about [something entirely unrelated to the discussion that no one is overly concerned with at the moment] [without addressing anything that was previously said].”
Literally the definition of moving the goalposts.
It’s just the contextual equivalent of “if you’re so smart, how come you’re not a billionaire?” Says nothing, proves nothing, serves only to deflect from a weak argument.
The wall is not unrelated at all. It was Donald’s signature promise, and then, for all his supposedly skilled deal-making, he completely failed to deliver, despite his party controlling the Presidency, both houses of Congress, and the Supreme Court. The swamp creatures have been running circles around him for 10 years now, often by promising vague future compromises that never materialize in exchange for concrete concessions right now. And he keeps falling for it.
“As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man—
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began:—
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;”
Nobody has brought up the subject here for months. It has not been in the news. It was just a random thing you dug up from memory in support of Orange Man Bad.
…in 2016. Not the platform he ran on in 2024. As you yourself couldn’t resist pointing out, the Biden regime brought in millions more all at once, an unprecedented number. A wall is just a tool to slow the influx, and will not reduce the number already in the country. The 2024 regime has actually found ways to reduce the number.
“But but but it’s still less than what Biden brought in!” Boring, predictable, tiresome, moving the goalposts, fuck off. You posture as though nothing is good enough for you, which would be a toothache in and of itself, but it’s now obvious that it’s just cover for a real agenda of Orange Man Bad, Republicans Bad, Right Wing Bad, nothing ever changes so just stay in your box and eat the bugs and watch porn.
…you mean, including the 4 years of the Biden regime, during which he was supposed to do… what exactly? Ridiculous.
They swamp creatures wanted him in jail, or dead. Instead, he is President again, and has done more damage to the swamp in one year than during his entire first term. Our boy winning, your genderfluids losing. Deal with it.
In Biden’s term, we found out that The Wall is not relevant because Democrats will just knock it down and sell it for scrap as soon as they get into office. Or install a large gate in The Wall and wave millions of browns into the country through the gate.
He will have to limit immigation in other ways.
Everyone step back a moment and think.
Every serious and successful political organization has what Nietzche would call “The Will to Power”. Is there a collective white race will to power; no. Is there a collective normiecon will to power; no. There is perhaps a will to power among the Thiel/Vance faction of the Trump administration.
The NDSAP coming to power not because of their racial platform or something but because they had a united goal of “Hitler over Germany”. The communist wanted to rule too but the establishment considering them a greater evil put Hitler in some power whereby the Nazis having the will to power very quickly took it all.
It’s the God, King, Nation triptych, as it always is. The faith being an mostly-incoherent mix of philosophy, made actionable by a tight ‘priesthood’ of high bureaucrats/party members. The king, party leader, Hitler. The nation was the german people, identified in various lenses.
The map can be state backed Christianity, hot wartime leader of the anti-woke coalition, and a hub and spoke group of people with the Amerikaaner at core. You can tell the Amerikaaner he is fighting for his people, who are white, but also specifically from certain nations in Europe, and historically lived in particular American states, with a particular set of folkways, and his faith, and his wife and property. You can tell the latino that fights he is fighting for God and the rights to land and property and priviledge in the Amerikaaner nation. Asians that will fight are largely married in to the Amerikaaner. Blacks largely useless.
The coalition is, who supports the King. The king filters ingroup and outgroup through lens of adherence to faith. The men fighting have a coherent reward of private property and the right to exist as a people with a definitive boundary on heritage and folkways.
I am pushing biology because it comes with a coherent boundary condition. Who is already here. It also comes with coherent folkways. It also allows us to frame what patriarchy is when it comes to coordination at a subnational scale.
A coherent moral framework extends outward from the individual, while allowing for outgrouping defectors.
And im telling you your politics to be successful must be organized around as pure a will to power as possible which is why leftism particularly once it broke its FDR iq caste system containment very soon after the JFK assassination has been with a few occasional setbacks ever victorious.
Trying to meme white politics into being almost ex nihilio is going to fail. Youre better off trying to start a racially religion organized around the cult leader principle roughly along the lines of what the Mormons used to be. Joseph Smith if he avoided a few mistakes might have ended up king of America (for a long time had the largest standing army in the country).
Did you read my post? I accounted for this, and made it explicit what the actual map looks like.
Look at that man Trump honored for the Maduro raid. He is an Amerikaaner. He fights for America the nation, not the state but the nation, and he does so by following the orders from Trump. Why did he follow those orders? We have to provide a philosophy that gives these men a reason to follow the orders to expell leftist degenerates, tells them what their nation *is*, what they are fighting for. The man of will is animated by the ghost, spirit, of faith in *something*. He gives orders to his men on the grounds that they are aligned on this spirit.
Amerikaaner needs someone to tell them they have a nation, that they are fighting for a nation. Fuentes is telling them they are fighting for a catholic squatemalan biomass, but hey at least you’ll own your wife. We should tell them they are fighting for their extended kin, for the Good and True God, and for property rights in wife and land.
We should certainly say that America is a people not a set of ideas. But going any further than saying America is a people not a set of ideas is going to be more problem than solution.
Perhaps not a necessity, the first step is the martial coalition. At some level, we need a solid bounds check, so we can expel the ethnic litter, and form deeper networks of coordination. This can be someone assigned to the job. I vote Miller for determining who is and is not biological ingroup.
But yes, my point is that we need to tell them *we are a people*, a people have shared folkways, biology, and faith. We are not building a foreign legion.
And Yarvin for all his faults has been correctly repeating this point that opposition to leftism cannot in the long term succeed really without developing its own will to power.
Gorgo, wife of King Leonidas of Sparta, said “We are the only women who are mothers of men”. Same with white women.
White men are the enemy; white women are the booty.
Christianity has a history of reclaiming hearts. Those AWFULs that are still breedable need to be reclaimed. Their genes are too valuable to our enemies.
God divided the nations at the Tower of Babel. He will assist in keeping them that way.
Don’t vote for your enemies. Only vote for Christian men married with children. They are the only ones with future orientation.
Jim just checking everything is good with you since I think you spend time in Dubai sometimes?
I am fine.
The official unofficial state religion is, you must love israel and all they do, or else. Penalties range from censorship, loss of work, lawsuits, humiliation, bank access, even death.
You can insult a negro, leftist, even a king, but you must never insult israel.
Humungus knows the rules and can’t be fooled.
This might have been true a little while ago, it is no longer true because there are many many many people who won’t shutup about Israel.
The way I see it is Trump not willing to cross the Rubicon has three sort of lobbies he can deal with to govern, the atlanticist lobby (they want war with Russia), the open borders lobby, and the Israel lobby. To me and to Trump its obvious its far better to deal with them rather than the other two.
Where Humungus to side with israel, what am I to gain?
No comment? I thought so. Humungus has nothing to gain by siding with israel and everything to lose.
“We have faction X, Y, and Z, so we must choose.”
No! Humungus does not choose out of fear. There must be something in it for Humungus to gain!
You fail to respond to your interlocutor. Humungus’ response stands!
> Iran
Context: 1400 years of Invasion, Conquest, Slaughter, Rape, Theft, Enslavement, Subjugation, Forced Conversion…
With these last decades now being a repeat of Islam’s first massive invasion of Europe/UK and now USA too, this time with abundant help from your Politicians and Globalists.
The war should be against them.
However disallowing Islam Nuclear Weapons/Umbrella, and applying various other forms of suppression, necessarily buys time needed to organize and effect the war on the Pol-Globos.
You’re perma-fucked if you allow Islam a Nuclear Umbrella under which to continue and expand its Distributed Conquest of the West.
And perma-fucked if you don’t get the Pol-Globos out of power.
Having to do both is hard, but winnable.
White Christian Men made a lot of children and did it during the First Crusade.
And are doing it again 🙂
> Shouting 14/88
Without context is kinda lame, but as it’s obscure/banned, usage tends to show at least some reading of one of the problem spaces and one of its corresponding solution spaces. You ask 1000 people on the street what that is and you get like 3 responses, the rest think it’s Christopher Columbus.
Whould you rather people shout Trannyism, Free Palestine, Vote Kamala, Abort White Babies, and WhatAboutThe 6M Dead Jews?
Amelia would sneer at you, and Rupert Lowe is going to stuff you on the next boat out. The Jews and the Ukrainians can take care of their own damned problems.
The Iranians want nuclear weapons primarily because they suspect Israel has nuclear weapons. If they wind up nuking each other, two of our problems will have just solved each other.
Jim:
It was a fun move for the cheugy EU propagandists to make Amelia a purple-haired White girl. They were all like: Her vibe hits like “anti-racist ally,” but watch out cuz that drip is cap and she’s really a racist xenophobe! That was a major L though because she’s actually a lit snack with black cat energy and now she’s fam to all the voiceless Brits. This is a canon event and all the basic long house Karens are salty and shooketh about it. I’m dead over this meme.
Funny thing is there are plenty of Amelias IRL — in the coffee shops, at the checkout, in church, everywhere. This old gruzz will get to talking with someone and suddenly BAM it’s like one of those quick-cut meme explosions and I’m thinking this person is fire! Sometimes I’m cooked with this world but I stan the Gen Z who are on fleek and doing it for the plot.
Oh it looks like you are censoring me again Jim. You threatened to censor me a few days ago and I didn’t say anything else at that time – and you censored me anyway. So you lied. Yet again.
I stated legitimate reasons for moderating you, and told you what to do to avoid being moderated. You did not respond, so, I put you on moderation.
Vox Day has a missile attrition analysis on his blog today. Looks pretty bad for Operation Epstein Fury. Obviously the West is not structured for attrition warfare.
https://voxday.net/2026/03/02/the-exhaustion-timeline/
“Operation Epstein fury”
Very low IQ thing to say. Epstein files were no pizzagate. Just an ordinary honeypot with barely legal girls.
From VD “analysis”
“This is exactly the scenario analysts warned about. If Iranian forces sustain high-volume launches”
And how would they be able to do that? Iran is firing massive amounts of missles to hit what few targets for moderate damage they have (the weirdest thing in the operation was somehow in one sector in Kuwait 3 F15s got shot down despite no aircraft losses anywhere else and I’ve heard no good explanation of why that is) and they would run out.
Now obviously if China were attacking Taiwan the attrition calculus would be on Chinas side given their enormous industrial capacity to produce probably hundreds of missles a day but with Iran they’re likely to exhaust their stockpile before we run out of missle defenses…
Didn’t make up the name. What it’s being called on X. Allegedly to redirect public attention from the Epstein investigation.
Yes we can never forget the six gorillion killed on Epstein island…
The most amusing revelation so far from the Epstein files is Bill Gates catching VD from some Slavic thot and trying to hide it from his wife. That and Trump calling law enforcement on Epstein many, many moons ago. The hunt to find dirt on Trump has backfired bigly.
If he’s not implicated, why did Trump back off on releasing the Epstein files? If it’s such a win, wouldn’t the great dealmaker jump on it?
Because you touch yourself at night.
At least I’m not touching kids on Pedo Island. Unlike your guy.
Stop being a fucking retard Trump was never there and none were below 14 at the time anyway.
Its not like Pizzagate which really was a rabbit hole of pure evil of the kind I didn’t think existed… Epsten was just honeypot bullshit.
Because a whole lot of people whose support he needs are in them.
We know what women Trump finds appealling. He likes them nearer to maximum fertility window that maximum lifetime expected fertility window.
This, plus all that gold, is another indicator of his status insecurity which so irritates the upper crust. The higher someone’s self perceived status, the more he prefers women with maximum expected lifetime fertility over maximum current fertility.
So a healthy normal straight and secure member of the upper crust is going to prefer what Epstein was supplying. Trump feels he is faking it, which is why he is so much a poor man’s idea of a rich man — flying palace, gold plated toilets. And women near age of maximum fertility — what rap musicians consider hot.
He did not want what Epstein was supplying, so he set up his own supply chain, the Miss America pageant. He had his own supply chain, supplying his own preference. What use did he have for Epstein’s services?
>https://www.npr.org/2020/01/16/797011139/u-s-virgin-islands-officials-epstein-trafficked-girls-on-private-island-until-20
The girls were as young as 11, not 14, and that’s the ones we know of. If you don’t think they were going younger, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. The transgression is the point.
Trump was good buddies with Epstein, flew on the Lolita Express regularly. We don’t have documentation that he set foot on Little St. James specifically (you’re retarded if your presumption is that he never did, though), but he was inarguably a fixture of the Epstein circle, and they got up to some very questionable things sexually and monetarily together. The material we got is woefully incomplete, and we’re never going to see the really damning stuff. You know who does have the really damning stuff? Israel.
Another Pizzagate is exactly what this is; you can’t face it because, in the words of Christine Pelosi, one of your faves is implicated. Read Anarchonomicon on Epstein. There’s a link to his substack right there on Jim’s blogroll. Darryl Cooper has a dynamite podcast on the issue too, if you want to multitask.
Epstein was pimp and procurer, and it is probable he procured victims for child sex and child sacrifice. But most of his customers were not interested in that stuff, they wanted very young fertile age women, Epstein was not himself interested in that stuff, her also wanted very young fertile age women, and Trump was not even interested in very young fertile age women. He had his own supply chain, and we know what it was delivering.
Yes, because of Trump’s status insecurity, he buddied up with lots of hyper decadent members of the upper crust, among them Hillary Clinton, who he have reason to suspect was involved in child sacrifice. But he sure did not like Hillary Clinton.
Have you ever seen Training Day, Jim? When the dirty cops offer you some of their dirty money, you take it, even if you don’t really need it, because they need to know that you’re all in it together.
Trump correctly suspected that Epstein was a blackmailer, so that is an offer he could refuse. Epstein wanted to be buddies with Trump, but Trump did not want to be buddies with Epstein.
Nyet. Epstein wanted to be buddies with Trump, but Trump didn’t like the man and liked his witch Maxwell even less. You need a source other than Reddit, my friend.
Yes, Contaminated Neet has obviously been reading Reddit.
Neet, nothing you read on Reddit is true. If anyone on Reddit was to inadvertently speak the truth about anything, he would be instabanned.
“I’ve known Jeff for 15 years. Terrific guy. He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said
that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.” Yeah, sounds like Donny really couldn’t stand that creep, Epstein.
Anyway, nobody has addressed my original question: why did Trump reverse course on releasing the files? I can see three possible answers, all of them atrocious:
1) Trump was personally implicated.
2) Trump was loyal to traitors, robbers, spies, pervs, rapists, and murderers who were implicated, and was willing to pay a significant political cost to shield them. This hypothetical loyalty was not and will never be reciprocated, by the way.
3) Trump is too retarded and senile to understand what a pointless blunder flipping on this would be.
So, believers in the deal-maker, I ask you: why did he reverse himself on releasing the Epstein files?
If I have blackmail files why would I ever want to release them (especially over a who gives a shit issue like fucking post pubescent teenage girls)? I think he was blindsided by Thomas Massie working with Democrats and RINOs to force a release (and Democrats willing to burn some of their own).
It’s not Reddit, Jim. It’s Anarchonomicon. From your own blogroll.
Catgirl Kulak wants to inspire idiots to right wing violence against the US government and doesn’t care if its based on a lie in this case (surprised hasn’t been picked up yet). She (He) doesn’t actually believe what they are selling you in this case.
Shill confirmed.
I mean, we were leaning that way for a while, but this clinches it, no more plausible deniability.
Who here (other than NEET) is able to correctly identify who Epstein and Maxwell worked for?
Who has the blackmail on our politicians?
Are you guys even able to say it?
No doubt you wish us to say the Mossad and given Epstein’s links to Ehud Barak (Mossad but no friend of Netanyahu btw) probably true. But Mossad couldn’t operate on US soil alone. Epstein was likely a joint FBI & Mossad operation.
The Washington post is tweaked by the term!
https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen/status/2031454389303411182
The wicked flee when no man pursueth.
“Epstein Fury” is a leftist meme saying that Trump started this war to distract the press and the populace from his unimaginably depraved sex crimes on Little St. James. Jews are taking it to mean that Trump started this war because Israel is blackmailing him with the evidence of his unimaginably depraved sex crimes on Little St. James, obtained by Our Man in America, Jeffrey Epstein. Hmmmm…
That is a big if. Obviously, Trump’s planners figured that the Iranians cannot sustain high volume launches. On the other hand, the neocons incorrectly figured that Russia could not sustain high artillery consumption and tank losses. We shall very soon discover if Trump has better men than they did.
America and Israel have air superiority, so they can see any place that drones and missiles come from and blow it up — so the Iranians are probably shooting off their stuff on a use it or lose it basis.
Iran isn’t Russia and I think basically it has to import missles or at least a lot components to assemble missles from elsewhere. Obviously it cannot sustain this kind of missle barrage. Otoh if we were fighting china it would be bad the missle volume would be 10x this and they absolutely could sustain it and probably have much greater accuracy too. Any navy attempting to defend Taiwan would quickly be at the bottom of South China sea.
The surprising thing given the country is leadership is that regional commanders have full strategic launch authority over their whole missle stockpile.
Epstein didn’t like Trump from after the time he got booted from Mar a Lago at least thats well established.
If another pizzagate why living “victims”. Where is this 11 year old victim at the time? Produce the witness or at least produce a missing persons report? Also everyone who thinks this is another pizzagate is fucking retarded with the one exception of Jay Dyer but while Jay’s a smart guy he deep dives into retarded rabbit holes for a long time sometimes before he admits he was wrong (remember he was a tradcath at one point).
Yes I agree. I’ve said over and over and over and over that I agree.
The formula is white plus Christian plus king. White means “American,” and I’m merely pointing out the truth on this. Every common usage of the word white maps right bang on to the original Hajnalian/North Sea/Blue Banana founding ethnicity of America. Find me a common use where it doesn’t. Find me a common use of white to refer explicitly to someone that is far from this bio-cultural center, that cannot immediately be mocked. Russians and slavs are routinely considered ‘off-white’ and this is why. Irish, despite their closeness, have been considered ‘not fully white’ and this is why. Whiteness is ‘how well does this map to the ethnicity of the founding American group.’ When they talk about whiteness in Europe it is a loanword. They are borrowing the term, like they do everything else, because America is the Empire and Imperial core.
You go on and on beating strawmen. You are arguing with some drooling fed nazi in your head, not me. My position is Christian Nationalism, and the nation is white. White means American, and I’m pointing this out as a fact of the usage of the word.
This is a strange way to characterize a discussion where two people agree on many points. Show me where I’ve misrepresented your position?
Yes, that much is clear, and has been clear. “The nation is white” as stated is a little ambiguous here. I notice you didn’t capitalize “White” this time, so it might mean “the nation, however it is defined, is going to consist of predominantly white people”, in which case, there’s no bone of contention. On the other hand, it might be interpreted to mean “the national identity is whiteness, and just happens to be Christian-flavored”, in which case, there is a pretty big problem.
To word it in the same format you did: My position is Christian Nationalism, and the nation is American. American means generally white, and the exceptions are generally pretty obvious.
If white means American then we should say American, because everybody gets that. Just look at the pseudonyms and blog names in the dissident right sphere and on Jim’s blogroll: American Digest. Normal American. Amerika. American Renaissance. Everybody is using the term America[n], where whiteness is implied; no one (except on the left) is using the term White, where American is implied.
We are obviously talking about the same construct, or a very similar construct. I have never tried to represent your position as that of a drooling fed nazi. Really, I don’t think we even need to be arguing, and I think this tangent started because you incorrectly portrayed Jim’s position (which is not exactly identical to mine, but close enough that I am going to defend it) as colorblind universalism and made a very elaborate argument against colorblind universalism when it is obviously not colorblind universalism, and is in fact very close to what you want.
The entire argument consists of nitpicking over names, but unfortunately names do matter, especially when some of the definitions are controlled by our enemies.
Jim’s position is in fact colorblind universalism, not elaborated upon in detail here but it was last year when this same topic came up. His position is that it is entirely faith and martial organization, and the biology is mostly meaningless.
This is his position because the model he uses for the formation of the Aryan/Yamnaya/proto-Aryan people is a cross-racial mixing event of the neolithic farmer meeting siberian herder.
He elaborates this by using the examples of Rome’s founding, set of martial bandit-like tribes, and the example of Neo-Assyria rabidly assimilating all the elites it can from foreign cities.
Liar.
No point in diacussing anything with you if you knee jerk respond to fractions of my posts.
Did you or did you not argue that biology makes little to no difference, using the Aryan/pre-Aryan forging event, the Roman forging event, and the behavior of the Neo-Assyrian empire as your prime examples? Do I have to search through comments from ~2 years ago? I remember this strongly.
Why are you trying to make trouble splitting hairs over an issue that has long been considered solved here. Does this talk help or dilute our will to power? Er yes I want power to crush the left but we must also agree that we need to reenact the policy of the 3rd Reich in regard to the jews, er yes I want to crush the left but we need to talk about ingrouping white leftists because they are white. JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP!
No, we need to talk about outgrouping Indians because they are not white, and ingrouping converso jews, because they are white.
No they are not. They look fairly white, but their psychology is alien. Sure, converso Jews can be Amerikaaners, which is more important than being white, but they are quite noticeably alien.
Im the most anti Indian and probably least anti semitic guy here. I’ve long said Indians cant be allowed other than extremely small numbers out of the subcontinent at all..
Not sure what youre trying to achieve here my position on right wing jews is they can stay they can own property but for our protection and theirs best keep them away from the government.
I’m trying to achieve an accurate semantic map, and strengthen the position that a state church pf Christian Nationalism is not civic nationalism, cannot be civic nationalism. That nations are natal and coordinate best as extended kin networks. That if we ingroup the various ethnic litter here we will have constant ethnic conflict, just like Singapore, and a failing civilizational core. That the real project here is ethnogenesis, as the American ethnicity lost its self-awareness via lack of state faith and elite infighting, inversioned state faith really, and that victory means not just Throne and Altar, but God, King, and Nation.
As a sperg im innately sympathetic towards calls for explicitness over ambiguity but it cant and shouldn’t always be done. As the Romans said about Roman law some of our laws are written and some are unwritten.
Racial others who show more friendliness to whites and right wing causes will be treated as allies (hispanics in Florida and Texas for instance) will be treated as allies and with genetics we will try to solve their deficiencies, Indians otoh will definitely be treated as enemies.
Okay, I am giving a semantic map and pragmatic ‘doctrine’ that allows you to make these decisions without problems of unprincipled exceptions. Right now we have a lot of Indians with power as middleman minorities, and this is going to have to be dealt with. You can’t Civic Nationalism your way out of this. If the Christian Nationalism is entirely untied to ethnic concerns, it is blind to this problem.
You still have not committed a thought crime. If your next comment does not lead with a thought crime that would cause you to lose your job if employed by Soros, you are going on moderation.
It varies greatly from jew to jew.
“Unprincipled exceptions”
Won’t be unprincipled in any regime resembling ours because we reject enlightenment values entirely. Indians are to be treated as enemies because they almost entirely act as enemies to all non Indians (and they have other problems on top of this). Trying to develop a new theory of ethnonationalism is not necessary.
We broadly speaking support “natural nationalism” and thus natural racism as it was innately understood throughout the world prior to the 19th century, we reject the leftist forms of extreme ethnonationalism of the late 19th century that in large part caused the world wars though. And this is one of those things which should not and cannot be precisely defined intellectually and attempts to do so are prone to be disastorous (because thats sort of what various people incoherently tried to do in the late 19th century).
“Okay, I am giving a semantic map and pragmatic ‘doctrine’ that allows you to make these decisions without problems of unprincipled exceptions. ”
And I think your problem is you imagine a reactionary society would be plagued by intellectual baggage from the enlightenment like “all men are created equal”. I imagine a society run by Jim or people like him would teach something more akin to late medieval concept of “the Great Chain of Being”. No unprincipled exceptions needed…
Cominator: “talk about ingrouping white leftists because they are white.”
As a representation of Fidelis’s position, this is completely false.
Here’s what he actually said: “Those Karens are indeed white, White American white, just as the people who beheaded Charles I were English, and Robespierre was French. Just because I say we name the ethnic group as a real thing with real interests that needs a real and particularist faith with a real and particular leader explicitly representing the interests of the White American/Amerikaaner ethnic group doesn’t mean we cannot kill intra-ethnic traitors for being traitors.”
I regulasrly use the term “superior races” or “inferior races”. I routinely reference obvious racial differences. How many time have I SAID “Blacks cannot thrive under laws suitable for whites. They have to have simpler laws, enforced more harshly and swiftly”.
When have you ever said such things? Let me see you commit a thought crime on race, or you are going on moderation.
As always, rejecting the thought crime in language that makes it clear what the thought crime is will also pass, for it is forbidden to know what is forbidden.
I don’t understand why longstanding posters feel the need to egregiously misrepresent your position.
Your position is that race is biologically real and not just skin color, and that most people have some sort of ingroup preference that is sort of related to race but with whites especially it’s rather weak and whites have a bad habit of fighting extreme wars over religion and ideology. Thus whiteness is not a suitable organizing principle for a synthetic tribe and where it has existed because historical circumstances created a situation of white herrenvolk ruling over coloreds it’s proven brittle and crumbles with not much outside pressure. Am I correct?
What even is a thoughtcrime anymore? Overton window has been rapidly opened on this.
Let me try: the average black is impulsive and liable to violently attack anyone nearby for any or no reason. We have at this point GWAS showing lots of regions that contribute, one rather famous example are the multiple copies of MAOI-like enzymes. Blacks are essentially high all the time, and therefore bad at impulse control.
Your usage of superior and inferior races is suspect, because you have also claimed we can breed a nearly-on-par black population within ~3 generations. I personally wouldn’t care if my own race were deficient in some meritocratic quality, because I love my ethnicity for the useless things like skin color, reliance on dairying for food, smell, and hair texture. This is the true thought crime, because it puts irreconcilable barriers between ethnic groups and races as ethnic groups. You can breed a smarter black, but you can’t make them American. You can force the Brahmin to assimilate by cutting off all his familial connections and shoving him in a white church, marrying him off to a white woman, but he and his kids wont be american until his phenotypic traits are drowned out through multiple generations.
“Let me try: the average black is impulsive and liable to violently attack anyone nearby for any or no reason. ”
Have you been hacked not what we say about niggers. Plenty of southern whites are around nigs prettymuch all day every day.
Nigs are more animalistic, have poorer impulse control, some young nig males are hyperaggressive, and they are mostly less intelligent, they need harsher surer laws. But saying all blacks are at a hair trigger to attack everyone all the time is a strawman of our position. Im around blacks in Florida all the time they do not scare me even in crowds.
Crowds of New England hispanic males were a different matter…
It’s what I’ve always said. You are more moderate than I am. I have traveled abroad, and smart blacks tend to become expats, because they cannot stand their own kind, for various reasons. You meet them, talk to them, understand where they’re coming from. These are the cream of the crop, so to speak, and yet their rates of impulsive crime are proportionately high.
It’s less to do with gross differences in g, and more to do with strange inheritance from the jungle tribal life. It’s written into their genome.
The biggest liability with blacks is not violence it is their extreme willingness to seek and accept subjugation.
They just do not have the creative potential that other races do.
The violent crime rate in the worst inner cities in America is 1-2%. Chicago had 400 homicides last year. Juarez is like 15k per year.
I have no real point to make other than keeping things in perspective, and outside blue cities and progressive liberal influence, blacks are mostly just annoying.
I would say Adam is mostly correct. Blacks actually want subjugation (not saying they want to be forced to cut sugarcane and pick cotton and whipped if they slack, not because of any remnant of leftism deep within me just because nobody wants that) which can be good or bad and if their masters aren’t weak or subversive blacks and crimes among their aggressive age young men demographic are harshly punished blacks are actually mostly amiable and docile. Very very rarely around here I see nigs which make me put my guard up for some reason or another, mostly I don’t worry about them at all. A couple of local cigar bars here have a lot of black clientele, but they cause zero trouble. Blacks in Florida are happy because Florida law harshly punishes anti social behavior and allows citizens and business owners to enact frontier justice in the event a crime is being committed against them.
> Worst parts of Latin America being more violent than any inner city black shithole here
Yes if blacks respond to good and bad governance like night and day spics are like that tenfold. Florida hispanics are basically honorary Aryans in every respect except that none of them is ever going to be smart enough to be a top level physicists or something (and yes Cubans being a bit better genetically is part of this but it isn’t all of it and they aren’t all cuban). Hispanics in New England otoh are generally far worse than blacks. The contrast was almost unbelievable.
Come on. Jim’s position is that biology is mostly meaningless? I can find hundreds of posts and thousands of comments refuting that.
Either this is some old grudge that just got reignited, or you are using your own private definition of the words colorblind and universalism. For the avoidance of doubt, when we say colorblind we are referring to the notion that color (really race) does not matter at all, and when we say universalism we mean a religion or ideology that purports to apply, without any local modifications, to all people and all nations on earth. For the avoidance of doubt, when we disassociate ourselves from colorblind universalism, we are not saying that we would exclude all nonwhites or assign primacy to racial characteristics. Under these definitions, a national identity and state religion that is multiracial to a small degree is entirely compatible with race realism and religious particularism.
If you are using different definitions to claim that Jim is promoting colorblind universalism then you should explain them. If you are using the same definitions we are, then the claim that he or any of us promote those things is detached from reality.
I suppose I really will have to exhaustively quote the last time we did this, but the gist of it is:
– Biology matters on a point to point basis but is not what makes a tribe cohere so ignore it. This is backed by the three examples I mentioned, the Aryan racial forging, the Roman founding, and the behavior of the Neo-Assyrians.
– In the future we can use genetic engineering and strict breeding to remove the bad traits from the population like the impulsivity and low IQ
I’m saying that no, biology matters in cohesion. I can tell for sure because in every human organization the ethnicities cluster. I sat with white jews at lunch, not black Christians. It also matters because of irrational preference behavior. I love my ethnicity and its traits for no reason. This phenomena of irrational preference is observable in all ethnic groups, including whites, even if their natural tribalism is lower.
I think I have some idea of what’s going on here. In your effort to create a semantic map (your term), you’ve created a hard link between “ethnic cohesion” and “ingroup preference”, and this extended hair splitting is largely owing to the fact then when we say whiteness isn’t a basis for ethnic cohesion, you hear it as us saying that white people do not or should not have ingroup preference.
I am almost positive that you are going to say no, you aren’t doing that, we’re all not listening, etc. But I am going to press on anyway, because I want to see some closure to this debate.
White, European-descended peoples have some ingroup preference. Depending on exact inheritance, could be moderate ingroup preference (French, Italian, etc.) or very weak ingroup preference (Swedes, Dutch). Somewhat ironically to your argument, the more “white” someone codes as, the closer they are probably related to the populations with much weaker ingroup preference. But let us stipulate that all people everywhere, including the whitest of whites, have some ingroup preference, and that if there is a local scarcity of genuine coethnics, then co-racials are the next best thing.
Except in a few unusual situations, like prison gangs, this ingroup preference is not 1:1 with ethnic cohesion. To bring this abstraction down to earth: ingroup preference is who you fight with, ethnic cohesion is what you fight for. Sometimes, they are the same, but not always, and in the case of white tribes, not even all that often.
Going on this:
Assuming the “so ignore it” part is a bit of hyperbole, both these statements are true. What’s false is the claim that they are incompatible. Being genetically related goes a long, long way toward helping a tribe cohere; it greases the wheels very effectively, the more closely related the more effective. But it is neither sufficient nor even strictly necessary to form a tribe. “Not strictly necessary” doesn’t mean we should ignore it (IMO) but Cominator is correct here when he says that’s the part you don’t write down in the membership requirements. It’s the quiet part you don’t say out loud.
Do you name your club the “No Homers”, or do you just not let Homer in? The first way is funny precisely because no one does it. It’s not only tactless, and apt to create unnecessary conflict between tribes, it’s also pointless and counterproductive, because if you want to let in Clarence Thomas then you have to invent some silly rationalization for the unprincipled exception, and the tribal identity then needs to bear the weight of all these unprincipled exceptions over time. If you simply let the preference be implicit, then you don’t need unprincipled exceptions, and can focus on writing down the stuff that really cannot abide any unprincipled exceptions, the stuff over which you are willing to go to war if necessary.
Christianity’s weaker (not absent) emphasis on biological tribe helped it conquer most of the world, by giving all the disparate tribes a common framework in which to cooperate instead of waging clan feuds. Those medieval and iron age Christians were all far more clannish in practice than any of us are, but they saw the benefit of keeping it in their pants, enforcing the biological requirements quietly and in private, and publicly cooperating to achieve something greater. That’s your “God, King and Nation”–the “Nation” of the time being a major expansion to the usual tribal boundaries, not a contraction of it.
To add on that, Christianity is implicitly pretty white-coded. Consider: monogamy. It’s hard! And all this other stuff about not making Gods out of every tree and river, about loving thy neighbor, about dealing with your sins, about forgiving your enemies etc etc. Christianity is an inherently low time preference faith — does not exclude blacks based on the color of their skin, but does demand they live up to essentially a white-right code of conduct.
Scarebucks: “Do you name your club the “No Homers”, or do you just not let Homer in? The first way is… apt to create unnecessary conflict between tribes”
You have to actually call it the “No Homers.” Otherwise leftists, and holiness spiralers in your own group, will demand that the Homers be let in, as a matter of principle. And because they’re more consistent with the official ideology, they will win. They will force you to admit Homers. Source: The USA the last couple of centuries.
“and apt to create unnecessary conflict between tribes”
Oh my God you can’t be serious. We DO have conflict between tribes right now, and we have it because we let in the Homers.
Doesn’t work. They will find an excuse anyway, just like the No Homers did. “It says No HomerSSS, we’re allowed to have one.” Only in real life it’s “White Hispanics” or 1/16 Mulattoes or Ashkenazi Jews or what have you.
You cannot prevent holiness spiraling and salami slicing by writing stuff down. It’s just words on paper, like the U.S. Constitution. If you don’t want leftists destroying your group from within, then the solution is not to let them in, and if you make a mistake and let some in by accident, promptly remove them as soon as it’s discovered. Only way to do that is to have strong and competent leadership with clearly defined authority to exclude or remove individuals from the group.
The hypothetical “identity statement” of an ethnic group is like the mission statement of a business. It’s there to remind the people who do belong of what they have in common–goals, beliefs, characteristics, etc. Kin ties work too, as in extended family, but “white” is not kin ties. “Bob and I are both white”; great, who cares? Means about as much as saying Bob and I are both men or both have curly hair. “Bob and I are both American”, that means something, even if what it means is kind of vague. “Bob and I are both active members of the American Anglican Church”, now we are really getting somewhere.
Your rendition of history implies some fantasy world where if only we’d thought to write down “whites only”, then we’d totally have whites only. With all due respect, are you high? We had the Immigration Act of 1924, we had the Jim Crow laws since the 1880s, we had many other things explicitly written down in terms of race and ethnicity, and the left just abolished them. They didn’t get abolished because conservatives weren’t emphatic enough about race, they got abolished because conservatives [technically, liberals] let leftists [those farther left] have power and influence. The explicitness just made them easier to abolish.
I’m talking about clan feuds that last hundreds of years, and Balkanized states going to hot war. You imagine it can’t get any worse, but it can get a lot worse, even without any blacks and browns. All cohesive nations eventually become ethnicities, but explicit ethnic nationalism has a poor track record when it comes to making peace with neighbors.
“you have to call it no Homers or leftists” the part I make explicit is leftist all are to die.
Youve lived in a society under the insanity of enlightenment values with leftism as the official religion your whole life. Our society would be radically different…
Me: “You have to actually call it the “No Homers.” Otherwise leftists, and holiness spiralers in your own group, will demand that the Homers be let in, as a matter of principle.”
Scarebucks: “Doesn’t work. They will find an excuse anyway”
Your way makes that easier for them.
“You cannot prevent holiness spiraling and salami slicing by writing stuff down. It’s just words on paper, like the U.S. Constitution.”
Just writing stuff down is not sufficient by itself, no. But plainly the official ideology matters, i.e. the state religion matters.
Look, I don’t like racial politics. I find it vulgar. But again, we are not being given a choice about it.
– – – – – – – – – – –
Cominator: “you have to call it no Homers or leftists.”
BINGO.
But alas unfortunately not what I said you don’t call it no homers and then you make sure there arent leftists around in the future ever…
Plainly, makes it harder for them, both under current circumstances and under hypothetically optimal coup-complete circumstances. They have no trouble declaring whitey persona non grata despite the fact that they themselves are white and identify as such, but they don’t dare openly declare holy war on Americans, even though that’s the war they’re truly waging. Racial movements are playing their game, and are very easily subverted or simply crushed.
Yes, matters for priests, providing generational continuity and Schelling points. Matters for ritual observance and religious education. Matters for prayer books. There is no extant nor plausible religious doctrine about whiteness.
Of course there is a choice. If you play by the enemy’s rules, you lose. If you assert or even accept that the only two options in existence are either formally-documented overt racial preferences or surrender to color blindness and infinigger, you are playing by the enemy’s rules.
You can have Jim Crow laws and severely restricted immigration in practice, they are just part of the secular law, not under the domain of the church. They are matters for kings, not bishops.
“unfortunately not what I said”
Huh? I was quoting you. Here’s the whole quote:
“you have to call it no Homers or leftists” the part I make explicit is leftist all are to die.
Jim: “And do you know why we lost them? We did not have Christian only laws and a creed, articles, and affirmation to keep postChristians out.”
The Catholic Church used to be as Christian as Christian can be, explicitly, and look at it now.
More and more this exchange is not convincing me that the Christian thing will work, but is convincing me that any vague notion that I had in mind won’t work either.
Not black pilling, just realizing that question is which one will degrade more slowly so that we’re bought more time.
Me: “Your way makes [entryism and subversion] easier for them.
Scarebucks: “Plainly, makes it harder for them”
Nonsense.
“They have no trouble declaring whitey persona non grata despite the fact that they themselves are white…”
True…
“but they don’t dare openly declare holy war on Americans, even though that’s the war they’re truly waging.”
If that’s the war they’re truly waging, then it doesn’t matter that they don’t dare openly declare it.
Me: “Just writing stuff down is not sufficient by itself, no. But plainly the official ideology matters, i.e. the state religion matters.”
Scarebucks: “Yes, matters for priests, providing generational continuity and Schelling points.”
It matters for everyone! Not just priests.
Empirically, groups that have a common faith, act cohesivelyl regardless of race — for example black and white adherents of Gafcon type Christianity.
Groups that have a common race but do not have common faith, do not act cohesively. For example all of white history, and all of Aryan history going back into the Bronze Age.
So white identitarianism is not going to work. It never has. Racial identitarianism is a weapon of our enemys, like class identity. Faced with an enemy that claimed to represent the proletarian class and that wanted to eradicate the capitalist class, the kulak class, etcetera, did people unite as kulaks or as capitalist? No they did not, and it would have been stupid for them to do so.
You play the enemy’s game, you lose. The communists claimed to be the Proletariat making war on the Capitalists. Did capitalists say, “Oh well, we have been ascribed an identity, and that identity is at war, therefore it exists”? No, they said “nonsense”. And to the extent that anything worked against the communists, saying “Nonsense” did work.
It’s really very simple: identities do not have continuity, organizations have continuity.
The progressive left has no coherent identity; every 20 years it completely reinvents itself. Yet, it has near-perfect continuity of organizations and personnel going back three hundred years. “Somehow”, no matter what the body politic looked like, the same sorts of people always ended up in charge.
You are seeking something that doesn’t exist and can’t exist: a written criteria for tribal membership that can never degrade or be subverted. The state religion doesn’t do that. It’s not its role, and to demand it perform that role is a category error. The state religion doesn’t tell us who to admit (although obviously we will not admit heretics), it tells us how to act. It is the state itself that sets membership criteria, and must be able to adapt to demographic shifts and decide exceptions on a case-by-case basis; not because this is “good”, but because it is the literal function of the state, without which the state is not sovereign.
Biological ingroup preference is something people do anyway, if they share enough common DNA to matter; they don’t need a religion to tell them how. Extended outgroup cooperation is something people do not do by default, and need either iron-fist authority to force them or a common religion to motivate them.
Jim: “Empirically, groups that have a common faith, act cohesivelyl regardless of race”
Obviously false. Christians have a long history of being at war with other Christians, Muslims have a long history of being at war with other Muslims, and let’s not get started on the lethal factionalist wars within the left; we’ll be here all day.
Scarebucks: “You are seeking something that doesn’t exist and can’t exist: a written criteria for tribal membership that can never degrade or be subverted.”
Maybe. Quite possibly.
But we’ve tried not having that, and look where it got us.
Also: consider China.
Usually over questions of faith. Right now in the Middle East it is Shia bombing Sunni, not Persian bombing Arab. The Shia Persians are aligned with the Shia Syrians, and against the Sunni Syrians. Notwithstanding the fact that Persians obvioiusly have vastly more Aryan blood in them than Arabs, and are not shy about saying so.
Well, if the Persians are so Aryan, one might ask, how did they wind up conquered by Arabs? Disunited by lack of a common faith, the Persians were conquered by people of diverse races united by a common faith.
Look at Israel. Mizrahi Jews are the same race as Palestinians, Beta Israel is black, Bene Israel is Indian Dravidian.
So, in the current conflict, you have a total melange of races aligned by faith, against a total melange of races aligned by a different faith.
And thatis how it has been for at least three thousand years. Notwithstanding the very white Democrats telling their brown base to race war, they feel confident they can tell them that without being eaten because they know race war is not going to happen. If, as is likely, they get eaten anyway, it will be for insufficient leftism. Their hearts will be torn out on top of the pyramid, and they will be rolled down the steps of the pyramid to be devoured by the congregation.
Who, apart from those who intend to murder us all, is using “white” to mean “American”? Channels, books, blogs, influencers? Link me some links.
This random xost is a prime example. I wasn’t even looking, it just appeared. It’s the natural usage.
https://xcancel.com/m_tomorrowland/status/2028644861143072978
Possibly an even better example than “books, blogs, influencers” as it is displaying the practical common use of the word.
It is not apparent that this author is using “white” to mean American. He is responding to a post defending racial preferences, defending a policy of discriminating against some races in favor of other races, so chances are when he says race, he means race.
What standard of proof do you want here? I can probably find some xeets where people meme about Caucasians, as in the Chechens/Dagestanis/etc., as mountain niggers. Not sure what you want, Oxford to add a definition for you?
I want you to say something, that if you are working for Soros or whatever the Euro replacement of USAID is, will get you fired and black listed from every respectable institution forever. Like “blacks need simpler, swifter, and harsher laws than whites, and would be happier if they had them, since the gravest danger to blacks is not cops, but other blacks” — i.e pointing out that American blacks were considerably better off under segregation, and explaining why.
Does this comment truly not suffice?
https://blog.reaction.la/faith/there-is-always-a-state-religion/#comment-2988810
I am saying that due to biological differences blacks will always be more impulsive and driven to crime. Particularly violent crime, they get thrown into impulsive rages. They get possessed; they are the voodoo race. This has to be dealt with through myriad channels, more personal and corporal policing being only one of such channels.
I am to your right on this. I am saying outgroup the Indians and put the ugly Karens in Alaska and the hot ones, few as they are, in the breeding pit. I am saying the blacks are useless civilizationally and militarily and ingrouping them is attaching a ball and chain to your civilizational core. I am saying latinos are a case by case basis to be decided by the sovereign, and the vast majority gotta go. I am saying even the meritocratic East Asians are incompatible due to irreconcilable genetic differences, as evidenced by the derangement they get no matter if they live in red or blue US territory.
OK.
On reflection, I realise that the problem is not that you, fidelis, have an enemy supervisor in the office across the room. You have an enemy supervisor inside your head.
You cannot imagine a society in which all men are not equal, therefore cannot imagine whites surviving the presence of our inferiors. You cannot imagine superior and inferior living together under the same system and getting along. Hence the extraordinary and bizarre accusation “Jim’s position is in fact colorblind universalism”
Your problem is that just about everyone on this blog is so far to your right that our position is inconceivable and unimaginable to you, and no matter how plainly we tell you what it, you cannot hear. So everyone who is unimaginably far to your right, looks to you to be to your left.
I see a similar problem with the purple pilled who find it inconceivable and unimaginable that men and women could get along and reproduce successfully under the system that males and females have been using for the past four million years. Just inconceivably radical.
This conversation has turned incredibly ugly and has resulted in an even uglier reply. Jim, ultimately you are the admin, but I think Fidelis comes from a reasonable place though I disagree with him. It isn’t fair to make that type of accusation to a commenter that has been here long and has 99% of the time discussed in good faith. Though you may very well be right in judgement.
The problem as I see it stems from how you talk about GAFCON, the subject of which is what mostly started this. You are right on an abstract level about GAFCON, but also viscerally wrong. No one on the right wants anything to do with Blacks outside a few honored guests who might as well be spiritually White. The normal reaction to GAFCON is seeing A LOT of Blacks, enough that a regular who isn’t in that network can’t or simply won’t distinguish honored guest from infinitynigger no matter how White the actual top leadership might be.
I did not grow up around Blacks outside a few, spiritually white, honored guests. Military service on the American East Coast has quickly dissuaded me from ever wanting to be around niggers, and there are some very large concentrations of them here. I look at GAFCON, and I understand why you are right, but emotionally, I see Africa which might as well be infinitynigger. This is not going to be a winning argument nor useful source for a state religion in America. Even amongst those who see why you are abstractly right. There are plenty of possible contender Christian Nationalist Churches here, domestically, and mostly of good Amerikaner stock that may very well rise to the occasion with proper political protection. Their defects can be fixed through monarchy. After all, is that not how many European Kingdoms become Christian? A King single handily converting a nation from paganism. Since that’s possible, a much smaller task of organizing a proper state religion is more than possible.
@Fidelis
Polling of Asian Americans show that in Texas they were pretty much 50-50 in the 2024 election. The closer to big blue states/cities they are, the more it goes to 66-34. It’s almost as if being in proximity to the left makes everyone batshit crazy. We see similar effects with Hispanics. The groups we don’t see this with are Hindus (who get lumped in with Asians), Blacks, Jews, women, and a few other groups. Black Churches were deeply infiltrated by Marxist Jews for well over a century. This is clearly not a racial or ethnic problem for the most part.
All this said, I sympathize with you, and you know my mutt heritage. Regardless, making an identitarian argument directly endangers the American Empire that my White Anglo forefathers spilled significant blood and capital in building. If I have to kill a million Asian Americans to maintain this empire I’m the son of, so be it, but likewise, I will kill a million whites including you to keep this nation together if it comes to it. I wish to live in peace with you and all those who will cohesively form a synthetic tribe, and for that Christian Nationalism is the only way we dig our selves out of these modern troubles. An openly racial Church quickly will not achieve this.
Gafcon is not a black Church. It is a communion of Churches, which in the US are overwhelmingly white. However in the US only individual Churches and individual pastors are affiliated with it. The Nigerian Anglican Church as a whole is affilliated with it, and that is to my knowledge, the only Anglican Church affiliated with it as a whole. Which means something like 98% of the membership is black. Black on the global level. Not, however, black on the US level.
If everyone winds up with their own national Church, and those Churches in communion with each other, why is it a problem that some of those churches are going to black. Do we want to shut down embassies in black countries, declare war on all blacks everywhere?
This kind of sounds like “you don’t hate blacks enough”. I don’t hate blacks at all. Any more than I hate monkeys. What is the problem. I don’t want them around, but that is just pest control, not hatred. If the Nigerian Gafcon affiliated Church is in Nigeria, and the American Gafcon affiliated Churches are in America, why is this a problem?
The Democrats propose to import all Somalis, but no one proposes to import the congregations of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
>Gafcon is not a black Church. It is a communion of Churches, which in the US are overwhelmingly white.
I get that, I acknowledge that, what I point out is perception. The immediate visuals some random American will see when they see Gafcon online content are that of a lot of Blacks, and what I’ve become acutely aware of, is that younger generations of Americans have tremendous ‘Black Fatigue’. This is a political problem problem because those visuals immediately invoke memories of DEI, open boarders, and all the other racial excesses of the left. We joke about how the left is always undergoing some sort of ‘trauma’, and are constantly in the process of having to process ‘trauma’, but there is real trauma at seeing innocent Whites (among others) get brutally murdered in the streets and the media and the left more or less say ‘and that’s a good thing’.
As I previously posted, you are right about Gafcon. Where I disagree with you is that it is a successful political strategy or even viable in the current climate.
>If everyone winds up with their own national Church, and those Churches in communion with each other, why is it a problem that some of those churches are going to black.
Think of the hypothetical. There are many Korean Presbyterian Churches that are similarly based like Gafcon. They are in communion with an even much larger number of White Presbyterian Churches. An Amerikanner looks up the name of the communion and is immediately bombarded with a website in Korean and a whole bunch of Koreans. While they are much more neutral in racial feelings about Koreans, you’ve got to admit that the immediate reaction will be seeing something alien, and you’re telling them this is going to be the new State Religion. It doesn’t matter that 99% of Presbyterian Churches in America in communion are nearly all White. The perception is fatal.
I have no problem that any of those Churches are Korean, nor likewise with the Gafcon Churches that are majority Black, but again, I see a tremendous fatigue if not outright animosity that has understandably brewed.
There is no problem with the future American State Religion being in communion with Black Churches, this would be a massive victory, but the initial founding Church we have must be visibly, overtly, familiar otherwise it’s not going to go over well. It does not help that a ‘Gafcon America’ does not appear in Google searches. At best you get ‘Gafcon North America’.
>Do we want to shut down embassies in black countries, declare war on all blacks everywhere?
No, the way to go about this is to find a familiar completely domestic Church. Whip them into shape. Officiate it as the American State Religion. Then get them into communion with everyone else who proves to be spiritually reliable.
>This kind of sounds like “you don’t hate blacks enough”. I don’t hate blacks at all. Any more than I hate monkeys. What is the problem.
The problem is what Blacks have come to represent more than inherent racial traits. Seeing them invokes memories and feelings of DEI and all sorts of negative progressive led forms of oppression. It will go away in the event of a restoration, but only after, not before.
>but no one proposes to import the congregations of the Anglican Church of Nigeria.
I know, just about everyone here on this blog knows, but this is an abstraction. What most Americans will think when they hear this is ‘import a million Nigerians’. This is horrible, terrible optics. This may be an exaggeration, but 90% of leadership is optics and not logic. Motivating people to do something is largely dependent in how much confidence, real or not, that a leader can exude sheerly via force of aesthetic charisma. Gafcon simply does not have that, at least not in its own public self depiction.
Your logic as impeccable as always, Jim: Gafcon follows the right doctrine (Anglicanism), has the right distribution model (Communion) and has more institutional power than guys like Doug Wilson could ever dream of.
But people aren’t rational, and when they look up Gafcon and witness the sea of Nigerians in the photos, their Chronic Negro Fatigue starts acting up and they reach for the whiteyprofen.
If we want Gafcon to work here, especially with millennials and zoomers, need a way to fix its image first. My thinking would be to just create a subsidiary with white faces and put its GAFCON affiliation in the fine print, because this is after all about the sort of people who don’t read the fine print. But maybe I’m overlooking some details.
Contaminated NEET:
You might have missed Jim’s direct answer just a few minutes before your post:
Jim:
Regarding the options you proffered:
Contaminated NEET:
Apparently not. Trump’s preferred target age seems to be about 28, not 16, and as Jim says, Trump already established his own separate “pipe”line and wanted to keep his distance from Epstein’s creepy sphere.
That sounds spot on.
Nah, as Trump says, “I don’t need their support.” He underestimated the blowback but doesn’t really care when all is said and done. Much will be said and nothing will be done.
Trump campaigned on releasing the files but instead calculated that (2) above was more advantageous to him. He then castigated everyone who complained about it, like MTG and Massie, calling them traitors and fools, and when a reporter asked him about it, Trump acted shocked and belittled the reporter, asking “are we still talking about this?” Bondi pulled that stupid stunt of releasing the white binders full of nothing, then lurched from “the files are on my desk” to “there are no files.” Then the “traitors” in Congress forced a partial redacted release, but Don and Pam are still keeping a lot hidden to protect the donors and loyalists.
The main lesson of the files — the lesson that the media deliberately ignore — is to reveal the extraordinary pervasive power of ethnic and cultural networks in politics, business, sex, and leisure. We could learn a lot from how these arrogant and depraved jackasses insert themselves into every corner of our lives, command the heights of power, and bugger us without mercy.
Jesus says:
“The master commended the dishonest manager because he had acted shrewdly. For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light. I tell you, use worldly wealth to gain friends for yourselves, so that when it is gone, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.” (Luke 16:8-9)
‘Look at “Amelia”. She happens to be white, but does she represent whiteness?
‘Hell no. She represents Britishness.’
LOL.
Amelia represents Feminism. She embodies empowered, martial, collective female authority, hardly different from warlike and deific Athena. Do you really imagine that a MALE decked out in Brit and waving the Union Jack would prove effective agit-prop around BrittanniaLand? . . . NAMED after a goddess, for uh goddess’ sake.
‘Conservative’ Brit men would not be budged a budgie by some heroic male figure. But a hard-charging, ass-kicking, oppressed-‘n-mebbe raped, take-no-pris’ners Girl Boss, why the poor gelded bastids WILL embrace, and be moved by, and (this is the point) fight for.
Ditto Brit ‘rightie’ chicks, they luuurve them some Mary Sue Boudica Amelia. Marianne and her masonic pileus, why she’s another spectre of revolutionary verve, clipped off the same Luci-fer vine.
OWS — of course they had their own idol . . . always with the same striding determination . . .
https://nonprofitquarterly.org/occupy-wall-street-the-tea-party-and-us/
It goes on and on like this, century after century. Always the same shuck, always works. Human nature does not change.
Nuts.
Here is what Amelia represents: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WehJtjTZyIk
She is Waifu, not an action girl.
You think I am giving a biased selection? Look at Know Your Meme’s sample: https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/amelia-pathways All Waifu, zero action girl, most of them consist of Amelia giving Charlie Waifu support when he makes the right decision.
Obviously anyone can do their own spin on Amelia, but the normal pattern is that Charlie, inspired by his Waifu, Amelia, does the martyrdom and the battling. Bold heart wins fair lady. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_UXmgkAzFDY Or in this case purple lady.
I first learned of the lavender lass thus:
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/amelia-sans-merci
Reminiscent of Pepe escaping his creator’s intention.
Yes Amelia memes are normally waifu very very rarely action girl (I think I’ve seen one where she was holding the hatchet ala the Scottish hatchet girl).
She represents a return to tradition but is by contrast a purple haired art ho frequently depicted smoking or drinking. Normally seems working class but can seem upper class
Amelia’s origins as a right wing symbol with an adaption of the Persia art ho (I believe she was in reality Canadian) lighting her cigarette off the Ayatollahs picture except shes Purple haired and shes lighting her ciggy off Starmer’s picture
https://ibb.co/TxmC1nMP
More conventional beautified art ho pub girl Amelia
https://ibb.co/zVfJQv0D
More upper class coded Amelia
https://x.com/SpicyAmelias/status/2022744634464571400
Semi action girl Amelia
https://x.com/SpicyAmelias/status/2020969256003961117
“SendBaron”
He has no choice.
If he wins, so does Western Civ.
If not, Western Civ is finished.
Apologies at the forefront on both the meta, I’ve been argumentative in the extreme, and apologies on the particular context of this post, should it be unwelcome:
(link to pdf: https://cs.stanford.edu/~knuth/papers/claude-cycles.pdf )
I don’t mean to push advancements in machine learning capabilities on an audience that finds it annoying, but I have been shocked by what seems like the beginnings of a new stage of capability.
Mostly unsophisticated users are now beginning to mop up problems like this in their field. It looks like we have easy to use ‘solvers’ for well scoped problems in domains of logical reasoning. My guess is that with better orchestration, let alone advances in the base model, we will see much more of this in the coming months. Something to keep an eye on.
I admit I skimmed, but from my skimming, looks like a curve fitting problem, not a logical reasoning problem, and we’ve acknowledged for a long time that these models are very good at curve fitting.
What curve exactly is it fitting? I am really unsure where you’re coming from.
I think of curve fitting used colloquially as a direct input-output game where the model function approximates some input data. What approximation is going on here?
I am not going to make a case that there is “reasoning” in the human sense, but this looks like the old holy grail of GOFAI, of symbolic “reasoning” machines, has been found. They are wiggling around in concept space and have chunked up the space well enough that they can navigate very vast search spaces of symbolic combinations. You cannot brute force this stuff with traditional solvers. These models are trained on explicit human reasoning traces and implicit reasoning traces found in natural text, they almost certainly are recombining these learned circuits into something that works good enough, and is getting better.
Brute forcing math problems can probably work, for some definitions of “work”, to find new working reasoning circuits that are good at solving problems related to what humans have already solved. So this looks like a case of really strong solvers for well scoped problems. We’ve automated the mediocre grad student. What this implies for how we should use these things, I don’t know. Definitely seems like a form of breakthrough, and still far from something that replicates what humans do in the process of discovery. Likely to be applied well to industrial automation, and if we’re lucky, automated materials science and biotech. Hard to scale mediocre grad students for brute empirical research, easy to scale machines.
Seems to be deriving a formula and parameters to describe points in an n-dimensional space; that’s curve fitting to me. That said, while I have great respect for Knuth, I am not generally interested in the same kinds of problems he is interested in, so I could easily be missing some nuances.
Never said we could. Clearly the current models are able to solve a larger subset of these math problems than the older models could. Although they still cannot generate the proofs, which Knuth had to do the old-fashioned way.
Vibe coding is getting better… for the experts. What I am seeing unfold is what I predicted would unfold, which is that people who are already highly competent experts in their field would find ways to use the tech more effectively, while people who are not highly competent–like, say, Meta’s Head of AI Safety Research–find increasingly elaborate and hilarious ways to shoot themselves in the foot.
AI is the new blockchain, which was the new microservices, which were the new serverless frameworks, which were the new no-code frameworks, which were the new nosql, which was the new SQL, which was the new OOP, and on and on it goes. Each time it’s going to be a revolution that changes the industry forever, each time ends up being a minor evolution eking out marginal gains that eventually, if we’re lucky, grow to be moderate.
And in each cycle, due to some strange intersection of mass amnesia and the Lake Wobegon effect, every dev insists that he was never on board any of those other hype trains, but that this time it’s different.
It was not doing that at all. The problem was not about n-dimensional spaces. It was a very specific kind of space with limited possible states. N-dimensional space and points and curve fitting usually implies R^N, this was not R^N. This is some fairly esoteric little graph coloring problem.
The model didn’t explore spaces. It wrote python programs. Interpreted the outputs of the programs it wrote. Changed course based on the outputs. Knuth did not do a good job conveying this. I happen to know this is what happened from context clues (the final output from the model was a python problem, the first attempt mentioned was “DFS” which implies the use of code tools) and from using the same harness that Knuth’s friend used.
They can. Knuth does not know lean, and would not be interested, nor should he be, in setting up lean in order to have the model formalize the proof it discovered. He also would not be satisfied reading the proof in lean, it was obviously more fun an activity to do that part himself.
Here is an example of a formal proof found for an open Erdős problem: https://www.erdosproblems.com/forum/thread/397
There was also a recent case that caught attention of an open problem in sphere packing getting solved. Far less familiar with the context of that one, but heres the arxiv in case any reader may be interested: https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.04829
My original prediction for human-LLM dynamics was that it would raise the capability floor for the normie more than it would raise the capability ceiling of the smartie. I was wrong. Normies are not that good at using these tools unless they come in very artificial packages. They can talk to a chatbot, can get a simple app created.
I’m personally seeing people who are good at tech are getting superpowers. I am expecting, for example, people to use code agent loops to reverse engineer and white box all the firmware on most locked down hardware. This used to be a puzzle that experts would spend hours and hours of their spare time on, to white box a single blob. Now it can be done in parallel and with little mental effort, just the effort to spin up the physical connections and digital harness. The same goes for protocol design and implementation. QUIC annoyed me because it had that IETF thing of trying to please everyone. I went back and forth with a chatbot to design a spec more minimalist; streams, muxing, backpressure, no HoL blocking, and simpler scheme than TLS for packet encryption. Most of this is state machines, there are formal tools for state machine checking. Then you put the spec into a loop with a good coding model. The result worked, there were a few spots that needed fixing. I recorded these spots, generated a plan for fixing them, and put it back in the loop. Now I have a QUIC subset codebase that just works. The important parts are all tagged and formally specified and verified with Kani and stateright. I need to actually get some data that the performance is what it should be, am I competitive with quinn?, but its faster than TCP and has muxing and encryption built in so I’m happy enough. Especially considering I uhh, kinda just asked for some docs and skimmed a few things. Incredible stuff.
I don’t think these models are capable of doing this stuff without steering, but its hard to say exactly what the limits of someone who knows how to steer are, exactly. Its different from “vibecoding replaces coders” — the opposite really. If you have systems thinking and decent math chops, pretty sure you should be thinking about advanced physical materials and biotech engineering. Vibecoding is a strange beast, and I think the final results will not be as the public conversation is currently going.
This is a codebase I need. Is it on a public repo somewhere?
Did your agent have the QUIC codebase and instructions to clean it up to your preferences?
What do you mean “No Hol Blocking” QUIC prevents Hol blocking between streams, but it still has Hol blocking within any single stream. Did you somehow address that?
What encryption are using instead of TLS? Public keys known in advance? Or you just threw encryption out of the network layer, and it should be done at a higher layer?
No it had a detailed specification.md and a fairly involved process of chunking and self-verifying its own work as it went. The specification.md was developed in a chatbot-like environment where we went back and forth specifiying what I wanted. I skimmed it, because this was more of an experiment in capability than anything, and ran a few iterations of an adversarial loop where I had one agent insert subtle conceptual errors and another agent detect them. This cleaned up the original conceptual bugs in the process. I took this specification.md and put it in a custom harness with a loop process that does:
– one parent agent examines extant work and spec, chunks out a section that can be accomplished
– inner agent loops over the chunk, a subsection thats just enough to be accomplished without drift
– second inner agent is activated, is the QA tester, tries to break extant code. Often does.
– optional- I have an ad hoc codebase that gives stats on codebases; cyclicity, dead code regions, duplicate code, interdependence, file LoC distributions etc. yet another agent process will loop through and do some cleaning. This only works so well in inner loops, proper cleaning and optimization needs strong human curated tests and benches, but it prevents the spaghetti code phenomenon enough to keep them from getting stuck
Quinn was not around for reference. I also was lazy about keeping logs of this, maybe it explicitly referenced it while developing? It has web search tools. I kinda didn’t expect it to work. I developed the loops for modules not entire specs.
Its a contradiction to “solve” HoL in an ordered stream, or did you mean something else? QUIC prevents one stream from starving any other sub-process running on that port.
I used DHKE and ed25519 and chachapoly. Yes the encryption is a bit higher up the stack. Once a buffer is deemed complete it is deserialized and interpreted as a well-formed struct. I dont have anything yet for “streams” where the transport is just blasting UDP packets. This was just easier for me to interpret when forming the spec, and helped contain the cryptography so I’m not chasing it around the spaghetti codebase. I’m looking it up now, I wanted to maybe put some knowledge of keys in XDP to allow high(er) DDoS resistance but eBPF/XDP probably can’t sustain that.
The codebase is far too attached to meatspace identity for me to share. Since this is fun for me, I can go back and forth with you on a spec tailored to what you want in bitmessage. Then we can figure out a transfer mechanism.
Obviously you cannot solve Hol in a stream of indefinite length, but if you have a lot of streams, they probably represent finite length messages, and you can solve Hol in bounded messages with known bounds..
I just had an idea. Lets eat bitmessage. These agent tools are perfect for a job like this.
We can migrate the protocol to rust, so its less fragile to build, and can take advantage of the fact bitmessage has users for at least *some* anonymity set, then start upgrading.
I’ll get started and see if the first steps indicate something easy or a total mess. If easy, I’ll send you a message at the address you already have posted.
Converting bitmessage to rust is a great use case for AI. Just need to be really careful on the cryptography and core parts, make sure to manually review it.
I would actually be interested in helping with this, although I know I’ve barely posted here and I probably don’t have enough trust.
@L post your bitmessage ID and I’ll message you if and when I message Jim.
I just started a loop to see if the agent can figure out how to build it in a modern python environment without making a mess. In theory this should be an easy job for an agent, but we’ll see.
The way I have been handling sensitive code paths is part encapsulation and part formal verification. Rust alone is great for this, and there exist tools, namely Kani and stateright, that allow you to make protocols less fuzzy. If it manages to build and talk to the network without a doom loop, I will start specing out an engine. I think actix and tokio, because actors and state machines by default with good performance and no need to reinvent the entire stack.
My experience of Python is that any sufficiently large python project becomes irrevocably married to one particular python environment that exists only one one particular computer, while CMake C, C++ projects are highly portable, and CMake LLVM projects are relatively easy to render absolutely portable.
> bitmessage
Also take a look at: simplex.chat
It’s a numberless/accountless P2P-onion modern+PQC replacement for Signal/Session. Realtime/offline messaging/groups, easy KEX, offers voice/video option that Briar doesn’t. Runs over the CIA’s Tor network. Go through the security/transport/network options because there are a couple that need set to put the protocol into the highest P2P/isolation mode.
Maybe I’ll post a key later.
https://github.com/simplex-chat/simplex-chat
https://simplex.chat/
Tor was created by the enemy, and is under enemy control.
I’ll get bitmessage set up
> Tor
Tor, the protocol and its extant transport network, have plenty of perfectly valid use-cases, and plenty of cases for which people should not use that overlay network.
Given the Global All-Seeing Adversary and its Network Buffer and Analysis… Bitmessage is not immune to all active/passive attacks either.
Perfect Protocol’s do not exist, but better ones are being worked on. Even Tor has at least three competitors running now.
Problem is not just the extant P2P-overlay networks (they’re all suboptimal in some way or another), but is ultimately the central control of the physical network they all ride on.
So now P2P-physical Fiber/Radio networks are being built, these nodewise owned nets are not subject to such adversaries without the consent of each physical peer/node… that requires first physically finding boots-on-the-ground, end-to-end, a sufficient percent of all the random paths possible, over all the individually-user-owned fiber/radio nodes/links, then executing very publicly visible physical wrench-attacks against masses of individual noisy free-speech humans to gain control of the single node/link each landowner owns, that links out to two of their neighbor’s, and so on… mass home invasion, a total impossibility for most regimes.
Yes it is. The all seeing eye sees packets going into a node, and packets coming out of it, but cannot connect a packet going in to a packet going out. Plus, chaff. Some packets going in are dummies, and do not go out, and some packets going out are dummies, and have no corresponding packet going in.
Of course each node must advertise its packets to other nodes. And if a whole lot of nodes belong to the enemy, it might well have a good idea of which node was first to have a packet. And might be able to make a pretty good guess of who that packet came from. But it will have no idea of what is in that packet, or who among the many, many recipients of that packet, could read its contents.
Somewhat ironically, the daemon was up and running quickly with a very small diff. Less than 30 minutes to migrate to python3 with uv package manager.
However the Qt bindings are ancient, and the curses UI is not cooperating. These are not good targets for agent loops, because the vision functions are terrible. I am having it build me a dual TUI/CLI and will send a message when that is complete. This migration is looking to be quite possible, and even relatively easy, so long as we are not picky about what the UI ends up looking like.
Bad UI is the great weakness of all existing tools. A network is powerful as the square of the number of participants, so you just have to have a better UI than bitmessage has. You need to implement Zooko indentity in something that does what bitmessage does. Otherwise you are just not going to get places.
Python code, when it gets to a certain size, just cannot be portable, maintained, or further improved.
If a problem can be solved by python, it is a great way to get something up and running, but Python is only useful for relatively small utilities. I don’t think the tool that we actually need can be written in python.
The tools that we need just need to be too big, and do too much, to be accomplished in python.
llms cannot handle large programs, because their context window gets overwhelmed. They are useful at little bits of a program, if a human organises it so that they can deal with one little bit at a time.
Humans cannot handle large python programs, because the structurelessness of python means the small human context window gets overwhelmed.
For llms to be useful on large programs, we will need a rag system that can fold irrelevant information out of the context the way a human does.
There is no easy and general way to do what databases do all the time, tell the llm go through a pile of hay to find the needle.
We need to be able to say “go through this mountain of data, and break it into chunks. Then find a chunk with certain properties. Or, for each chunk find other chunks that have properties in common with that chunk.
You cannot build an index, and if no index, cannot do diddly.
which is kind of stupid, because a trained model is an index of the stupdendous mountain of data it was trained on.
I see ai search engines doing a good job. What they do is generate ai keyword searches, then do an old fashioned search on keyword indices. But I cannot do that job on my code. Thing is, we already had an enormous pile of technology for indexing the internet, and the ai is using that technology. But we do not have similar tech for codebases.
Well, actually we do — you can get from a symbol to where it is defined, and where it is used. But an llm cannot do that to keep what is in its context window relevant to the matter at hand.
We could do a whole lot of interesting things if we had a rag system that understood C and C++ syntax. But we don’t.
Any agentic system needs rag. And if you do not have syntax aware rag, your agentic system is not worth squat.
People are getting drunk on agents because they are magical on small problems. But when you get into large problems, there is more and more special case human intervention plus you are spending twenty thousand dollars for token generation by ginormous llms with ginormous context window, and you still run into size limits mighty fast.
If we had an agent with syntax aware rag, then we could go to really big problems. But we do not have syntax aware rag, and no one seems to be working on it.
I think in general it’s a very bad idea to assume the US government security state cant read anything you send over an electronic medium and also generally know who you are…
I know something about encryption. It is not hard to encrypt so that only the parties can read it.
A whole lot of the tools available have some nasty backdoors, Lots of tools do effectively hide the message from prying eyes, but they generally leak the metadata, gpg being especially bad in this regard. — Bitmessage is different, in not leaking the metadata either.
Jim you are out of date. They solved the context window via code understanding and grep. The agent greps selectively to get the relevant data path into its context window to work on. RAG database not needed.
Once again, I request you try out opencode. Use it with any of the big flagship models on some project you are unaffiliated with. They had Kimi 2.5 and GLM5 available free with zero sign up. Not true anymore but next time they hype up a release it might be free again. If you use opencode you will understand the current problems, which are GUI, tail reliability and inability to modularize.
How is adapting Bitmessage to a modern environment coming along?
If all these problems are so solved and solvable, why are we seeing all this AI slop and pushback against AI slop?
You cannot solve the context window problem with gigantic context windows, code understanding, and grep, because the more irrelevance in the context, the worse the AI results.
I have spent a couple of days evaluating Agentic coding, and my assessment is that it does not do what it ought to be capable of, and even when it eventually is able to what it should be able to do, it will be useful, but far from revolutionary. The claims of revolutionary capability are the Eliza illusion encouraged by marketing hype and AI psychosis.
You throw a toy problem at AI, you get a toy solution. Which is very useful and illuminating as a starting point.
You throw a real problem at AI, you get an almost answer, AI slop, a toy solution to a real problem.
It is valuable and useful. But people get carried away.
As for Agentic programming. Great idea, a potentially very useful tool. Would be great if it had not been hastily slapped together by a bunch of vibe coders. Not yet ready for prime time. I have high hopes for it. I will take another look at it in a year or so.
Huge context windows lead to AI psychosis, where the assistant and the person being assisted go mad together in Folie à deux. We have hit declining returns on making large language models even larger, and hit them hard. We need the AI to be able to edit its own context window, not only load it with rag far more efficiently, but unload it far more efficiently.
What we are seeing is that models that can hold a ridiculously large context window, vastly larger than a human can, are somehow failing on problems that require the ability to handle large contexts. We are trying to brute force context, and it is resistant to brute force.
ai works best when you’re very specific, when you already have a rough plan, when you don’t just dump an entire repo and hope for magic. when you use smaller chunks, you have clear intent, and always do through code review of the the output. In other words, ai just cannot handle big contexts. Trouble with agentic tools is that they just inherently wind up lost in big contexts.
Agentic tools are going nowhere until they stop needing a larger context window than an ai can actually comprehend. Bigger context windows are not enabling us to handle bigger contexts, so if your tool needs a big context window, it is taking your large language model out of its depth.
An actually useful ai agent is going to use semantic chuncking and vector indexing. It is going to vector index the blobs in your git repository.
On examining opencode, I find that they use semantic chunking and a vector database.
Which can, and probably does, solve the context window problem. Code understanding and Grep does not solve the context window problem, and when you claimed it did, I paid no attention.
I don’t know what algorithm they are using, but I know what algorithm they should be using: Pull chunks that are likely to be relevant to the prompt into the context, examine them for relevance, and then throw them out of the context if irrelevant.
With this algorithm, it can suck down your entire repository, and that is the context.
I believe the mismatch between the people impressed and the people unimpressed by recent advancements is entirely due to interacting with chatbot webpages.
These all suck. Chatbot is not the correct form factor, harness, for getting good results. You need to set things up so that you are out of the loop. If you are in the loop, you are going to get frustrated, because it does not think like a person. It will keep pulling wrong answers out of its internal model, and get further stuck when your natural response is to repeat yourself in different words why the previous answer was wrong. They do not think like a human does, they have a dynamic process where the tokens are driving an internal state space. The “reasoning” is the model searching its own internal representation space. When you reiterate what it got wrong, you are unintentionally fixating the model in a malformed zone, and many times will not escape that zone.
Knuth’s friend did the correct thing, which was to put the model in a loop with some scaffolding and a verifiable finish line. The model has had far more time training on self play, i.e. loops over its own outputs, than it has time training in human conversations. It is much more adapted and has much better performance in settings where it looks more like an optimization loop than a conversation or a dictation.
Some, perhaps, but if you are imagining me in that category, then you are incorrect. I have never interacted with a chatbot webpage; I’m simply not interested.
My skepticism comes from looking more closely at the claims of people like Dario and seeing how they’re 98% snake oil and 2% actual results. For example, he claimed that Claude recreated the entire Linux kernel, all on its own, in a week, with just some basic prompting, and it even runs Doom! The reality was that it generated a partially-working subset of the Linux kernel, with several aspects of the build missing (e.g. it compiles but doesn’t link), with prompting plus an enormous battery of preexisting human-written tests and specs, crashed several times during the process requiring human intervention, and eventually ran Doom, a 30-year-old game, at an atrocious frame rate.
What I see is a terrible mismatch between the claims and the reality.
Claim: Claude is so smart, it can independently write an operating system kernel from scratch in a week.
Reality: Claude can recreate an operating system kernel that it has seen in its training data, with 90-95% fidelity, as long as it is carefully monitored and provided with guard rails in the form of test suites that took years to build up.
The reality is impressive. I don’t think “people impressed” and “people unimpressed” is really the right distinction to make here. It is extremely impressive that the model/agent was able to do this “from memory”, so to speak, without actually having access to the original data, effectively compressing petabytes of information down to a few gigabytes with less than 10% lossiness. It is impressive that it can retain hundreds of tests in a context applying to a single piece of code. It is impressive that, even with some human intervention, the thing was able to run for more than a week without totally collapsing or generating nonsense. We have never before had tools able to do those things.
It’s just not what the hype says it is, and it’s not what I would consider real intelligence, consisting of the ability to identify novel patterns, form novel abstract concepts, build novel models tying those concepts together and then craft novel implementations for those models. Agentic AI is good at “search problems”, which is to say, searching the solution space for some problem, where the problem has a narrow and well-defined specification, and the solution space is bounded by implementations previously seen in the training data, or very similar to them, and then iterating in trial-and-error fashion until it finds a matching set of implementation specs and/or parameters. Almost all of these exciting new developments fit that general mold. It is very cool, and iterates much faster than a human programmer doing it the old-fashioned way, but at the end of the day it is still a model in a for-loop, not a PhD-level genius in the room like Dario claims.
Sam Altman is actually not that bad in terms of making outlandish claims, and the Google guys are… well, kind of bad, but not any worse than they were already doing with DeepMind and AlphaGo and all that. Anthropic in general and Dario in particular really disgust me with the ludicrous claims they make, and I say that with full knowledge that Claude is still the best currently performing model for vibe coding. It is not the reality that drives me to cynicism, it is the cavernous gap between the reality and the hype.
I don’t even blame them exclusively for the cringeworthy claims that AIs are going to replace programmers; that claim largely exists because journalists are still salty over their loss of status and job security and being told once upon a time to learn to code, so the programmerless future they imagine is pure wish fulfillment fantasy. But Dario is subtly encouraging this fantasy, because it plays well in the media and he is a media whore.
Someone did a quadrant thing once with AI Doomers, AI Pessimists, AI Optimists and AI Skeptics. You’ve probably got the pessimist quadrant pegged pretty well, and I wouldn’t be surprised if a lot of them just think of it as silly chatbots, stochastic parrots, more convincing Elizabots. That’s not the Skeptics, though. Skeptics see the theoretical potential and generally believe it will be a positive thing, but have concluded that, for now and for the foreseeable future, we aren’t very close to achieving the full potential.
The other point of skepticism is all the openclaw stuff and the absolutely horrible things people are doing to their privacy and security, but this post is already too long so I’m just going to leave that as a one-liner.
Concluding:
Indeed.
A very sober analysis. It’s always hard to know where people are coming from when these things are discussed, so this background helps quite a lot.
Yes they are promising AI COMPUTER GOD and pretending that they have such. This is annoying. It makes every conversation about this new technology worse. People see the priesting and form tribes. I just want to talk about the possibilities unlocked now, and what they are likely to be in 2-5 years.
I dislike Dario mostly for the shrimp morality (EAs being utilitarian nutcases, and Dario’s circle being EA), and, perhaps ironically and irrationally on my end, forgive him the hype; it’s getting his organization funding for all the datacenter use, paying to keep the talent around. I like that DoW is giving them the squeeze, Anthropic is the best in the world and yet they are headed by evil hyperwoke utilitarian nutcases. Everyone is plugging into their systems, cannot be allowed to continue.
I will, perhaps annoyingly, continue to advance that if you are a programmer with decent enough math chops — i.e. you can learn more than just the combinatorics, DS&A and probabilty they teach in CS courses, like linear algebra and but also deep in the weeds on information theory — you should be playing with what’s out there. I don’t think it’s conceptually possible for the systems to know their own bounds, so if you use them, you will have to know how to wield them. If you wield them well, your breadth, the scope of problems you are reliably able to solve, will be quite broad. If Trump admin actually kills the regulatory and finance cartels preventing onshoring, you can make a lot of money, and have a lot of fun, using these tools for the new industrial revolution.
Going to try again with effort to lower my tone. Selected quotes for response and discussion.
It looks to me like every hierarchical system eventually breeds with its lower castes. Greece, Rome, Vedic India, Manchu/Mongolian China, Spanish, and now America. So yes I am extremely wary of a system that is not explicitly excluding foreign ethnicities even on the level of clients. I am an exclusionary particularist. Seperate and unequal.
Clarence Thomas is to some extent already in, as are many Latinos, Levantines, tiny portion of Hindus and Central Asians, and a solid dash of East Asians and SE Asians. I see this as something that has to be dealt with pragmatically — to be clear, I understand going full wigger We White Nationalist KKKill the coloreds is a) behaving like a retarded chimp b) never going to work — yet is still a failure. This is damage from the cancer on the super-ego genepool body. I would like to see memetic constructs that are anti-cancer, so that the next nascent universalism gets detected and eliminated by the super-ego meme immune system. A communion of autocephalous churches models this well. We agree on the meta-protocol for tribal ethnic interaction, trade, idea and culture sharing, and internally we have each ethnicity free to self-actualize without a fracticious super-ego trying to fulfill different ethnic prerogatives.
My point with brining up whiteness as a concept and topic was that: a) it shows historical understanding of American ethnicity as being this Hajnal/North Sea/Blue Banana type man b) we instinctively categorize white and non-white as mapping to the American ethnicity, not some pan-Europeanism c) this is important for self-understanding of what exactly is the civilizational ethnic core. I wanted to have clear maps of what whiteness is, even if the term is semantically poisoned by the adversary, because it maps better to the core than Amerikaaner. Canadians are white, but not Amerikaaner. I consider Canadians to be part of the ethnic core. Norwegians, Danes, Germans of the Blue Banana and North Sea provinces, not Amerikaaner, yet bio-culturally similar enough to be able to plug directly in. I wanted a clear map, even if the goal is not to meme to the public about white nationalism, or to even talk about ‘white nationalism’ outside the scope of describing what the American ethnic body truly is.
This is exactly the end state I want, with a bit more self awareness added in. You could get away with not having clear ethnic guardrails in Medieval Europe, because travel was expensive. You could not get some huge influx of Italian peasantry in the Engliah countryside, even if the King or Duke wanted it for some reason. Now we have Congo-Korean-Levantine mixes in L.A., the technology of the times means we need memetic guardrails. Otherwise we get the “default dog” phenomenon — look it up if you’re unfamiliar its an instructive meme — of a collapsed gene pool. This terrifies me because I see this has already happened many, many times. This is Mexico, and Brazil, and we are racing RACING down the same path, Restoration or not.
@Pax
I’m reffering to something I notice of a Cuddihy “Ordeal of Civility” where the Asian population has not been able to fully assimilate itself, despite earnest attempts. Asians go a bit deranged and in Red zones can go fully crazy tribal in order to signal belonging, and in Blue zones assimilate into kill whitey culture well — a sort of ‘compliment’, this shows honest attempt to assimilate! They assimilated to something evil but it wasn’t a maliciousness that caused this but an honest desire to be absorbed by the host. It’s hard to describe really, I’d have to think more deeply about what I am seeing intuitively and instinctively in order to be more clear. The takeaway is that I believe the psychology of the typical East Asian is not fully compatible with the sorts of civilization super-ego memes of America. They try very earnestly to assimilate and still feel uncomfortable, like a uniform that doesn’t fit. SEAsians do better, not perfectly but better, at fitting in. Couldn’t tell you why.
Under any reasonable application of the memes I’m trying to form, you’re ingrouped. I am not trying to go wignet huwite power KKKill the coloureds. That’s drooling retard chimp behavior. I want the pragmatic path from our very sick and deteriorated meta-organism state, to something healthy. In order to find that path, have to figure out and cleanly verbalize what health means and is.
“During the Black Death, Scotland suffered a population decline of 30-50%. This was tragic, because at the time, Scottish elites didn’t have the means to replace that lost population with Somalis. As a result, wages for the average peasant sadly tripled.” -Roman Helmet Guy
Our problem is not primarily racial mixing, but wiggerization — the genes for intelligence are not reproducing. A substantial part of these genes are on the X chromosome, which is passed in the female line. Smart women are not having children, and smart men are not getting grand children through their daughters.
White men are not only rapidly diminishing in numbers, we are also rapidly turning into white niggers.
Solve that problem, and racial mixing will not matter. We will wind up with a higher race, that will not be entirely white descended. Fail to solve it, racial mixing will not matter either. Everyone turns into niggers.
Intelligence is failing to reproduce, and this failure is primarily in the female line.
I agree this is our second most pressing concern. Even more urgent is dealing with the left before they capture any sort of martial organization and trigger WW3 and full autogenocide. I’m nothing if not pragmatic about how dire our situation is.
This is where we diverge. I have an irrational preference for my ethnicity, beyond the meritocratic elements. Rational preferences will not suffice as we enter a utility monster tech singularity (assuming we take off instead of fall into a dark age). Need irrational — metaphysical — preferences. If no irrational preference, we have no memetic barriers, turn into this complexity layer’s equivalent of bacterium. Bacterium are very good at optimization, far more metabolically flexible, can adapt to far more physical environments. Cannot achieve higher order complexity. They lack structural membranes preventing mode collapse of their genomes.
This gets extremely abstract. Suffice to say that Sparta died for not solving the woman problem, and Athens died for not solving the diversity problem. The Greeks were obsessed with breeding, still fell into mode collapse. It’s a difficult problem.
https://xcancel.com/xenocosmography/status/2029770124480369061
This is too on the nose. Mr. Land are you lurking here? If they make you head of xAI safety you should hire me over the bitmessage clone we make.
>It looks to me like every hierarchical system eventually breeds with its lower castes.
This is true. Many maids get impregnated by high status men. What’s also true is that for purposes of political maneuvers, and a small domestic selection pool combined with a very wide range of potential mates, nearly every hierarchical system eventually breeds with some degree of foreign upper castes as well.
I have no concern about being outgrouped. I have never been outgrouped by Whites, even among extremely racist ones. My primary concern about overt spoken ingrouping and outgrouping along racial or even ethnic lines is what it would do to the contiguity of the US. It would quickly turn this nation into the Balkans. I do not want that. I live here, I’m fully invested here emotionally and financially and hopefully soon biologically with a wife and children.
Some things are best left unspoken and informally enforced with enough leeway such that exceptions do not become delegitimizing unprincipled exceptions. Exceptions are easy to make when operating on the basis of immaterial religious traits, they become catastrophic and hard to make on the basis of abstract yet materially visible traits.
Geneflow ends up going both ways, always. Cannot think of a case where it did not, except that of massive unexpected population explosions, which as explosions are unsustainable. Cannot think of a nation that survives this upward flow from client populations.
For an example of the default dog problem, the Arabs used to be smarter and more capable, looking at history. Now theyre not, and there’s a clear divide in ability to sustain civilization between the kafir clients and the Mohammedan majorities. One explanation is Mohammedism selects for this, but I don’t see the mechanism. The other explanation, that I find more parsimonious, is the East African slave trade.
Empires always have had this problem, and many times their elites end up consumed by it. We can argue whether or not this degredation is directly caused by a decline in morality leading to the outbreedong depression, but humans always go through cycles of morality. Seems precarious to not have some concept, some Schelling point for the elite class to point at and say “okay okay, we won’t do that” instead of taking it as a given that “oh well I guess we’re decadent, bring me the mulatta slave girls!” is going to occur relatively early in the decivilizational process.
We have travel technology too powerful nowadays. Humans are in a sense “nonlocal,” as the friction of moving billions is like, what, a tiny fraction of a moderate sized country’s GDP? Need better guardrails. Need to know what you are, in order to send away what you are not.
As a total aside, Pax you are clearly “white-minded.” You think in abstractions and ideals like a true European. East Asians don’t really think that hard or long about the topics and discussions we’ve been posting about here. They like simple pragmatic philosophy, especially when it comes to the state, and only bother with the whys in order to get to the hows faster. As a general rule, anyway.
I mean wasn’t the whole caste system in India supposed to keep the subhuman Abbos from contaminating the Persian conquerors. Yet somehow the Dravidian Abbo genes (and Abbos are butt ugly, that can’t be said of every mulatta slave girl any man who claims there are no sexually attractive mulattas is just lying his ass off) ended up in nearly all the high caste Indians except for like 1000 people in Bollywood.
Theoretically the caste system should have worked to at least keep lower genes from flowing up but clearly it did not. So I think you are right. Really bad genetic material that can’t be fixed by genetic engineering has to be kept very isolated from your genetically better populations not just by social caste but geographically.
Impregnating the mulatto slave girls is never the problem. What is always the problem is not impregnating the daughters of the elite.
The problem is that the daughters of the elite come with too much baggage attached.
And our problem is that the education system is going full out full bore in loading them with maximum baggage.
Girls should not be in coed education when they suddenly and shockingly start to get hot. They are not mentally equipped to handle it — not at any age, but even less at that age.
Just as the cafeteria diet, the 24/7 availability of tasty snacks, makes them morbidly obese, the ready availability of the dreaded and desired male gaze makes them whores, resulting in hoeflation.
Back When we were reproducing successfully, the daughters of the elite would get sent to an all girl higher educational institution which would prepare them psychologically, socially, and culturally, to marry a member of the elite. Since they were facing a whole lot of competition from the low class whores, would tell them they were not entitled the six foot six athlete with a six pack and a six figure income.
Current schooling is relentlessly sex positive — which means that nine year old girls are forcefully encouraged to apply for the booty call list of the six foot six athlete with a six pack and a six figure income. Then, at thirteen or so, their applications suddenly start going through, resulting in a gigantically inflated perception of their own value.
The problem is that if India is any indication somehow even in herrenvolk states (and Persian women are often beautiful while Dravidian abbo women are repulsive, not something that can be said about every mulatta girl) the underclass blood leaks into the elite.
Fidelis is right about this… if you cant genetic uplift you have to more rigidly separate the races.
If you cannot genetically uplift you are buggered regardless of whether you separate the races or not. Look at the British. Pure blooded Britons are turning into niggers regardless of any admixture. They were turning into niggers before mass migration. Due to random mutation generating genetic load, you have to run as fast as you can to stay in the same place.
Look at the antifa mugshots. The vast majority are obvious spiteful mutants of wholly white ancestry. You don’t want that lot contaminating the gene pool either.
Please note, my quoting of only small snippets should be understood to mean that I agree with the majority of it, not that I am cherry-picking those parts as an excuse to render the majority false.
I think it maps better to the core racial composition you would like, and I would like, but maps to a much worse picture of culture and virtue, as whiteness (in an American context) just as easily maps to goodwhites as badwhites. Which is why we have the terms “goodwhites” and “badwhites” as well as SWPL and AWFL and they are all well-understood in the dissident right. These groups both identify as white internally, and are identified as white by outsiders.
We instinctively do this only when we are not around Europeans, Asians, or other non-Americans, and it’s obvious why–same reason the founders never even thought to mention negroes, or Catholics or Jews for that matter, because they just weren’t part of the physical landscape and therefore not part of the mental landscape either. Once they are present, it suddenly matters.
I used to work on a team with many actual Europeans, as in individuals born in Europe and either recently immigrated or on some kind of visa, not Euro-Americans. Couple of French, a few English, some Irish and Swedes, and so on. The issue of racial and ethnic identity came up on more than one occasion because this was during, or around, the time of the Great Awokening. All of these Europeans were slotted into “white”, and none of them (maybe one) presented as American or would have been considered that way. To be clear, the Europeans themselves found the concept confusing and foreign, and continued to identify as Swedish or whatever, but that did not stop HR and the majority of Americans on the team from classifying them as white.
I understand how you came up with your map, and what you want it to represent. However, I am telling you that it doesn’t represent that, at least not to normal guys doing normal(ish) things. American implies whiteness, in an absolute sense, albeit far too weakly for comfort. Whiteness does not imply American unless you have already successfully excluded all the non-Americans from the room, in which case you don’t need the definition anyway; and even in that case, it still includes the roughly 50% of passive white leftists and 10-20% of active white leftists whom we do not want to ingroup.
I can anticipate one counter, which is that if communism is as American as apple pie, then white leftists belong in the ethnicity as much as any of us, if not more so. The interesting thing is, though, that white leftists increasingly choose not to identify that way except when it’s politically expedient. They are progressive, or liberal, and reluctantly white, but not American, they hate and refuse that identity. They’ve handed us this very easy opportunity to exploit, and all it requires us to do is use the same word we’ve always used, but stop physically letting in so many foreigners.
I know a lot of Canadians, and do not in fact want Canadians to be part of the ethnic core, and they do not want to be part of the ethnic core. Canadians, even conservative-leaning ones, define themselves almost entirely by their “otherness” to the American, and have a deep-seated insecurity or even irrational hatred toward America. The reasons for this are complicated and not really worth getting into here, but the absolute derangement Canadians have toward Trump, especially when he makes any remarks about Canada, should resolve any doubts on this one. If you want documentary evidence, look at the blog of a Canadian red-pill blogger named Patriactionary. Pretty much any post on Trump or America will do.
If you want agreement that white Canadians are white in the same way that white Americans are white, then sure, I agree; but whatever that common biology is, it is not enough to overcome the national fractures, and ingrouping a majority of Canadians would be a disaster, even if we manage to exclude all the leftists.
Whether canucks define themselves by their otherness varies greatly from Canuck to Canuck. Right wing Anglo Canadians can certainly be incorporated into the greater Amerikaner Reich. Ones who define themselves by otherness to Americans… obviously can’t be trusted.
I think this can probably be easily sorted by giving each Canuck an interview on whether he wants to accept American citizenship if he is willing to be loyal…
Jim: “Maybe prose poetry can express meanings that that tend to slip away from words. But you would have to understand game at a level that words find hard to express, and I am not at all sure that you do.”
Yeah, you’re right, definitely no…I probably don’t understand game on that level, I do understand it’s axioms theoretically & intuitionally perhaps even on a pre-rational level, but being a product of decadent times, My understanding is not as innate as the understanding of older males who grew up in a more redpilled era, who breathed the redpilled in the air as you say, I have to purify the malignant blue-pilled pollutants in the omnipervasive air I breathe and the blackpill poisoning My own mind through steadfast, constant & continuous thought-filtration, be on guard all the time so I don’t fall into any unconscious purple-pilled or blue-pilled gibberish due to inner fallibility, I am unable to internalize the redpill in My unconscious psyche, I am doing better now than I was a few years ago though.
There are very few writers that have done expressed the red pill in prose poetry, fewer have expressed game, Milton did well in Paradise Regained & Paradise Lost through blank verse poetry, Shakespeare outmatches him in The Taming of the Shrew, George Gascoigne in
The Adventures of Master F.J., Miguel de Cervantes in his novel Don Quixote, Goethe in his manifold works, Edmund Spenser in his myriad works, Tasso in Jerusalem Delivered, Tommaso Campanella in his poetry, Walter Scott, Mallarmé maybe, were also redpilled but I’m not aware of any other prose writers who have attempted to decipt the redpill & game simultaneously in the past, there are other writers who are not prose writers that were redpilled (such as Stefano Guazzo in The civil conversation & The First Blast of the Trumpet Against the Monstruous Regiment of Women by John Knox, Philip Sidney’s Arcadia, works of Lydgate, Hoccleve, Chaucer, William Browne of Tavistock, Edmund Spenser, Donne, Jonson, Byron etc.)
Chivalric Epic Romance (Dante, Ariosto, Boccaccio, Petrarch, Boiardo, Castiglione) & the Troubadours don’t seem redpilled to Me, French Poets in the querelle des femmes genre did better (an example would be Guillaume de Saluste, Sieur du Bartas whom Milton himself imitated).
Arthurian writers (like Geoffrey of Monmouth, Chrétien de Troyes, Thomas Malory & Wolfram von Eschenbach also seem redpilled) you’ll surely find English Renaissance author Edward Gosynhill & Joseph Swetnam’s Arraignment of Lewd, idle, froward and unconstant women equally hilarious, going further back, there are alot of ancient redpilled writers, the best work among them is The Satires of Decimus Junius Juvenalis, and of Aulus Persius Flaccus, Translated Into English Verse by John Dryden.
It is difficult to gauge, many others from the past although invariably redpilled compared to current times, didn’t have evolutionary psychology so couldn’t understand female nature as well as we do now, although on the other hand through Aristotelian natural deduction they did understand it, alot of the great literary giants & prose fiction writers of the past seem to be pushing the purple-pill, perhaps out of over-intellectualization & metaphysical spiralling (such as Mario Equicola’s De Mulieribus & Libro di natura d’amore, De nobilitate et praecellentia foeminei sexus, written by the occultist Agrippa von Nettesheim was outright proto-feministic, the great prose writer Christine de Pizan had many elements of female emancipation in his works like the trouvère & troubadours, though unimaginably redpilled by current standards, similarly by contemporaneous standards even the old leftist writer Rousseau is unimaginably redpilled, Pierre de Ronsard is an unequaled prince among poets & a poet of poets but his works shy away from the being fraught with the primordial truths of the redpill while hinting at it assiduously), I don’t understand the reason why many otherwise preeminent authors are specious on this subject, they dance around the depiction of game in it’s complete form, so depicting game & the redpill unsparingly & unconcealed in it’s unadulterated form seems to be difficult.
“I am not running for King, I am running for Grand Inquisitor”
Indeed & Godspeed to you, as I’ve said before you have rare erudition, self-measure, counterpoised wisdom & you serve the all-speaking exquisitest Divine name Jesus Christ better than any I know through your virtuous deeds, in many ways, having learned a great variety of wondrous & wise things from you, I’m your pursuivant but even so, I’m running for King in the name of the Great All-discerning Eye, th’ eternall All-Creator, All-prudent Omnipotent All- Father who has bodied forth his own ineffable nature and power in the sensible world which being his Natural Law & Divine Law, I seek to serve Nature’s God whom is the measure of all things as an instrument of His Wrath, God Who Himself is Infinite, Immeasurable, Ineffable & supersensible, with Divine potency & Divine nature, as Nature, Mathematics & empirics are the physical measure of all nomology & God is supernomological.
I suppose our paths are divergent, I’m not sure how I can contribute to your glorious enterprise, this blog is political as you’ve said & I’ve been continuously off-topic, obscurantism chases your readers away whether said obscurantism is conscious in intentionality or misdirected, I am misfortunately bred in poverty & streights, am unemployable, unskilled & am no use to you, probably can’t assist you in anything or contribute to your blog, which although I admit readily, pains Me nonetheless.
To accomplish High designs, High actions requires Invincible Temperance & a great-souled will (which is the Nietzschean will-to-power)
Similarly, Great acts require great means of enterprise, virtue, valor, wisdom, authority & an invincible-minded spiritual disposition which is derived from observing Divine Law, Natural Law & faith in the Inviolable, Indefinable & Ineffable Sanctity of the Will of Nature’s God.
Once again I apologize to you for having been a malcontent & grating on your nerves in the past, perhaps even now I’m being grating, you Jim are like a father to Me, perhaps even greater than a father, these are not just soothing words of a soothsayer, learning things from you on the nature of women, which is knowledge of infinite importance, imperative to all men, you, yourself are a courageous man, invincible-willed and a source of Matchless spiritual strength & spiritual sovereignty for Me, I love you sempiternally & cherish your timeless guidance, My love for you is eternally undecayable, eternally undeprivable from My bosom, whatever becomes of Me and wherever I am to be (I am not successful in life despite having high ambition & have a presentiment that becoming a great doer of high actions, laudable, world-renowed & transcendent acts etc will be difficult for Me.)
My final declamation in this discussion is that I concede & accept your will, wisdom, command, erudition, adjuration, discretion, intentionality & even your winnowing of My posts, Me speaking more on this would be unproductive, jarring, causeless, wanton, misbegotten, misconceived off-topic derailment, so I won’t, this is My final post on this topic.
Cheers.
Jim is pretty spot on about color revolution being backed up by bombing.
The color revolution in Iran, apparently having failed, Tehran is now being carpet bombed with 2000lb bombs.
“We have to kill the people we were so concerned about in order to liberate them from the mullahs.”
This is a little different. Color revolution is done in the name of cultural uplift, whereas this a much older form of realpolitik, Wilsonian imperialism: their leadership is being uncooperative, so to hell with their leadership–literally. Decapitate them and keep peeling off layer after layer until we find someone who does want to cooperate.
It’s not the iron fist in the velvet glove, it’s just the iron fist. This is what they hope for, although it may not be what they get, because in war the enemy always gets a say. If there turns out to be no one in the country who wants to cooperate, could get ugly very fast. But we are not there quite yet.
This is indeed the theory. The practice is going to be tricky, in several respects. Iran saw decapitation strikes coming and decentralized their military ahead of time; Trump has stated directly that our first choices for who to take over are already dead; and the Israelis already bombed the first meeting meant to choose a replacement for the Ayatollah.
The first, decentralization, may lock us both in continuing hostility, with no practical space for breathing room and talks. They’re motivated to keep firing, and as long as they’re firing we’re motivated to keep stomping flat every missile launch site.
The last reveals a schizophrenia in US/Israeli war aims. The US perhaps wants only to peel back the onion and stop. Israel (for understandable historical reasons) is more out for blood, plus has in its back pocket a long standing and publicly proclaimed strategic vision of degrading and partitioning Iran. Rational from their standpoint, but as long as they can launch their own strikes we’re along for the ride.
In short, a case of the tail wagging the dog. It’s a particular example of a case I’ve been mulling over about the jews. Not the final boss in terms of the secret masters of the illumaniti and reptilians. Yes middlemen, but very capable and well positioned to put a thumb on the scale in a way that “just” middlemen doesn’t capture.
What are the “understandable historical reasons”? Hezbollah? Cyrus the Great? I am still unclear on what their problem is.
Doug Wilson ain’t the hot coffee and lukewarm gets spewed from the mouth.
Celebrity Churchianity. Dalrock and his commentariat lit him up a decade ago. I am hoping he has sacked up at least a little since then seeing as how the King hates simps and gyno-grovellers. Probly Doug is being as based as his organization allows, which is a problem with the mondo organizational Christianity model.
Daddy Scarebucks – “we had many other things explicitly written down in terms of race and ethnicity, and the left just abolished them. They didn’t get abolished because conservatives weren’t emphatic enough about race, they got abolished because conservatives [technically, liberals] let leftists [those farther left] have power and influence. The explicitness just made them easier to abolish”
Exactly. The more specific you make a rule, or the more rules you make, the more loopholes you create. Someone will always press that loophole, and normies will usually allow the exception because they don’t see that it’s the tip of the spear, or the camel’s nose sticking itself into the tent. A “No Homers” club may block Homers, but it does nothing to keep out the Carls and Lennys and Barneys. If you have to have a rule, a less specific one like “No one from Moe’s bar” is better. Not ideal, but better.
“Obviously false. Christians have a long history of being at war with other Christians, Muslims have a long history of being at war with other Muslims, and let’s not get started on the lethal factionalist wars within the left; we’ll be here all day”
It’s obviously true, apostasy & metaphysical innovation about unfalsifiable matters (which is what caused all those wars you brought up) which are infinitely supernal to mortal comprehension & the matters which oversoar above mortal cognitive-causal competence is obviously not common faith cohesion.
All conflicts are waged on the basis of common faith, religion, holiness spiralling, indeed, all large-scale conflicts since the beginning of time have been rooted in the instantiation of physical entropy expressed in the form of ideoscopic differences, a matter of faith & ideas rather than genetic taxonomy.
Your example of China is erroneous, China never had ideoscopic cohesion on the basis of genetic ancestry, Chinese-on-Chinese conflicts are manifold in numerarity & eternally recurrent incessance, are much more gore-splattering, blood-splattering & bloodletting, not only were the conquests of China by other High Inner Asian Equestrian Steppe Lord Conquerors much more peaceable in comparison but they were also Buddhists warring with Taoists, & Confucians subjugating Buddhists & Taoists & vice-versa in that permutation, so either on the basis of holiness spiralling, entropy conquering & religious wars, furthermore the Chinese have endless & illimitable hostilities with their cousins the gooks & the nips for rather trifling, minutiae, inconsequential reasons, reasons which only make sense in the light of their mutually non-isomorphic state-religions causing such conflicts, Chinggis Khan is worshipped by the Han Chinese even today.
There are no example of weltanschuungen group cohesion on the basis of race, time & time again in the timeless currents of eternitie, populations have tried ideological cohesion on the basis of race & have failed ever-vainly & ever-recurrently, look at what happened to Vedic India, Ancient China & Ancient Egypt, all melting pot events of late decadent empires failing at fideism & cohesion, Rassenchaos inevitably & invariably ensues.
As the Sempiternal, Impermutable & Ineliminable Darwinian paradigm says, genetic introgression & selective sweeping through panmixia leads to selection for eugenic & omnidominant traits in any phylum, in any case that does mean that the Higher Races will unavertably & inevitably exterminate the lower ones, who, unable to preadapt will be rendered antiquary, antient, out-shone, out-adapted, out-moded, outdated & so on due to being on a lower rung of evolutionary being, temporal powers can’t omnitemporally crystallize the white race through encasing it in an eternally undecayable coffin of a cryogenic or hyperbaric faraday chamber in the cryopreservationist schema, perhaps I the future, transcendent technologies will lead to man conquering mortality & reaching the antechamber of eternal, imperishable, immersicible & indestructible being.
IIn any case I have high disdain & unutterable contempt for a multitude of the traits that Asiatics have & would be glad if the preference cascade of All-ruling Nature & All-inspiring Spirit of Providence leads to whites unleashing unimaginable & insuperable horrors on them, I don’t wish for their bugmen who are deindividuated with debased antlike, slavish, entomofauna, moundlike, termite characteristics of mentalistic, onto-phenomenological, soseinological slavery to get passed down, I would prefer if the Impassible Herrenvolk of Steppe Mongols had another chance at world-conquest & thus the Mongols & White races, respectively conquered the universe, leading to a future of entropy-transcending superabundance in their respective universe-encompassing feudatories.
I don’t think this genetic purity stuff where an unreachable & infallible standard of purity is demanded & delimitated is as important as eugenic superfecundity, which is a prerequisite of Transcosmic Conquest & voyage into the Faustian infinitudes of the Tegmarkian inflationary universes, as well as other Leibnizian, Clausian, Maxwellian, Einstenian, Hilbertian, Barrowian universes, genetic superfecundity & cacogenics has the existential import for outcompeting everyone else in the evolutionary race, the only way to ensure genetic purity would unironically only be through a global thermonuclear war exterminating all races sans the whites, initiated, waged & won by the whites, which is so improbable as to be imcompossible but which If Willed by Fate, Chance & Coeternal Providence, I accept.
The races are not equinumerous in the higher sense-faculties in any case, Christendom as the vital organizing principle of higher teleologies modularizing the being of Higher civilization did an unerring job at keeping the inferior races out of the boundary line of Western Civilization.
Seems to be working. I tried to send you a message, it was looking for your pubkey, which wasn’t cached in the network. I’m busy the next few days, and not sure I can have the daemon running, but I’ll try again when I can.
There was a lot more work done than I anticipated. The daemon starting was one thing, but peering and the cryptography codepaths were busted as well. Seems to be working now. Peering and processing messages. Probably hidden bugs still, but that doesn’t matter for what we’re doing. The AppImage also is not working on my machine, so the only working bitmessage client I have is the python3 migrated one.
It’s still extremely sloppy. It makes weird errors in judgement, makes a hairball of a codebase, and in implementing a feature it may have to take several tries. So if you naively apply the code agent, you get a crap application. You need human judgment to guide the process. There are lots of assholes who don’t understand this and don’t care, that are blindly prompting the agent “hey fix this bug on this popular repo”, failing to check if the fix even works or is sane, then making a PR. Human error, really.
It is not on by default AFAICT, and still works fine. I see the process, it dumps into the window. It gets all the filepaths, runs a `grep …` on many documents in parallel and feeds the results into subagents that pull out relevant code. I am using this with python and zero LSP to render bitmessage usable again, and it finds the relevant codepaths fine. It sometimes takes several tries to fix a problem, but it is persistent and gets more than you would expect based on the first try.
Looks like I should be able to migrate bitmessage without spending an undue amount of time. You can examine the results. Don’t expect a codebase a human would produce, but I will be vigilant in bounding and manually verifying all the networking and cryptography paths, and then its up to your own judgement.
It is not supposed to look for my pubkey. You send people messages by already knowing their pubkey. Pubkeys are not supposed to be discoverable from the network, as that would be a gross metadata leak, and the whole point of Bitmessage is that it is not supposed to leak metadata.
The public address is a hash. It needs a public key to encrypt the message to send
https://wiki.bitmessage.org/index.php/Protocol_specification#getpubkey
https://github.com/Bitmessage/PyBitmessage/blob/f87865271c5404486f36d0f448118d4257aff77c/src/class_singleWorker.py#L1347
I won’t be online for a few days. When I try again I will post here with a reachable address.
I have not received your message. Publish your pubkey so that I can send you a message.
I’ve seen some networks that use public public keys, usually for node discovery, or for some type of public chatroom forum. Most P2P networks all the users pubkeys are not publicly exposed unless you choose to give them out to people.
Some like Simplex have a UI that supports relatively easier management of multiple identities for use with multiple contacts/groups.
I checked out Bitmessage a long time ago, and will be trying some old/new networks again so will post some keys of various nets for people to test/interop with before long.
If you know of some searchable P2P distributed filesystems, things that let users graft their hierarchies onto a traversible category tree, filesharing, curation, content-addressible deduplication, etc…
Everyone these days is putting their stuff on top of libp2p, which is on top of IPFS.
Attempting to send
from: BM-2cUTpvdA8jKLXCVHbu8sjGrZe7mWArQcvn
to: BM-NB5cJuoFTkcmNEKDcBwn1RDxYDX3gGbq
Currently it is waiting for your node to broadcast a pubkey to use to encrypt and send a message.
Well my node sent your node a message, and is waiting for your node.
My node is up most of the time on most days.
On investigation, loads of bugs. Lots of weird behavior that produces bugs that reveal themselves when tested against the live network, as the python2 code is liable to do strange things in a python3 context, like treat strings as if they were char[] bytes.
I’m standing up a full local testnet instead of relying on the unit tests. It’s not perfect, ideally I would have an oracle (the regular bitmessage) but the AppImage isn’t running. Maybe I’ll try running it in a container, but after I get a testnet up of the half-migrated code, since it will be useful later anyway, and its finding un-migrated code just setting this up.
As always, any software project is liable to take longer than initial estimation. Yet I managed to successfully replace a portion of the cryptography with a small rust crate and some python binding glue, and this was very easy, so we might get lucky and the hardest part is setting up the test oracle.
I understand your plan to be have the LLM fix the new software till its behavior agrees with the old software.
Large Python programs are difficult to maintain. We shall discover if llms can do any better.
I think you would have better luck telling it to translate to C++ or rust, and setting up an oracle consisting of the original python program, and the new rust program, sending messages back and forth.
For this project specifically, will be better off if the migration is “continuous” in a sort of Ship of Theseus sense. Would struggle greatly with implementing a very big and complex codebase that has to conform “bug for bug” with an extant codebase entirely de novo. It’s persistent not clever. Standing up a big codebase, would be riddled with interlocking bugs, and when it fails against the oracle, it will flail about creating a big tangled mess, because the task is too large and the bugs codependent.
So I am opting to section by section replace chunks of the python with rust, rust because I am most familiar with the ecosystem and the cargo build system does not make me want to die like CMake makes me want to die. Starting with the cryptography, since there are plenty of well crafted cryptography crates for rust, and binding is a simple API, and you can use the rust typing system to make improper use very difficult even for a monkey on a typewriter. The migration of internal message and peering state machines will be harder. I want an actor model because these are the easiest to verify, both by eye and by using formal checkers, being finite state machines with well-defined boundaries and communication patterns. Not entirely sure yet how I will make the harness, perhaps a monstrosity where we have a rust daemon with an RPC endpoint, and the python code will come to depend on calling that RPC endpoint until we do away with the python code entirely.
I got a headless daemon running from the AppImage, working on spinning that into a testnet to test against. I’ll update once I’ve made enough progress that it becomes interesting to share.
I think that people who think they are producing ten thousand lines of code per day using agents are just stealing ten thousand lines of code without realising it — that the llm is a great search engine for finding example code for doing what you need to do, but when the problem is doing what has not been done, they are not much help.
They are just search engines with an Eliza front end. Which is still a very useful and valuable tool. But I doubt it can rewrite Bitmessage in Rust, or even in Python3.
Care to make a bet, that I can make a novel algorithm using code agent tools, that will allow, after an initial tar ball exchanged out of band, us to send code repos directly through bitmessage as AEAD?
Just for fun, as I of course am not going to share all the transcripts between me and the tool, so cannot prove to you I did not write anything, but I have no reason to lie here. I have already made tools that have no equivalent in the wild, because they are very specific protocols that fix needs that I had but are not general.
Obviously an LLM can copy code to stream and destream arbitrary structured data, copy code to pipe streamed data in through aead, and then pipe the aead through text transport. It is copyin three things that actually exist, and plugging them together — which is creative the way astronaut on a horse is creative.
The art program grabs someone’s art of a cowboy on a horse, and someone’s art of an astronaut, and skillfully merges them together, which skillful merging lacks awareness that the astronaut has a vacuum suit and the horse does not. And when you tell the art program to give the horse a vacuum suit, will not get far, though you might have more luck asking for a robot horse.
Obviously an LLM can copy code to stream and destream arbitrary structured data, copy code to pipe streamed data in through aead, and then pipe the aead through text transport. It is copying three things that actually exist, and plugging them together — which is creative the way astronaut on a horse is creative.
The art program grabs someone’s art of a cowboy on a horse, and someone’s art of an astronaut, and skillfully merges them together, which skillful merging lacks awareness that the astronaut has a vacuum suit and the horse does not. And when you tell the art program to give the horse a vacuum suit, will not get far, though you might have more luck asking for a robot horse.
In that case I’m not sure what the pessimism is, if this is indeed pessimism. A very small portion of work is truly novel as opposed to a clever and opinionated synthesis of what already exists. If LLM coders can arbitrarily combine extant code in meaningfully distinct ways that lead to performant applications, then that is enough to be more useful than most code monkeys.
I thought you were trying to imply that the copy paste like mechanics impeded the ability to be useful for use cases that have yet to be attempted, such as a sort of VCS over bitmessage. That would be code that is indeed meshing concepts together that are already extant, but it would still be a product that does not exist in the wild, and would require ground level decision-making on the concrete implementation.
Well, they can arbitrarily combine extant code, and frequently do, often when you did not expect or intend it, often in ways that make no sense. It is very far from clever, meaningful, and opinionated synthesis of what already exists. It is merely a very smooth gluing of stuff together, code that resembles the five legged racehorse racing, or the six limbed and six fingered dancer. Code that looks fine but makes absolutely no sense as soon as you start thinking about it.
Now if you have a test condition that can check if the dancer has two arms and two legs then, after using a lot of tokens, you will get a working result.
But if your test condition is the astronaut’s horse has a space suit, you are not ever going to get a working result, just a very large bill from the AI company.
When I see successful vibe coding, it is mostly a matter of code that sweeps up a whole lot of data, and then filters and transforms it — the llm can cheerfully put a whole lot of existing filters and transformations end to end, and put the result into a web page that displays the contents of the generated database the way you want it. This is undoubtedly a useful and powerful capability, and you can get it working step by step.
But the vast majority of code that needs to be written is not like this.
We are close in opinion, the difference is that I believe the decisions tend to be “clever enough” and with some tricks you can get them to be more clever. I also believe that they are very good at fishing out concepts in their training data that are somewhat relevant, and translating them into the proper context. The example I posted here a week or two ago of the agent solving some estoteric graph coloring problem put forth by Knuth demonstrates this. It pulled from its internal knowledge reservoir a diverse array of math concepts, translated them into python, and applied them to the problem. It did not do so entirely naively, but adjusted its approach via some level of “understanding” of why its last iteration failed, and eventually succeeded.
So while the LLM has a rough time of coining new abstractions or concepts, and is not great at working in unbounded settings, it is becoming as good or better than the median uncreative-but-diligent smart human in the formalized and bounded setting.
So I push back on statements like this:
Half because rewriting seems to be their wheelhouse, and half because I’m in the middle of doing so, and my contribution is mostly steering and bounding the problem so it doesn’t go off on bad tangents.
Do you have some idea of a problem that isn’t “invent a new algorithm or program or logic, unconnected and not a combination of extant work” that is relevant to fixing bitmessage here? I too doubt the model can invent de novo concepts, but I have seen it combine concepts in its reservoir that are quite esoteric and not in my own knowledge base, and do so in a way that is “good enough.”
“White men are building Cathedrals again.”
Um, er, no. Watch Tucker’s recent interview with Carrie Prejean Boller asking ‘where are the men? Why aren’t they standing up?’
The answer of course is that women have won, women rule, and men are doing the only thing men can do in the face of female hostility – fading away. We can’t take the Hormuz Strait, we can’t go back to the moon, we can’t even repair the George Washington bridge.
Patriarchy will come back when civ collapses and women need it again.
‘The answer of course is that women have won, women rule, and men are doing the only thing men can do in the face of female hostility – fading away’
That is exactly correct, and all the shit-test passing in the world ain’t gonna change it.
In the face of the obvious victory of the gynarchy — many decades ago — what is the response of Edgy Conservative Commentator Cucker Tarlson? He assured us just a couple months ago that America is a PATRIARCHY.
Yep. He actually did. And some little marmot called Nick Fuentes was right there by his side, to agree and amplify.
America’s problem ain’t Nancy Pelsosi and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. America’s problem is its Cucker Tarlsons. They are the ones who stab us in the back and sell us out.
I routinely pass shit tests that are extremely dangerous to pass, and I do change it for myself. No one doubts that I rule my household, and the impact of this tends to ripple out into other people’s lives and families. People see an actually functioning marriage backed by divine authority, an alpha male backed by the ultimate alpha male, and think “Hey, you can just do that!”
To change it for your average soldier and taxpayer requires social change, for our society has armed women with social superweapons that make their shit tests absurdly dangerous and terrifyingly costly to pass, but the lucky, the brave, and the strong can change it for themselves.
The future belongs to those that show up. Worst case outcome is that we get a small whitish subpopulation descended from people like me.
And don’t give me that fake postmodern Christianity that game is unchristian. Genesis is Adam failing a shit test, and the epistles of Paul and Peter are God commanding us to pass.
It is the will of Gnon that all creatures shall be fruitful and multiply — it is also his will that most birds shall fly, that humans shall have large scale extended cooperation, and that families shall be under the authority of their patriarch.