Naturally the world press attempted to frame this as Trump taking a humiliating beating like an errant schoolboy.
But …
But the frame fell off with Trudeau’s eyebrows.
Trump targeted Trudeau in particular, not because of anything he said, that was just an excuse, but because the Canadian economy is the most vulnerable to a tariff war with the United States. The fake eyebrows were a visible manifestation of less visible weakness. A weak country produces, and is produced by, weak men.
Which brings me to a far more important conflict: The president’s struggle with the presidency.
The left seemingly holds all the cards. Christianity has surrendered to the left, and is dying for its own sins, for its heretical endorsement of vile sins. The left control every institution. Surely it is all over?
Well, maybe it is all over. On past performance the left, being macro scale entropy, is never defeated until they start murdering each other in large numbers, or until very few people remain and alien outsiders move in on the vacant lands.
But the left is vulnerable because incohesive. Because the left is entropy manifest in the form of people and political action, they have no cohesion, which leads to them always being out holied by even crazier leftists, the latest big leftwing projects being genocide of Christians, and boys changing sex before puberty, which is currently being promoted in comics and television cartoons, but also leads to them falling apart when opposed by a strong leader. They have a leadership vacuum, made manifest by Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Angela Merkel. The left wing tendency to absolute dictatorship is their solution to the terrifying entropy of leftism, their solution to their fear of each other, their solution to their endless and increasingly dangerous struggle with each other. They wind up with despotism as a desperately needed substitute for strength and unity.
In so far as they have unity at the moment, it is because their top people have blackmail material on each other. If Trump can get a decent prosecution going of a few mid level leftists, they are going to start singing on each other, the way they keep expecting Trump people to sing when they launch spurious prosecutions against them.
But that is a coup complete problem. How does Trump get a prosecution going, when the criminals are the Department of Justice and the FBI? On the other hand, as we approach the left wing singularity, coups become increasingly probable.
If he gets a good prosecution going, he will then own the presidency. But hard to get a good prosecution going until he first owns the presidency.
If Trump pulls off an autocoup, the next big problem will be making it permanent. The presidency is too vast and sprawling to be easily controllable, thus tends inexorably to entropy, hence leftism, and leftism tends ever leftwards. To make an autocoup permanent, Trump will have to disempower almost all of the presidency. After an autocoup, if the presidency remains vast, and vastly powerful, it will continue to work to disempower the president and his successors, though more slowly, in a more furtive fashion, and with less conscious intention.
[…] Can’t stump the Trump […]
Jim, have you seen Bronze Age Pervert’s new book? (Moldbug- and Nick Land-endorsed!)
It’s not your new religion, but it’s one hell of an improvement on Peterson for young men. Peterson: clean your room; BAP: lift iron, train, prepare to sack the cities with fire and steel.
That being said, it has disappointingly little to say on women, and contains some nonsense, including blatant absurdities that are obviously trolls or normie-bait. Part 3 is the best of the book.
Should clarify – BAP himself has been mentioned with approval by MM and Land, not his book (yet). Fanatical formalist neo-Hellenic nudist bodybuilder An-Cap pirate-commandos marching on Washington to cleanse the world of soyboys and popular sovereignty are still, as of this moment, merely implied.
Is BAP Pax Dickinson?
It’s either Pax Dickinson or TRV Dante.
After the city has been taken, the women are part of the booty. Everybody knows and expects this, including the women.
Couldn’t agree any more.
the women are the booty
the loot is something else
I don’t read stuff by people who don’t do paragraphs.
The left is like any alliance of barbarian looters. As long as the booty flows, it will stay together. Once the flow of booty halts, the blood will run as they turn on each other.
[…] Source: Jim […]
In the image, Trump is obviously thinking:
The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.
This is so damn fascinating I just can’t get enough.
Fake eyebrows, people. Fake. Ass. Eyebrows.
Anything is possible.
Maybe he’s not related to Fidel after all.
Makes ya wonder about that fabulous hair, don’t it?
Not to mention whether he wears a corset.
Would it be preferable for the Left to spiral toward blatant genocide of whites in five years, rather than in fifteen? We’re more capable now and Trump is unlikely to lock the doors to an unlimited presidency behind him on his way out (just assuming). Then again, the Left is waking so many people up to how insane they are that maybe we should hope that any violence happens after a generation of boys grow up hardened to their feminist teachers’ rants.
I give it eight years.
Holiness spiral is now about making us nonwhite faster. So genocide is holier. Observe how fast we got from gay marriage to conservative churchmen promoting transexuality to nine year old boys. 2008 Obama was against gay marriage. Now your socially conservative church cheers nine year old transexual boys for their “courage” and urges wives to evict their husbands and destroy their children. That was ten years.
So, from the unpunished and socially approved murder of Kathryn Steinle on the Embarcadero in 2015 by illegal immigrant and routinely repeating criminal Francisco Sanchez, to the murder of one hundred million Kathryn Steinles, maybe eleven years, so, if nothing out of the ordinary happens, if the arc of the moral universe continues to bend toward justice, genocide in around eight years.
What could be more unjust than the evil thoughts of white males continuing to cause black and female underperformance and forcing blacks to shoot each other. Also the horrid injustice that black neighborhoods do not have supermarkets after they burn them down. And the fact that schools with a substantial number of nonwhites look as if vandals roam at will unpunished. Clearly it is a crime that nonwhites have to attend such rundown schools. Clearly the arc of the universe will remedy this dreadful injustice, and the way the wind blows, if nothing dramatic and extraordinary happens, it will.
Expect Pope Francis to issue a sermon on how horrid is that cis het white males continue to exist as they take him on a tumbrel to the guillotine.
You doubt me? Observe South African whites preaching social justice amidst the mutilated bodies of their friends and families.
This is legitimately one of your nuttiest comments, Jim. You don’t actually believe that in 2029 there will occur a genocidal extermination of 100 million white Americans, do you?
Civil war, maybe. But the kind of scenario you describe is wholly unrealistic. Not to go full-Marx, but people’s consciousness is significantly influenced by the economic and technological conditions of society, and so for the deadly 20th century to come back, need its economic and technological conditions to come back.
Not happening. Besides, “the Left” today is a coalition of Feminist cat ladies, limp-wristed anarchist bandits, and room temperature IQ black thugs. They can’t do s**t.
Those who will not learn from history are condemned to repeat it. They will give it a try.
We have seen a lot of mass murders. Our left walking the same path as every previous left.
Walking the same path, chances are that they arrive in the same place.
Murdering white people is already holy. It will inexorably get holier.
Let’s try a third view. We know in social events even retrodicting the past is very hard, how many people have an accurate view about what the Civil War was about? But instead of trying to figure out the objective truth about the past, it is an easier job to look into how various groups perceive the past. Listing the predominant competing opinions about what the Civil War was about is much easier.
So try it about the future. Not try to predict what really happens, just try to predict how will various people perceive, see what happens. It is at least easier so maybe higher chance of getting it right.
So. Are you predicting that a random suburbian liberal-ish but not fanatic whitey will perceive that he is being genocided? Or will just perceive something like “man there is a lot of crime here” ? How about the average Limbaugh-ish conservative? Will he see himself being genocided?
Related: Peter Turching identifies three reasons of civil war:
1) declining real wages, oversupply of labor (see also: immigration) (I suspect declining social status of workers as well)
2) Being a worker sucks now so everybody and their dog wants to become one of the elites. Oversupply of elites, see, too many college degrees in medieval basket weaving. This leads to elite infighting, political fracture, lot of elites fight intensely over dividing the cake which means they lead increasingly hostile political movements.
3) state financial collapse, unpayable debt
>I suspect declining social status of workers as well
Wars are almost always a question of status, not economics.
Every war is fought over who will pay tribute to whom. First you take their money, then they have to bow to you as you cherry-pick their women.
Except that Peter Turchin is that old school socialist who tends to blame everything on economical divide. It’s all about income differential to him. So, yes, I give him credit for raising alarm about major turmoil in 2020s, but his actual explanation for what drives people is incorrect. He is also desperately trying to stay out of giving any prescriptions, other than, again, cautioning against the income and indebtedness divide. This is why he is close to being useless and even misleading.
I noticed that part, but that is more like a sore thumb sticking out of an otherwise very good set of ideas than his main ideology. You can take the boy out of Russia but you cannot take Russia out of the boy. There is hardly any Russian today (if you didn’t notice, he is one) who wouldn’t dislike high wealth inequality and the 1%-99% thing.
Read War and Peace and War, the idea that populations with the highest unity win and those populations come from the frontiers of grand civilizations and empires where there is a lot of fighting is first class.
I would give him the credit that he is not a simple redistributionista. He tends to say inequality comes from demographics, from overpopulation.
I’m from Russia, originally (lived there till my late teens, with a few years in Israel, in between) and Russia got taken out of me, eventually. Thank God.
Ayn Rand was from Russia, too, but she definitely thought quite differently from Turchin. Funny coincidence, my paternal Jewish ancestors were big merchants and enterpreneurs in Russia, also. In addition, i used to know, personally, a descendant of Russian Whites, currently a Russian Orthodox priest, who thinks quite differently from Turchin. So, such stances might have something to do with one’s ancestors’ exposure to what Russia was before the last Revolution.
In other words, pro-redistribution is a sign of peasant class, i.e. “bydlo.” Old Russian patriots (who came from nobility) wanted good name, glory and booty. Don’t care about the peasants — give them a good flogging, vodka and bread, to shut them up and make them work. As long as there is enough bread and vodka, the more they get beaten, the more they love their feudal lord. Truly, most Russians are white niggers. And that’s what Germans thought also.
Anyway, most importantly:
Turchin’s thesis on inequality is faulty at its core. Yes, inequality in older days, in agricultural societies that were Malthusian, was due to population increase. It would tend to dissipate after wars and big epidemics.
As of last 100 years, going from the time when US population was 90%+ engaged in agriculture (in the early 20th century) to today, when less than 5% of US population is engaged in agriculture, inequality in income and wealth is not at all due to overpopulation. The reason for huge inequality today is the winner-take-all-effects of modern industrial processes, the non-linear feedback. That inequality works in a power law fashion: the top 1% is hugely wealthier than top 5%, and the top .1% is immensely richer than the top 1%. But the bottom today 95% keeps getting richer vs 95% 30 years ago, in terms of buying power. They just don’t feel it.
Turchin is wrong. It is Nassim Taleb who is correct. The depression stems from the loss of identity and pride, professional and national. Has little to do nothing to do with income inequality, which is more of a PC banner nowadays, used by the left and the feminists to unite niggers and cat ladies with men who actually are capable of pride.
To summarize: it is protectionism, and reversal from the globalist agenda that is required. Not protest marches for more goodies or handouts.
Supposedly the 99% commoners are insufficiently competent to assess their own absolute socioeconomic position. But we humans universally are biological organisms bristling with sensors exquisitely tuned to the detection and analysis of our existential status.
The 99% commoner young man looks out at a world in which his dollar goes immeasurably further in the real of video games, and tremendously further in terms of the tastiness of chips, cheetos, soda, and energy drinks than the young man’s dollar of 1990. But, strangely, despite the supposedly great prosperity of which he hears all the time, he finds that his dollar is no more able to purchase a hot rod or a roof or a womb than that of his 1990 counterpart. And, in fact, that his purchasing power in such things is significantly eroded and continuing to erode all the time, despite the well-known fact that Things Have Never Been Better.
Although, of course, this thought, no matter how well and how long incubated, never rises to this level of articulation, perhaps the young man, in living in his mother’s basement, eating cheetos for breakfast, and playing vidya without end, is not engaging in fundamentally irrational behavior?
I will tell you: it is a truly enlightening experience to realize that people are not, in fact, fundamentally irrational, that it is, in fact, a mistake to attribute to ignorance or incompetence what can be plausibly explained by self-interestedness, and that men do not play vidya without end because it is so great but because they have nothing else to do.
But each year the wall-mounted hypnoscreens are a little bit bigger and better and stronger than ever before. That isn’t nothing. Maybe.
@Yara: Sure. I would add to my summary: “And going back to the days when a man was the master of his house.”
Alas, this latter part is hard. And it boils to the fact that we, today, are no longer a population of farmers (free and slave), nobles, and merchants. We live in post-industrial cities, in urban environments with expectation of labor mobility and lack of connection not just to our extended clans, but to our very parents and siblings.
It’s hard to go from this to something that replicates the old social arrangement, which came with lots of perks by default. This one is a tougher nut to crack than protecting industrial production or artisanal occupations.
Unless you are ready to go back to farming land and breeding cattle. Possibly, all the way back to subsistence farming, if jim gets his big race war, which is probably going to become much bigger than just race war.
The reason a man is not master in his house is absolutely nothing to do with labor mobility and blah blah blah. It is because his wife can say “Domestic violence” (with hurtful words, or hurtful silences, counting as “violence”) and police will throw him out of his home, take all his assets, which his wife will burn taking several trips around the world in the expectation that a six foot three billionaire athlete will sweep her off her feet, and the court will order him to pay unpayable alimony based on his “imputed income”.
A man is not master of his own house because white knights are entitled to kick down the door and beat him up, not because of labor mobility and blah blah blah.
Now suppose instead we had a rule that required men to support their children and the mother of their children, but also required women to honor and obey the father of their children, and to always be available for sex with him, and never available, or appear to be available, to anyone else. And that if they appeared to be available to someone else, potentially deadly violence was entirely reasonable. (Book of Deuteronomy as interpreted by the court of King Solomon)
Then men would be the masters of their houses. The question is simply, does the state gang up on the side of the white knights, or on the side of the husband and father?. If the state backs white knight violence, then marriage and the family is destroyed and it is very difficult to reproduce. If the state backs domestic discipline and personal defense of one’s property rights in children and wife, then men and women are able to reproduce. If a white knight butts in, I should be able to kill him, just as if a burglar butts in I can kill him. It is nothing to do with labor mobility or modernity.
If farmers were not allowed to control their cows, we would not have milk, and if men are not allowed to control their wives and children, we will not have children. White knights need to get the same treatment as cattle rustlers. Despite modernity and labor mobility and all that, a farmer can still kill a cattle rustler, and if he could not, we would not have milk.
is Yara a deep learning bot trained on the neorectionary corpus from 2008-2015?
Of course they overestimate their social status. The whole point of Democracy, as Moldbug said, is to allow commoners to overestimate their social status. The whole point of Boomerism, this may be a newer theory not in the data Yara was trained from, is that the Boomer maximizes its unneduate personal comfort, not caring about the Great Things his parents wanted it to do but also not caring about itself and its children getting cucked as long as it gets chalupas and a nice mattress to sleep on for it.
Coalburners think they’re on the top of the world with everyone reacting to them, having a perfect jerkboy no one can insult directly, until their nigger leaves them three months pregnant.
If people could rationally perceive their social status and their expectation for future social status, democracy would work. Instead, up until last year, many of the most intelligent young Whites were arguing about paperclip maximizers and the basilisk as a thought-terminating cliche while being invaded by muslim maximizers with the holy hoax as a thought-terminating cliche.
Relative socioeconomic position != absolute socioeconomic position. The former is SES position with respect to other people. The latter is SES position with respect to absolute metrics like genetic load, epigenetic load, “good schools”, security from literal or financial cuckoldry, TFR, etc. By the former standard we’re all pretty much as we were in 1990. By the latter standard….
America’s best decades were when she was most democratic: 1860 to 1950. Nearly every great invention and innovation that characterizes our Modern Age has its roots in that time period: real physics.. the bicycle.. denim.. the aeroplane.. golf.. the car.. the transistor. The list continues without end.
The history of 1950 to 2020 is that of an esoteric ghey-lite methodically smashing every once-great institution very much to the protestations of the great masses of people. If Native Americans were complicit in the doings of their destruction, “””they””” would not have needed to import successive waves of despoilers beginning with the Irish.
The Boomers are and always have been cattle.
t. 29y/o Boomer
That this question is so hard to answer shows it is a very good question.
So here is an equally hard answer: the German Jews did not perceive themselves as being genocided until after the war was settled. On the other hand, the Tutsis certainly did perceive themselves as being genocided.
So perceptions are strange, unreliable, and difficult to predict in advance, even though they are easiest to evaluate after events, they are hardest to predict before events.
Here is what I definitely can predict. Hatred of cis het white males is the KKKrazy glue holding the coalition of the fringes together: With increasing reliance on importation of black Mohammedan military age male voters screaming for infidel blood and white pussy to live on crime, welfare, and voting Democratic party, hating on whites is going to be increasingly the key element of leftism, and hating on males less. Cis het feminists are already feeling their loss of victim status. And leftism will go ever lefter.
Perceptions are harder to predict: I predict that the average Limbaugh-ish conservative will not perceive himself being genocided, but the average suburban whitey who is less attuned to poltical doublethink, and is vaguely liberal-ish because that is the default position that he has never thought about will perceive himself being genocided, because his doublethink module is less developed and sophisticated.
>increasing reliance on importation of black Mohammedan military age male voters
Is that what’s going on in the US? According to the Cathedral’s Encyclopedia (Wikipedia):
“It is estimated that the current population of African immigrants to the United States is about 2.1 million.”
Not very impressive. Has there been any recent increase — dramatic or otherwise — in African immigration to the US?
This part of the sentence describes Europe. At the same time, the second part is US-specific, there’s no Democratic party (or equivalent) in Europe. Identity politics works differently in a proportional system.
Seems to me that the entire paragraph and indeed the entire conversation refer to the American situation, and only by extension to Europe and its rapeugees. Which would make sense, because the animating forces behind global leftism are for the most part American-centered, i.e. they operate from USG proper + the American Foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Carnegie…) + Harvard/Yale/Princeton. Leftism is more deranged in the periphery — e.g. in Sweden — but Cthulhu’s habitat is in the Mid-Atlantic Ocean.
What Jim predicts is White Genocide becoming de facto the norm *in the US*, to be cemented and implemented by the large-scale importation of African Moslems who wanna kill whitey. It is not yet clear that such a large-scale importation program is actually in the works. Maybe under Hillary it would be, but the bitch lost. Heck, the notorious Somali-American community supposedly numbers merely 135,266 persons.
If Anglo-Judeo-American anti-White leftism “increasingly relies” on the importation of Mohammedan Mooncrickets, where are they?
All going to continental Europe?[1]
[1] https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/65628/Secret-plot-to-let-50million-African-workers-into-EU
The American Empire is the anti American empire. The State Department is “the International Community”
Within the US, the Somalis are the group notorious for bad behavior, the group most accurately described as black male military age Mohammedans screaming for infidel blood and white pussy, come to America to live on crime, welfare and voting Democrat, and there are not that many Somalis. The rest of the Muslim population is not as badly behaved, and is only about one percent of US voters.
But the left have a world perspective. Reflect on the their sabotage of the Flight 93 memorial. They are wooing Islam hard. Their program to flood Europe with “refugees” is reshaping their ideology.
They bring in Muslims for obviously tactical reasons, and then come up with rationales for that being a good idea, but then, in order to lefter than the next guy, have to believe twice as strongly that it is a good idea, irrespective of the actual number of Muslims.
On one hand, Europe is America’s puppet.
On the other, it’s more logical for the program of importing tens of millions “refugees” into Europe to be a project of the European or transnational elites (f.ex. Rothschild), rather than a USG one.
Rule of Europe by the “International Community” is masked by a thin pretense of democracy. Since the pretense was getting thin, needed to import large numbers of hostile foreigners.
It is getting thin in the US also, though the US being the seat of empire, the population of the US is indulged with in ways the population of Europe is not, thus the pretense less thin, hence the crisis of legitimacy came to the US later than in Europe.
As a result, the mass importation of Muslims to live on crime, welfare, and voting left, though begun, began later, and has not yet reached the scale that it has reached in Europe
We’ve had this conversation before. There’s zero empirical evidence for the idea that importing foreigners in Europe is about votes as the effect is actually negative, with votes going to anti-immigrant parties that previously had insignificant support; and importing Somalis in areas that already vote heavily Democrat is not about their votes either.
Oh come on. Democrats openly tell each other immigration for the win. Look at California. Look at London. Look at Sweden. Obviously immigration works for the left.
If mass migration of very bad people, and allowing very bad people to run wild, had bad results for the left, why is London voting lunatic left?
And the worse the people imported, the more reliably they vote left: Look at London and Sweden. The left imports voters, gets really good results. The left imports whores, criminals, and Jihadis, gets even better results, London, Sweden, and France being demonstrations of how successful this tactic is. Murdering the white minority will be even more successful. Are crime levels in London hurting the left? They did not hurt the left in Detroit, and they are not hurting the left in London. The victims of crime are already voting against the left, and the left in London wins without their votes.
Democrats want to disarm Republican voters so that Democratic party voters can kill them. Demonstrably, this tactic works. Expect, therefore, this highly successful and effective tactic to be used more often and more vigorously.
Minneapolis has always been blue. What’s the point of importing Somalis there, make it bluer?
Sweden has always voted left. What’s the supposed change in voting patterns that you think occurs there?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_Democrats#Electoral_results
https://www.rt.com/news/367187-sweden-democrats-second-popular-poll/
California and London have not always voted left, and have clearly moved leftwards – in the case of London, way leftwards.
Sweden was not always as left as it is now. Used to ruthlessly practice eugenics with special targeting of low functioning minorities to 1975. Swedish tax levels as a proportion of GDP have recently been soaring to levels never seen before. Looks like major movement leftwards to me, with the Swedish Democrats not being a movement rightwards, but like Trump, the frog is upset by being boiled too fast, and demands a slower rate of boiling.
Swedish tax levels have been rising in lock step with mass Islamic immigration. Looks like mass immigration has been working for the left in Sweden.
Mass Islamic immigration to Sweden started in 2008, and taxes as a proportion of GDP started rising in 2008. Looks like a win for the left to me, and an even bigger win if they can get legacy Swedes killed off.
Minneapolis is in Minnesota. Minnesota is a swing state. The federal government is dumping Somalis in Minnesota for the federal elections.
@pdimov Sweden hasn’t always voted left. From 1991 Carl Bildt’s Moderate Party won after 61 years of Social Democrat domination and introduced deregulation and privatization reforms, to much praise from Thatcher.
Interesting as otherwise Bildt is a textbook cuckservative globalist. But Social Democrats didn’t like that period.
The big WTF for me is Merkel. Importing people who would never ever ever vote for a party whose name is Christian Democrat.
To put it succinctly, Minneapolis and Sweden aren’t being Africanized because they don’t vote left (they do), but because they’re white. It’s that simple. Voting left doesn’t matter and doesn’t protect you.
If it was whiteness that was the issue, they would be bombing the whitest parts of the US with black male military age Mohammedans. Instead, they are bombing swing states.
>Swedish tax levels have been rising in lock step with mass Islamic immigration.
Immigrants are a drain on the budget, taxes need to rise. Rising taxes led to
>Carl Bildt’s Moderate Party won after 61 years of Social Democrat domination
last time and they will have the same effect now. Not a win for the left.
The win for the “left” is that Sweden is becoming less white.
http://speisa.com/modules/articles/index.php/item.1097/the-numbers-are-out-swedes-will-be-a-minority-in-few-years.html
>The big WTF for me is Merkel. Importing people who would never ever ever vote for a party whose name is Christian Democrat.
That’s because it has nothing to do with votes. 🙂
Pretty sure that Muslims vote overwhelmingly for the left coalition, from which Merkel’s power derives.
>Pretty sure that Muslims vote overwhelmingly for the left coalition, from which Merkel’s power derives.
This statement can’t be wrong because everyone in Germany is left by your standards. Even AfD.
I have to admit that I’ve no idea who the Muslims in Germany (Turks and non-Turks) vote for, though.
I know who the Muslims in London vote for.
>Instead, they are bombing swing states.
Yes, you have a point here.
>I know who the Muslims in London vote for.
For other Muslims. Same in Minneapolis.
Muslims vote for far left progressive Muslims, who are signaling to progressives that they are being swallowed by the progressive assimilator, not conservative Muslims. This is partly because they signal out of both sides of their mouths, signaling to conservative Muslims that they are not being assimilated by progressivism, and signaling to progressives that they are being assimilated by progressivism.
Maybe at some time in the future, we are going to see Conservative Muslims push back, but we are not seeing it now, and no indication that we ever will.
* because they can import them
* make the rest of the left focus on race to the exclusion of things that might be good for the people
* so that jews can hide
>Maybe at some time in the future
It’s already happening:
https://www.buzzfeed.com/talalansari/first-somali-american-to-hold-statewide-elected-office
I’m going to accept the idea that the Democratic party, using its control of the permanent government, is resettling migrants into swing states (second largest Somali population is Columbus, OH, also a swing state.) It makes sense and fits what I’ve heard of similar resettlements of Hispanics. Hispanics aren’t very good voters, so they’re trying Africans instead, in their mind similar to American blacks, which they have in the bag.
But Somali Muslims aren’t very good voters either. Anyway.
I still can’t see how this mechanism applies to Germany. There’s no “Democratic” party there to which you can point and say, see, this is the left which imports voters. Apart from losing voters to AfD, Merkel’s CDU is now going to lose its partner CSU as well:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-44481447
The importation is simply not in CDU’s interest, however you slice it. There’s obviously some “left” that benefits, but there’s no Democratic party you can identify it with.
Ask where the imported German voters are being resettled, and whom are they voting for. You are just waving your hands vaguely. You don’t have votes and swing locations.
When I ask that of Australia, America and England I get the answers. They are being brought in to vote for the party of the permanent government and this operation is working successfully for the permanent government. I find it hard to believe that Germany is different.
In Australia, the permanent government was importing illegals, picking them up at sea far from Australia, giving them asylum (and thus the vote) and settling them in swing areas. This so pissed off the public that the party of permanent government lost the election, and the outer party gained power and ordered a stop to this.
As with Trump, the permanent government ignored the merely temporary government and went right on importing illegals. This resulted in Abbot performing an autocoup, and successfully halting the importation of illegals.
But the attitude of the permanent government was that this was just a passing temper tantrum, and it would pass, but the new left majority would remain.
So you could point to Australia and say “Hey, the party of the permanent government lost the election and suffered a coup because of asylum and bringing in illegals, so it was not in their interest”, but it was, and is, absolutely obvious that the permanent government and the party of the permanent government believe it was and is in their interest, and the electorate will soon get over their silly temper tantrum. And with the removal of Tony Abbot, and the expansion of legal immigration of violently undesirable immigrants to live on crime, welfare, and voting for the party of permanent government, looks like they are correct.
>Ask where the imported German voters are being resettled, and whom are they voting for. You are just waving your hands vaguely. You don’t have votes and swing locations.
So are you. There are no swing locations in a proportional system.
>When I ask that of Australia, America and England
First past the post. Hence two parties.
The only reason the UKIP exists is that Euro parliament elections (proportional) made third parties politically viable.
In those countries where I know best what is happening, there left is importing voters, is well aware that it is importing voters, and even though importing voters has provoked resistance, still seems to be working for them, even when, as in Australia, it resulted in the merely elected government making a coup against the permanent government.
“The German Jews did not PERCEIVE themselves as being genocided until after the war was settled. On the other hand, the Tutsis certainly did perceive themselves as being genocided.”
Thank you for that. I’ve learned something yet again.
The jews in Europe certainly by 1943 at least had an inkling they were in for a terrible fate if deported to a camp even if they weren’t 100% sure they would be killed.
One holocaust story that I actually really like (and that every far right person should) is the Rosenstrasse protest. It proved that women could actually be selflessly loyal even when made to endure years of low social status for being so… IF the culture valued selfless loyalty from women (and the Reich DID do that).
It involved gentile wives of jewish husbands standing outside in bitter cold in front of Gestapo headquarters in Berlin for days on end and refusing to disperse even when threatened with machine guns.
I’m sure these women got called “jewish whores” suffered social ostracism etc and such for years and had every incentive to divorce (which would subject their husbands to deportation). But even when Goebbels tried to force the issue they went to bat.
I cannot imagine a single American woman (and American culture trains women to act as selfish cunts) acting in such a way.
It proves that yes women CAN be fixed.
…because the vaunted violent neo-nazi White supremacists couldn’t bring themselves to smack a whore
> …because the vaunted violent neo-nazi White supremacists couldn’t bring themselves to smack a whore
Hitler decided back when the Nuremberg laws were made (and early on Hitler wasn’t so interested in Jews, he recused himself from defining who Jews actually were as beneath his attention) that preexisting mixed marriages would not be forcibly dissolved and when he decided to kill them all deferred Jews in mixed marriages for after the war so it was Hitler against smacking a ho (also I read the Table Talks he made some kinda sympathetic statement that not all women who married jews were bad). I’m sure there were plenty of Nazis all for smacking them, but the one Nazi who counted was against it.
But my point was that the women in these marriages despite probably enduring extreme ostracism and low social status I think the divorce rate was something like 10% and when the husbands in Berlin were arrested they were fanatically loyal in a way that I can’t imagine from American women (no modern American woman would endure being ostracized and called a whore for years and then risk machine gun fire for her low status drag on her life husband).
So female conformism can indeed be programmed for loyalty rather then selfish c**t status…
Alternative explanation- World War 1 and the ongoing war shifted the male/female ratio so it would be impossible for those women to remarry.
> Alternative explanation- World War 1 and the ongoing war shifted the male/female ratio so it would be impossible for those women to remarry.
Considered this and that is probably part of it but American women with a less favorable ratio to them would still not act this way (as so many don’t accept anyone if they can’t get their unrealistic chad man and end up spinsters).
They would divorce their jewish husbands to be deported to a camp and try to get a better spot on the local Nazi boss’ booty call list.
I do not believe there is a single American woman who would stand outside in cold winter for days and refuse to disperse when threatened with arrest themselves and then with machine guns in similar circumstances. The only American man who got that kind of loyalty from women in recent history was probably Charles Manson.
ask coalburners here how loyal they are to their monkeys here. There are ways to convince women to break up with their husbands. Calling him an evil usurious rapist or an evil stupid rapist does the opposite if you don’t rape her yourself.
Induhvidualism is when an individual is evaluated purely as an individual with no regard for whether he will be capable of reproducing his behavioral traits in the next generation.
Why did all the christcucks go dualist?
Without christcuckoldry, induhvidualism goes away. Ten years ago anti-colorblindness was a new leftist talking point featured on The Colbert Report. Now with both the left and the hard right claiming that race is real, and no one really believing Christianity but only wanting to maintain it as a symbol of the people, we’re ready to do what South Africans couldn’t.
I have a simpler model. Individualism is something you push when you are not in power, because it throws sand in the machinery of government. So Whigs pushed individualism in the 18-9th century (classical liberalism) when it was mostly the nobility who was in power in Britain, to weaken them. In the 20th century Whigs/Progs are in power, so individualism (libertarianism) is a way to weaken THEIR state/rule.
In reality nobody is very libertarian against a government he is ingroup with. But when you cannot say “government is in the hands of the wrong people”, one way out is to say “government is a bad thing, we need as little as possible”. If your tribe, your real tribe has any chance of forming an independent state, you probably find a lot of work for government to do.
What see in the 21th century is that libertarian resistance 1) didn’t quite work, because when entropy takes over the government, you cannot fight it with another entropic force 2) the spirit of individualism actually weakened the antiprog opposition, making it harder to cooperate.
Ceterum censeo any objectively good government looks in practice far more libertarian than todays governments. The reason it is so large is that it is ran by its employees. I still like libertarians. But small government is the result of a good governance structure, and they don’t really get it.
What is the connection between strong property rights and the recognition that that government is best that governs least, and the idea that people should be judged only on their narrow temporary individual virtue?
The evolution of the college of priests into the college of professors destoyed the monarchy in order to govern more and weaken property rights because they know best and those who know best should not only decide but have the prestige.
Property rights make the coordination problem manageable, by dividing the big problem into small problems.
Every time the state does something adverse to property rights, it introduces coupling between problems, and for every externality it addresses at the expense of private property rights, the coupling that ensues introduces two more externalities, all of which have to be managed by the central authority. If it is all one big problem, then the central authority has to do it all. Chaos ensues, as for example Venezuela and Obamacare, which tends to escalate into terror, as for example the French Maximum. In the ensuing violence and disorder, as for example Khmer Rouge Cambodia, the state is apt to find feeding and arming its soldiers insuperably difficult and astonishingly complex.
On the other hand, the rule that people be judged strictly as individuals makes coordination extremely difficult, by abolishing all groupings intermediate between the individual and the state. The state has to butt its head into every family and every business.
So, from the point of view of solving the problem of coordination and enforcing cooperate/cooperate interactions, the two principles are entirely opposite.
Thus, for example: to enable men and women to cooperate at reproduction and raising children, the state has to treat the unit of society as not being the individual, but the household, represented by the man of the house. Treating men, women, and children as individuals results in the substitution of child support for the family, which fails disastrously. The state can enforce patriarchal authority, or abolish fathers, but attempting to pursue a middle course between these extremes on the basis of individual rights is unworkably complicated.
The reason that government is best that governs least is that governing is complicated, and can easily get a hell of a lot more complicated, and if the government tries to govern too much, it will fail.
I agree with Jim but the issue is really that the two are connected. Property rights are individual rights and usually protected and fought for as part of a wider set of individual rights. Which also demand that people are treated as individuals. Individual Ali or Ahmed can be convincted if evidence proves he committed a crime, but in the language of individualism and a legal system based on that you cannot really say that Somalis as a group are dangerous immigrants, nor do anything about them. That is the problem.
You probably should somehow divorce property rights from a general rhethoric and legal system of individual rights.
Individualist society is spectacularly bad at dealing with cohesive collectives. Read the novel version of the Godfather. Why can a bunch of primitive Sicilian peasants give such a trouble to the US police? Because they are primitive enough to still be clannish. They won’t snitch on each other. And the US police is used to individualistic crime, loose gangs whose members betray each other in a prisoner’s dilemma. Individualistic legal systems work well for such individualistic systems. But they fail at as tightly knit groups as the mafia. Such collectives need to be treated collectively, such as collective guilt and punishment.
But “individual rights†tend to translate in practice as more government, while property rights tend to translate in practice as less government.
The reason for linking “individual rights†to property rights was to get “the masses†on board, instead of at the throats of property owners. Does not seem to have worked out in practice.
Mohammedans are required by their religion to stick together when Mohammedans do bad things to non Mohammedans.
Reflect upon the Rohingya in Burma. They are illegal immigrants from Bangladesh, or the recent descendants of those illegal immigrants. Some of them perhaps a minority, have been making war on the Burmese majority – with the support of their community, with which they are embedded. Burmese had to act collectively to expel the Rohingya collectively.
Holding a group collectively responsible for the acts of its members is the flip side of allowing the group to govern themselves. If the central government doesn’t hold the group collectively responsible for the acts of its members, then it has to govern the group. Hence the abolition of fatherhood. Thus the principle of individual rights results in conflict between the cohesive group, the central government, and the community governed by that central government.
Property results in less government, because it is in itself something like government. Outsourced government. Self-government is also outsourced government.
The tendency of central government to grow, the insourcing of government results in worse governance, but more power and money for people working for the central government.
So we are back to the root problem of a government captured by its employees…
“Holding a group collectively responsible for the acts of its members is the flip side of allowing the group to govern themselves. If the central government doesn’t hold the group collectively responsible for the acts of its members, then it has to govern the group. Hence the abolition of fatherhood. Thus the principle of individual rights results in conflict between the cohesive group, the central government, and the community governed by that central government.â€
My man… could you… uhh… flesh this out some? Like maybe a verbose and for-dummies-esque version?
Sure, lets use an example from Jews. Imagine there are a bunch of Jew committing insurance fraud. If you don’t hold the group collectively responsible, you have to investigate all the insurance claims, a competition that pits the intelligence of the police against the cunning of the Jews.
Or you just hold the entire community collectively responsible for ‘excess’ insurance claims. Suddenly, their friends, neighbors and important people in the community have a strong interest in putting an end to antisocial behavior.
Collective punishment solves the issue of individuals screwing over outsiders to the benefit of their group; in normal cases a group won’t solve it because it requires trusting outsiders (because if you back down, they will ask for more) and giving up an advantage.
With collective punishment, the advantage is removed and there is a clear signal that outsiders are being consistent.
“Excess insurance claims” are an individual act with individual benefit. On the other hand, Islamic violence and intimidation tends to be a collective act with collective benefit.
Stealthy acts tend to be individual, to the extent that they are concealed from the rest of the group. If the rest of the group knows about them and keeps their mouths shut, then collectively guilty, as for example Somali welfare fraud, but for most acts of this kind, the rest of the group lacks specific knowledge.
Collective punishment works on level of family and clan, almost never more widely. It gets much harder to scale to the level of entire community, unless extenuating circumstances. E.g. random (and unknown) members of community doing criminal acts, on consistent timeframe, against other people — systemically.
When you have actually guilty / strongly suspected individuals, retaliation is to be done on those guilty individuals.
Again, unless the crime in question is against random members of another community, because of their identity as members of that community (and not as just individuals outside of one’s community to benefit from).
Collective punishment is not something you do without proper reason.
Every war is collective punishment. Works.
Every time the state fines a corporation, it is collective punishment.
It is not the size, it is the cohesion.
“Individual rights” means refusing to recognize collective entities (such as the family) which means that the state has to govern them, resulting in an intolerable burden of control and administration on the state, and an intolerable state intrusion into those entities.
Refusing to recognize families results in replacing parents with child support – protecting the individual rights of family members from each other in practice looks a lot like criminalizing the family and aggressively waging war upon it.
Families are cohesive. Islamic sects are cohesive. Failing to acknowledge that we are war with Islam results in us losing that war. Failing to acknowledge the reality of families results in the state making war upon the family.
Sure. Then call it “war.” “Collective punishment” assumes intra-societal rules, a certain framework by which people can still be integrated and be called a “nation.”
What is being proposed is no longer descriptive of that within-national framework, not even that of a confederation. Tribal war or race war, are most apt descriptions. Chaos.
You *might* be able to form a nation from that, at the end. It might look different, maybe very different from what’s now. Or even what the “end goal” is.
Every empire had collective responsibility and different rules for different groups, as for example the Turkish millet system and the British Rajas, and the imposition of uniform rules was the beginning of its descent into chaos, as the center was overwhelmed and the periphery was resentful of alien rules imposed by strangers far away.
The destruction of the family is chaos, and failure to recognize the cohesion of Islamic minorities is also chaos.
You write as if the system of individual rights was fully implemented and working fine. It was never fully implemented, and only worked because of unprincipled exceptions that were hypocritically ignored, and now that unprincipled exceptions are being removed one by one, chaos and violence ensues.
Insurance and disability fraud are not run as individual scams. An example:
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/FBI-Arrest-Corruption-Long-Island-Rail-Road-Pension-Scandal-Taxpayer-132683463.html
The crux of the problem is that the incentives are lined up for everyone to grant phony disability claims because no one owns the railroad so it’s captured by its employees who extract money through a disability scam. Practically speaking, it’s not an individual crime but it’s not run along strictly ethnic lines either. A millet system doesn’t solve that problem – ownership of the concession does.
Yes, but there is a striking tendency for government and quasi government businesses to hire people who profile as ethnically likely to vote Democratic Party, so the problem of employee capture of government is not always altogether distinct from the problem of ethnic cohesion.
Observe the collapse and disorder of the Washington public transport system, which no amount of money ever manages to repair or clean up, because it is run as a vote bank by the Democratic Party and by and for the interests of certain readily identifiable but unmentionable groups.
Similarly, the core of US military power, the American Navy, is being transformed before our eyes into a Democratic Party vote bank and floating brothel that is incapable of leaving in port without running into things.
We are being conquered by groups whose internal cohesion we fail to recognize.
Have we ever seen holiness spirals based on race though? Have we ever seen racial/ethnic genocide initiated by the Left instead of the Right (besides South Africa)?
Holiness spirals work by accusing more and more people of being unholy (f.ex. racist) and therefore don’t quite work based on race. The left is crazy though, so I wouldn’t put that past them.
https://verysmartbrothas.theroot.com/straight-black-men-are-the-white-people-of-black-people-1814157214
Yes, they will not be murdering whites as whites, but as racists. And the Holodomor did not murder Christians as Christians, but as kulaks.
The distinction, however was lost on Kathryn Steinle and Francisco Sanchez, and did not seem to matter much to the jury that acquitted him, and the prosecution that did not really want to convict him.
The Vendee?
It is true that race based genocide is not typically left wing, being more interested in murdering near than far, but there have been a few:
Tutsi genocide in Rwanda was caused by the local left backed, armed, funded, and placed in power by the stridently left wing and disproportionately Jewish American “International Community”.
The Holodomor was theoretically based on class, but was in practice indiscriminate, due in substantial part to ethnic hostility by Jews against Christians.
Tutsi genocide in the Congo was caused by the local left armed and funded by the stridently left wing and disproportionately Jewish American “International Community”, and militarily backed by UN forces.
Ethnic cleansing of Christians in the Middle East was caused by local groups that do not fit neatly into the western left/right divide, but were armed and funded by the stridently left wing and disproportionately Jewish American “International Community”, and in some cases placed in power in color revolutions, Arab spring, which was a left wing/State Department operation.
British crushed the Boers by the mass murder of women and children, because racism and slavery.
The nearest analog to the present situation was the alliance between Populares and Samnites. Populares were Roman leftists, Samnites wanted to destroy Rome, kill the Romen men, and enslave the women. Civil war ensued, Roman Vets defeated the left wing Roman military of freed slaves and their Samnite allies.
Let us hope that things follow the Roman pattern. The alliance between Populares and Samnites prevented the Populares from successfully appealing to the largely plebeian veterans. Similarly, police resent Black Lives Matter.
GTKRWN?
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NKiePbTcAfY
Clearly a saint, and every leftist wants to be a saint just like Mandela.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce39RebLduM
Bullshit. I read old books. I see the same old stuff. People have not changed.
For example the retreat of the Soviet Union from the Balkans predictably led to the same events as the retreat of the Turkish empire from the Balkans.
Leftism always self destructs, usually with mass murder, and significant Muslim minorities always lead to civil war. Do you think it can go on getting lefter forever, and yet at the same time there will be no consequences?
>people’s consciousness is significantly influenced by the economic and technological conditions of society
This is a zero-content statement.
I can see genocide being tried. My not-white grad school classmates in Oakland are open about their thoughts on how evil whites are.
But in my opinion, attempted genocide just turn into an organized, violent conflict with two sides.
A couple years ago, I would have thought all whites would lie down and let themselves be slowly killed, but it looks like the killing won’t be slow and popular leadership could appear out of nowhere, like Trump did.
The Tutsis, who perceived themselves as being genocided, mounted successful and effective resistance to genocide. The Jews, who did not perceive themselves as being genocided, did not.
If replacement of European-Americans in the US had continued like it did in the 2000s, I could see the frog never jumping out of the pot and the last victims claiming they deserved it, like we hear those dumb old South African women saying. After a million Kathryn Steinle’s, many people would still trust the system enough to avoid noticing their genocide.
But, as you say, the spiral continues leftward, so in places like Oakland, it very well could turn into violent ethnic cleansing, which I think the whites would never notice. The same way the blacks don’t notice their ethnic cleansing from some inner city spots by hispanics.
I suppose not enough would ever notice enough to defend themselves, except that the spiral continues leftward. Segregated safe-space colleges, glass ceilings for white males, netflix specials about white women bravely killing their white children as atonement. Then I think Americans would notice how the system treats Kathryn Steinle’s. I can’t see whites being marched into camps, but I’m not very imaginative.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=PFw–KOUtCE
“What is the hardest problem?â€
“Succession.â€
Expect the unexpected, but the least unlikely way out of this mess is that Trump does an autocoup, then after two terms as president, becomes King, and arranges a good succession.
I fear, however, that chances are something more bloody and more dramatic.
Expect the best; prepare for the worst.
Oops wrong vid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtSFTvl9edo
Turdo La Doo is the face of what happens when you raise good kids badly. His father was a closet faggot, and his mother was a bipolar whore. It is a forgone conclusion that this man child will be kicked to the curb in the next election.
Castro was a closet fag?
LOL. Good point.
Anything is possible in >the current year.
http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/175116718/i-took-my-wifes-exhusband-name-and-then-the
>’I took my wife’s ex-husband name – and then the hassle began’
>My wife has a daughter from a previous relationship and we wanted her to have the same name as the rest of the family.
>The decision was a no-brainer for me.
>I didn’t mention my plans to change my name – I didn’t think it was a big deal.
>It was only when I changed my name on Facebook that my dad and my brother found out. They weren’t happy.
>”OMG It’s just a name! Dad, it’s not the end of the world,” I said to him on the phone.
>He told me it was the biggest slap in the face for him and the family.
>”It really cuts deep, son,” he messaged me later.
>http://archive.is/QGg1k
Oh c’mon Mr. Computer Super-Genius.
Give us your angle on Q-Anon. I gotta have it!
I don’t have any inside information indicating that Q-Anon is the real thing or not.
I don’t have any inside information about a self coup by Trump – and Trump would undoubtedly keep any such information very close to his chest – considerably closer than Q-Anon indicates.
Any coup by Trump needs to be armored in legitimacy. He needs to raid the DoJ and the FBI, arresting individuals to help him in his inquiries, and seizing incriminating records.
In any coup, any pre coup exercises and coordination are always deniable up to a few hours before the final moment. The coupist runs his co-conspirators through drills that ostensibly have an entirely non coup purpose, while all the co-conspirators suspect the real purpose, but no one speaks the real purpose out loud.
Regardless of whether the claims of Q-anon are legitimate, is it plausible that a worldwide cabal is manipulating the west to the point that entire generations are irreparably brainwashed? (Not being sarcastic, just an honest question).
Can they possibly have so much power as to coordinate something like this (say indirectly controlling media in all western countries)?
And if so, doesn’t this possibility radically change any predictions as to what may happen in the future? (As in: the existence of a worldwide cabal might make the problem of coming to our senses easier if they/their-influence can be neutralized?).
Irreparably brainwashed isn’t a thing. Everyone who matters will go along with a reasonable vision easier than they did an unreasonable one.
Allowing men and women to marry when they had no way or reason to reproduce was the first step towards gaymarriage since it created the fiction that adult life is one time period from 18 to 50 thereby normalizing POSSLQ relationships instead of marriage. The university incentivized this life plan with social status.
> Irreparably brainwashed isn’t a thing
Fair enough.
Most people pick up liberalism from the air they breath, it’s pervasive in media.
I wonder if that level of (top down) coordination that produces pervasive brainwashing is possible or what we observe is simply organically occurring group-think. The latter would seem much harder to counter.
Well, obviously. Every child is taught hateful lies to make them hate themselves, which lies tend to drive them mad.
QAnon probably is not real, IMHO.
But this doesn’t really matter. He is feeding strange loops to all who will eat, and this can’t help to set the swamp upside down.
He may be real, loon or even distraction/lollipop spun by the swamp creatures. But to have effect he doesn’t need to be real, nor even believed by every enemy to be real. They can’t tell either, because they are dragged to their lowest common denominator of treating information on “is this pleasant or unpleasant right now?”, and mostly lost ability to find out truth.
So what matters is the threat that someone else could have already chickened and is about to either defect or eliminate a witness — and it’s obviously very real whether Q is real or not. Defect/Defect is what keeps the card house from breaking up into too many factions when things go well for it, but also makes any part of it very fragile when the wind changes a little bit.
Q is 90% likely bullshit.
Q said “trust Sessions” and Sessions give every appearance of being compromised yet protected by his Senate friends. He might not be but to all appearances he is, if Sessions were on his side Trump could weaponize the justice department without jumping through so many hoops. What I DO NOT understand at all is why Trump didn’t fire Rosenstein at least a year ago.
I think a Trump coup is possible but the key thing is Comey saying something incredibly stupid incredibly publicly AGAIN (my theory is he is a double agent) so that he gets indicted then turning God-Emperor’s evidence preferably in some way that avoids a DC jury pool…
We’ve been over this, go look up Comey’s behavior in the Anthrax case. He’s just really fucking stupid.
Q told you that pizzagate is real (it isn’t) and furthermore that the “sealed indictments” are all about that (they aren’t). As a result of his nonsense, people now claim that an abandoned illegal immigrant camp near the Mexican border is actually a “secret child sex trafficking tunnel,” and insist that the Clinton clique is behind it.
One lie, all lies. Q is feeding you the propaganda that you want to hear.
What is the legitimacy of the Comet Ping Pong Twitter account, and why?
What is the immediate physical cause of the Twin Towers’ collapse?
Is Hillary Clinton a nasty woman?
You’re doing a Motte and Bailey.
Pizzagate made specific claims, all of which are false. That the people accused by pizzagate of doing bad stuff aren’t exactly an angelic bunch, doesn’t mean that the accusations made by pizzagate are true.
You can believe that Hitler exterminated Jews without also believing that he turned Jews into soap and lampshades. You can recognize that Podesta is not a paragon of morality and virtue without accusing him of things which he hasn’t done.
The great thing about photos is that they don’t lie. The photographic and videographic evidence show a group of people, including Alefantis, Abramovic, and at least one Podesta, comfortable with “joking” about, and displaying “art” of, sodomy, human sacrifice, pederasty, and explicitly satanic imagery and ritual.
If they’re comfortable joking about it, they’re comfortable doing it.
If they’re comfortable hanging out with people comfortable joking about it, they’re comfortable doing it.
One drop of sewage in a barrel of wine.
Some of which are false. The status of most of the claims remains unknown. The claim that “pizza” is a code for something unmentionable is well supported.
I am pretty sure that the Clinton circle derives cohesion from shared participation in blackmail material. Whether that blackmail material was the obscene sexual sacrifice of third world children in satanic rituals remains unknown.
Q is almost certainly a lie but there is probably some truth to Pizzagate, given the Podesta’s choice of “artwork” and the fact that they BOTH resemble the suspects in the McCann disappearance and emails suggested they were in Portugal at the time… likely at the very least the Podestas are elite serial killers in the manner of Gilles de Rai sand Elizabeth Bathory.
Whether this is part of a larger ring of human sacrifice occultism and blackmail is less certain.
There probably won’t be an investigation but there should be one.
Bullshit.
https://isgp-studies.com/pizzagate
Read this, then tell me that you still believe that “there must be something in there.”
The case this makes “debunking” the code words is terribly weak.
A more benign explanation of the use of out of context references to food is that it relates to drugs but it is definitely code.
It’s interesting to search on this and see how the whole thing is covered by frantic spinning by dozens of articles. The odd, stilted emails seemed like code for something as far as I could tell. Probably drugs, as mentioned.
On the other hand, the Podesta brothers and Marina Abramovic, among others, are pretty disturbed people, so I wouldn’t put it beyond them. Would you leave Tony Podesta alone with your young children?
https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/10/31/tony-podestas-art-collection/
Hey there, you’ve hung a cannibalism painting in the office. Great sense of humor, John. You’re a real card.
https://www.sott.net/article/334002-Progressive-liberal-values-Tony-Podestas-creepy-taste-in-art-the-creepy-people-he-hangs-out-with-and-Pizzagate
Marina Abramovic just seems demonically possessed. Though it might be worse to see simpering celebs going along with it.
https://art-for-a-change.com/blog/2017/05/spirit-cooking-with-marina-abramovic-the-first-cut-is-the-deepest.html
http://kundaliniandcelltowers.com/marina-abramovic-lady-gaga-spirit-cooking-feasting-on-mock-human-sacrifice-2t.jpg
Those were the Top. Men. of the Clinton admin and their pals, the elites, the flower of glittering New York City.
Thanks for the rescue, Jim.
I just posted a comment with some links to JP, TP and MA, and it disappeared without a trace (thanks wordpress … its number appears to have been 1844755).
Main point, I too think it was code for something, likely drugs, but furthermore those people appear to be severely disturbed and acts like that might not be beyond them. Where would MA say, okay, this is too much, I’m out.
Equally concerning is that the elites and celebs apparently saw nothing wrong with this either. Look at the party pictures.
In short, utter degenerates who lost the mandate of heaven.
“Where would MA say, okay, this is too much, I’m out.”
If it truly is a web of blackmail thats the point, once you’re in its like the Hotel California.
You can check out by commiting suicide anytime you like, but you can never leave.
Not sure if blackmail is needed at that, at least for this bunch. MA appears as if possessed by something rather unclean. And would you leave your young children alone with TP? (Have another look at his art collection.)
The first “debunking” (debunking the codewords) tortures the texts, so I did not bother with subsequent debunkings.
Example: To explain away some odd texts, the author invents a tradition of gifts of dried pasta. But the context requires a gift of something unusual and delightful. The stories he writes as “context” for the texts are improbable, strained, and a poor fit to the texts. The pasta gift is something nicer than dried pasta.
He keeps telling us “in context it is clear that …”.
No. In context it is mighty unlikely.
An interesting problem, particularly since the original design for achieving this seems quite attractive, yet was ultimately defeated. Though one should recall that no political design can withstand any amount of bad faith.
Presumably centralized institutions, like the Presidency, the Federal Reserve, the Supreme Court and the DC apparatus, need to be cut down to size, dispersed, disbanded or spread to the individual states. Current jurisprudence needs to be rolled back or revised. For instance, citizenship and voting rights (including internally, e.g., when moving to a new state). Should the armed forces be federal?
Defederalization will be a difficult process, and there will be many forces who desire refederalization. The new constitution needs to manage these to an even further degree than the constitution, perhaps by permitting more failure modes, like states legally opting out of various federal decrees.
“Should the armed forces be federal?”
Whoever controls the army controls the country, so yes.
“The new constitution”
You do realize we are reactionaries, right?
No constitution, and the only functions of the federal government are tax collecting, the military, and dealing with federal crimes, federal crimes being crimes against the federal government or conflicts between lesser levels of government.
The problem is that the federal government keeps getting captured by its employees. We plan to get rid of most of these employees, but we cannot get rid of logistics. So have to strip their status.
Logistics will be outsourced to campfollowers and managed by colonels, these colonels being actual soldiers who have held a gun, led men in battle, and been shot at in battle. All soldiers are actual soldiers. If you have a hundred thousand men paid as soldiers and dressed as soldiers, you should be able put one hundred thousand men into battle, and should frequently do so. The rest, who outnumber the actual soldiers ten to one, are camp followers, who have either different uniforms, or no uniforms at all.
The camp follower answers to the soldier, to the captain, and to the colonel, and seldom to the federal government – the military industrial complex needs to be decentralized to reduce its power, and given less prestigious uniforms to reduce its status.
Logistics (the military industrial complex) is left, and actual fighting men are right. So we need to decentralize out logistics, and put logistics under actual soldiers. And most of all, we need to take away their fake military uniforms and their fake ranks, make actual military higher status and logistics lower status. And for each logistic task we need to make the contact point between logistics and actual soldiers the lowest possible rank of soldier for that task. The tank repairman should answer to the tank captain, rather than complaints about tank maintenance needing to go through Washington. The tank captain needs to be able to fire the tank repairman, and the captain’s commanding officer needs to be able to imprison the tank repairman.
The problem is not that it is frustrating for the tank captain for his tank mechanical problems to go through Washington. The problem is that if his complaints have to go through Washington, this means the tank corporation has captured Washington.
One problem with this is if you have to fight an actual war. Senior level soldiers (ranks of major and above) need above all a good grasp of logistics.
There is a military saying that amateurs talk strategy and professionals talk logistics.
Soldiers have to be on top.
Alexander had ten camp followers, logistics workers, for every soldier and was a master of logistics. Xenophon was a master of logistics. But Xenophon and Alexander went into battle with swords in their hands.
The end effect of giving too much power and status to logistics is the British army, which has over two hundred generals not one of who has ever seen a shot fired in anger and which can only put two hundred actual soldiers on patrol or in battle.
You cannot fight a war without logistics, but even less can you fight a war with only two hundred men.
The men who fight and die have to be given the highest status, or you will find yourself not having any. It does not matter how important logistics is. You still have to give the men who get shot at the highest status. If no fighting generals, pretty soon no fighting men.
Is there any effective way to give higher command power to the logisticians (who need it sometimes at least if the good fighting tactical commander is a poor logistical planner and is inclined not to listen to his staff) and higher status to the soldiers?
Ugly ridiculous uniforms to staff chiefs?
No sword, no status. Do what Alexander did. Was it an efficient use of Alexander’s time to be on the front line? Certainly not, but efficiency was the least of his concerns. Similarly Xenophon was always thinking about logistics, but he had to think about logistics while wearing armor and carrying a sword.
The British army has a pretty great track record except for the 1st world war (when Haig continously ordered them to walk in ranks towards the enemy trenches in broad daylight).
Probably that had its seed when they abolished the purchase of commisions, “purchase” did allow a certain number of incompetent fops to get promoted BUT it was a lot better then promoting strictly by seniority as in general under the “purchase” system high ranking officers were much younger (and for ensigns captains and lieutenants being an officer in war was a VERY dangerous job as the officers were supposed to literally march in the front).
The British army has not won a war since the Malaysian emergency, which it won by methods that would be entirely unthinkable today, placing every member of a major ethnic group in prison camps.
Its performance in Basra was shocking and shameful. They should have shot one in ten of the officers for cowardice, Roman style. No one was willing to fight. Similarly, Persian Gulf.
Bring back the purchase system?
I don’t think you guys understand white privilege
Here’s a GREAT review of Get Out
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G52B7IwWGOg
white privilege does not mean your life is automatically going to be great if you are white. It means that the hardships you face will not be *because* you are white.
why is this so hard you for you people to understand?
white privilege does not mean your life is automatically going to be great if you are white. It means that the hardships you face will not be *because* you are white.
Thank you Trolleon for the example above. If such nonsense is the level of discourse we can expect from the academy these days … well, I suppose by now we deserve it. Especially leftist academics, of course. Reap what you have sown and refused to weed out.
False are the ways
Of those who’ve stayed
Inside the tower
The question is, what and where is going to replace the rotten thing?
> no hardships because White
this is largely true of middle class Boomers except that they had to escape “bad neighborhoods” with an hour commute both ways and pay extraordinary amounts of taxes. It is not true starting with working class Boomers and anyone younger than a Boomer.
All academics must be whipped and branded.
Because we get treated badly for being white and male. Because incompetents rule over us by affirmative action, because we had to pay billions for the great minority mortgage meltdown, because we get physically attacked by minorities for being white, and some of us, for example Kathryn Steinle are murdered for being white, and those who attack us get off because of arrest quotas which limit the number of nonwhites who can be arrested.
Because we have to pay enormous sums to hide out in expensive neighborhoods to avoid these attacks.
Because Kathryn Steinle was murdered for being white, and her murderer got off for being nonwhite.
Because when you see a white male walking down the street, and a black woman walks down the street, the white male timidly scuttles out of her way, while the black woman strides down the middle of the sidewalk like the mistress of the universe.
Because in the workplace women interrupt and speak over males, and blacks insult, abuse, and physically assault whites, while males have to avoid telling females that they are acting incompetently or misbehaving, and have to be inordinately respectful to blacks for fear of inadvertent microaggression. Blacks and women in the workplace macroaggress, whites and males tread on eggshells for fear of microaggression. You can see this every time a woman speaks with a man, or a black passes a white in the corridor. White males live in fear and trembling.
The male boss tells the female subordinate to do something. She does not do it. What happens?
Nothing happens, because telling her would be mansplaining, and reprimanding her would be rape or sexual assault.
You can see that what I say is true every time a black and a white pass in the street. The white walks small and the black walks big.
You can see that what I say is true every time a female employee interacts with her male boss. She interrupts him! Her interruptions are supposedly helpful, friendly, and supportive, but they are not!
I’ve a question for you.
Why is the stereotypical modern engineer such a contemptible beta cuck? (mudâ€people†and women need not apply) You look at an engineer-man over 50 and he clearly has – or had – sky-high T by modern standards. You look at an engineer-dude under 40 and he looks like the downily mouthgaping basedboys in that infamous SpaceX picture.
Follow-up questions:
Am I looking at the same general gene pool? Are these of the same genetic stock?
Was engineering always a low-T profession, just the society’s T was insanely higher?
Do Anglos have the highest genotypic component of T of Europeans generally?
Was autism a thing when you were a child? Was it a thing in engineering when you were a young man?
Used to be a mighty high testosterone profession, back in the day. In my youth, a band of engineers could give a band of bikies a hard time.
Compare Wernher von Braun with Musk’s soy boys.
Last weekend I spent time with an engineer friend from my young days, who was also a bikie, featured in bikie magazines, seriously tough guy. Testosterone dripping out of his pores. Born the same month of the same year. Last saw him twenty five years ago. He is eleven days older than I am. This last weekend we climbed a mountain together, and at the top there was a cute eighteen year old girl and her boyfriend. He negged her and teased her wonderfully, but she leaned into me (I negged her first) and I put my arm around her, no hover handing. We were not trying to steal her, just being playful, and it is unlikely that I could have succeeded in stealing her, but that is how the engineers of my youth play.
It is exactly the same genetic stock. My sons are engineers. We two old engineers had way more testosterone than any of the young male mountain climbers that we passed on the way up. At the start they passed us, but as we neared the top, we started passing the younger men.
Societal testosterone was way higher back in those days, and engineer testosterone was higher than the rest back in those days.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDKNY9AEyWA
Here is a great debunking of white privilege by Jared Taylor (I normally loathe most people who unironically call themselves a white anything not because I disagree with everything but because most of them are stupid, but Jared Taylor is very smart never loses a debate and in general is the only one worth anything).
Maybe if you’re really, really good to your blue-eyed devil masters you’ll be launched up a step on the chaos ladder for your next go around the Great Cosmic Reincarnation Loop.
But I believe in taking the opportunities we are given to better this world while we’re here, so I think we can expedite the process. With modern medical technology, we can ensure to rectify 98.4% of your existential anguish in six generations, but the benefits begin to manifest themselves in just one!
https://youtube.com/watch?v=YkgkThdzX-8
(to Tony Dent)
Rat eats rat, of course.
http://kukuruyo.com/comic/gg-triggerhappy-best-e3-game/
But it gives a very strange impression. In that this process seems to be a part of the self-sufficient cycle, and now they parted ways, it looks like visible political development was synchronized to it, not the other way around.
It’s not even the shadow government (for which moves would be either “stage a coup” or “step back for damage control, regroup and subvert”).
The visible manifestation is screeching on MSM/social networks, which mostly continued on its own almost like it should have been if the Sasquatch Queen won and it was time to round up those oldthinkers who unbellyfeel. Except the round-up part just didn’t connect, so the rest simply flails in the air. Parrots did fall in Trump’s traps again and again and simply didn’t notice the pit and sharpened stakes — “Only flesh wound! Move on!”
Others fall and can’t rise, but until then don’t see anything amiss either. Instead of dividing the fresh big cake they divide diminished trough of leftovers from Soros, but seem to go through the same motions as if they’d proceed to “permanent revolution” stage. Antifa blackshirts walked out in the way that would make sense if they won. They don’t even stick to orders from some plan that has fallen apart, they are just there and the rolling wheel reached a point when they’d feel like jumping up.
Even the way “Reee-sistance” is invoked (after its initial promotion period) appears to be no more than an afterthought or a fig leaf over what goes on anyway.
You are missing the dog that did not bark.
A huge number of political protesters have lost their jobs or never got their expected jobs, many political commissars have been laid off.
Obviously, but the difference between some of them being kicked out by those unwilling to put up with their crap and some of them being purged by their own is not that great.
So even this changes little to nothing for the merry-go-round motion itself.
That’s what weirds me out.
TheDividualist says:
2018-06-15 at 08:00
“Property rights are individual rights and usually protected and fought for as part of a wider set of individual rights.”
In the West, perhaps. But I remember a summary (can’t find the link at the moment) of traditional (pre-20c) Chinese culture which pointed out that they have traditionally conceived of property, from houses on down to clothing items and even toothbrushes, as belonging not to individuals, but to the family as a whole; to be used and shared by members of the family as needed and as worked out between them — subject, of course, to the rules of Confucian hierarchy culminating in the authority of the family patriarch.
The author of the original piece went on to note that this became relevant during early “modernization” attempts, when the Chinese began grappling with Western inheritance laws. The traditionalists argued that there really wasn’t such a thing as “inheritance” — the property of the family *remains* property of the family as a whole, even as individual members are born and die. What transfers upon death of the paterfamilias is not any sort of property ownership, but authority over and within the family unit.
(The piece also noted that this debate was only “resolved” by the Communist takeover.)
That is, of course, the correct way to do it. For people to reproduce, the unit of society has to be the household, represented by the man of the house.